Post-development, Post-modernity, and

Deconstructionism: A Practical Program?

Development studies has transformed over the years to include a wide
array of opinions and perspectives. Development theory and practice has traditionally
followed a modernist paradigm in the past and many development academics and
agencies continue this tradition today. However, development studies and practice have
been influenced by academics who evaluate development through the lenses of post-
modernity and deconstructionism, two theories that challenge the mainstream views of
objectivity and reality. The influence of these alternative development thinkers has
created change to the point where development discourse and, to a lesser extent,
practice is becoming less modernist and arguably more reflexive. This has resulted in
alternative views of development studies and practice, one of which is post-
development. This young and diverse academic perspective had its start in the 1990s
with academics, such as Arturo Escobar and Majid Rahnema, who heavily critique
current development theory and practice (the modernisation-as-development paradigm)
and call for an alternative to development. However, critiques of development can be
found much earlier in the literature, such as Illich, Ferguson and even Gandhi, and are
key influences in early post-development writings. While this evaluative body of
academia has influenced development studies and practice, many authors suggest that
post-development lacks practical programs to fix the failings of current development
practice. Post-development does not offer a ‘practical program.’ However, post-
development thinkers have many suggestions for fixing the problems they see in current
development orthodoxy, such as deconstructing modernity, utilising post-colonial
thought to create new paradigms, and using grassroots social movements and local
ways of knowing to resist global modern hegemony. The solution, according to some
post-development thinkers, is to move away from ‘development’ all together and
observe local communities creating their own paradigms for achieving the society that
they desire based on their actual needs and local ways of knowing.
Brief Introduction to Development
 The beginning of development as a project and as a Western political discourse
is often attributed to the former United States President Harry S. Truman’s inaugural
address in 1949 (Illich 1990; Sachs 2010). It was in this address that he stated that
foreign nations, particularly those that were labelled as ‘underdeveloped’ would require
assistance in order to achieve “industrial progress” and a raised standard of living (Illich
1990, p. 6). Development was seen as a universal model that would withstand the test
of time and today it has become an industry in which certain players have long term
vested interests. The anthropological self-reflective and often ethnographic nature
of development studies has led many academics to critique the dominant discourse
of mainstream development agencies, which has broadly followed the Washington
Consensus and modernist thought.
Arturo Escobar (1995) in his classic post-development text, Encountering
Development, describes how the dominant development discourse plays out. The
discourse is based on modernisation and the Western idea of progress, which creates
a Third World made up of disadvantaged and needy populations (Escobar 1995).
To ‘help’ the Third World to become modern and ‘progressive,’ the mainstream
development discourse prescribes the help of the First World -- countries who model
modernity and progress and have the power and knowledge to ‘help’ the Third World
(Escobar 1995). From the post-development perspective, this is an ethnocentric way to
look at the world’s inequalities, and development practice based on this discourse only
makes the inequalities more pronounced rather than alleviating them.
Definitions
In order to make this essay more clear to the reader, I find it necessary to define
certain terms since they do not have accepted definitions within development discourse.
Deconstruction
“Deconstruction is impossible to pin down in any tidy definition and it takes
various forms” (Winter 2007, p. 72). For the purpose of this essay, deconstruction (also
deconstruct, deconstructionism, deconstructionist) refers to Jacques Derrida’s
philosophical methodology which prescribes “the process of breaking down
conventionally accepted concepts, categories, and oppositions” (Hogg 2010, p. 195).
More specifically, deconstruction in this essay critiques the received essence, or what is
perceived as natural and normal by the mainstream, of categories, concepts or
oppositions (Hogg 2010). Derrida, however, would say that deconstruction is not a
critique or method, but rather is something that occurs everywhere if one looks carefully
enough at text (Winter 2007). For example. Derrida states that words do not have static
meanings; they have histories in which their meanings change through time (Winter
2007). Therefore, one can never predict the meaning of or fix meanings to words
(Winter 2007). When one applies this to concepts and ideas (not just words), then one
must question the concepts and ideas in context instead of accepting them as universal
truths. For example, Derrida (2002) talks about the Enlightenment, a framework
proclaiming that the use of science and intellect is superior to religion and superstition.
He states that Enlightenment ideas must be questioned as a framework and discourse
in order to understand how Enlightenment ideas are naturalised and are used to
legitimise certain ideologies (Derrida 2002). According to deconstructionist thought, this
is important because normalising discourses conceals the possibility of recognising
other possible discourses (Winter 2007).
Post-modernity
According to Müller (2006), post-modernism lacks a static definition and is
understood through finding commonalities among the various authors who critique
modernism. For the purpose of this essay, post-modernity (also postmodernity, post-
modernism/postmodernism, post-modern/postmodern, postmodernist/post-modernist)
is a school of thought that challenges knowledge that is taken for granted (Rosenau
1992). For example, concepts such as objectivity, democracy, necessity, and causality
are questioned (Rosenau 1992). In essence, the whole of modern social science is
deconstructed in the manner of Derrida, and finding an alternative school of thought is
generally not attempted (Rosenau 1992).
Post-development
Like post-modernity and deconstruction, post-development (also
postdevelopment, postdevelopmentalist/post-developmentalist) is not easily definable
as there is no accepted definition and existing definitions tend to be too broad or
too specific. Generally speaking, post-development thinkers are those who critique
development and the development industry (Jakimow 2008). Post-development is
a nascent idea and therefore is not a theory and post-development authors do not
share a unified position (Escobar 2000). According to Escobar (2000, p. 11), a post-
development thinker, post-development is not “even a trend.” Despite the fact that it
is not a consistent academic theory, there are two distinct and entwined concepts in
post-development texts: knowledge and power (Jakimow 2008). ”The central claim of
post-development is that the knowledge deployed in development is a product of the
epistemic perspectives of the ‘West’” (Jakimow 2008, p. 312). Pieterse (2000), a critic
of the post-development school, expands on this to state that the key themes of post-
development thought include dissatisfaction with the “business-as-usual” modernisation-
as-development practice and, at the same time, the movement away from alternative
development practices.
Some would posit that post-development is synonymous with ‘anti-development,'
which rejects the oppositions of ‘Third World’ & ‘First World’ and ‘developed’
& ‘underdeveloped’ (McKinnon 2008). Others might state that post-development
analyses the power dynamics involved in development that are present in development
discourse (McKinnon 2008). For example, a post-developmentalist might critique
development for their use of the phrases ‘the poor,’ ‘the needy,’ and ‘poverty’ because
they label people placed in these categories as ‘needing assistance’ from the ‘more
fortunate’ who happen to be the industrialised nations of the ‘First World’ (Rahnema
2001). “In all cases, however, post-development involves a critical engagement with
what development is and what it has achieved” (McKinnon 2008, p. 281).
In this critical engagement, post-developmentalists tend to critique
modernisation-as-development for over-generalising in terms of putting development
policies into practice, and in doing so, ignoring and even destroying cultural differences
(Müller 2006). Another common critique of development is that it actually creates
poverty instead of alleviating it because it exposes communities to the neo-liberal
capitalist market (Müller 2006). In making these (and other) critiques, post-development
thinkers call for an end to modernisation-as-development (Müller 2006). In this way,
post-development is a school of thought outside of development that “question[s] the
very desirability and centrality of the notion of 'development' itself” rather than coming
up with more appropriate alternative modes of development (McGregor 2007, p. 156).
The recent “post-development” turn in development studies in the
context of deconstructionism and post-modernity
Post-development and deconstructionism
According to Arturo Escobar (2000), the deconstruction of development gave
rise to post-development. “Deconstructionists argue that words, as signifiers, are
arbitrary; there is no reason to suppose that they perfectly match the world. Moreover,
words are always defined in terms of other words, so to suppose that any given word
perfectly refers to the world would be to suppose, quite implausibly, that the entire
language perfectly matched the world” (Hogg 2010, p. 196). Therefore, using words
such as ‘development’ must be understood in the context of how the word evolved. It is
a western construction, which is not based in truth or objectivity despite the modernist
claim, but rather is a subjective text. This same deconstruction applies to the entire
development discourse. Rather than being a generalisable and objective model of
global aid as it is perceived by mainstream modernists, development is viewed in terms
of its historical context, which post-developmentalists might argue is actually based in
Western ethnocentrism, imperialism and colonialism. In this way, post-development
thinkers deconstruct the received essence (the assumed static meaning of a concept,
category, or opposition) of ‘development’ by challenging what is descriptive and what is
normative in terms of development policies and outcomes (Winter 2007).
Deconstructionist thought posits that received essences are violent to society;
therefore, challenging received essences “is not simply a way to see the world more
clearly; it is also something that ought to be done” (Hogg 2010, p. 197). Derrida (2002)
builds on this sentiment by stating that justice is not deconstructable. In fact, Derrida
(2002, p. 243) goes so far as to say that “deconstruction is justice.” In this way, post-
development as a deconstruction of development is also a means of achieving justice.
This could certainly be argued considering the post-development critique of the general
failure of modernisation-as-development discourse and post-developmentalist’s call for
a more human-focused, locally-based, grassroots alternative to development (Esteva
and Prakash 1998; Escobar 1995; Rahnema 1997).
Post-development and post-modernism
 According to Jakimow (2008), the 1990’s saw the emergence of post-
development in response to the failing development industry. This new school of
thought was inspired by post-modernist thinking and called for an abandonment of the
modernisation-as-development paradigm (Jakimow 2008). Post-modernism and post-
development are both schools of thought that have completely rejected certain aspects
of modernism (Müller 2006). Therefore, one could state that post-development is a
school of thought under the umbrella of post-modernism. Post-development critiques
modernism as a development model, or modernisation-as-development. Some of these
critiques have been commended widely in development studies, even by critics of post-
development, and have led to the creation of alternative development strategies by
development thinkers outside the post-development school of thought (Müller 2006).
According to Escobar (1995), modernisation-as-development is legitimated and
justified by the idea that knowledge, as westerners define it, is objective and ‘above’
those that are in need of ‘developing.’ Hobart (1993) echoes this in stating that those
labeled as underdeveloped are seen as having a lack of knowledge by modernisation-
as-development thinkers, and therefore require the help of those labeled as developed
to escape their perceived condition. In rejecting modernism within development studies,
post-development thinkers embrace facets of post-modern thinking and make it specific
to development studies and practice (Müller 2006). In critiquing development, post-
development thinkers deconstruct development while focusing on the role of power and
knowledge in modern development (Müller 2006).
Post-development and a practical ‘program’ for fixing the problems of
modernisation-as-development
Development is posited on modernist principles, which is why I have chosen to
call it modernisation-as-development. It is concerned with transforming facets of global
society towards an alignment with the Western ideal of ‘progress.’ Post-development
thinkers ask what ‘progress’ is and towards what development is ‘progressing.’ It
critiques the modernist ideas of universal assumptions in development, including the
assumption that economic growth will solve the diverse problems facing the ‘Third
World,' and the consequences of phrases like ‘Third World’ or ‘underdeveloped’ existing
in development discourse (McKinnon 2008). Post-development thinkers may even
conclude that development must be done away with completely (McKinnon 2008;
Escobar 1995; Jakimow 2008). Indeed, Escobar (2000) calls for an alternative to
development rather than alternative development. “Because [post-development] is so
critical, much post-development literature is accused of focusing only on a critique of
development without offering any suggestions for how to move forward” (McKinnon
2008, p. 281).
So the question remains: does post-development offer a practical program for
fixing the problems of development? First, it is necessary to deconstruct ‘practical
program.’ Having a ‘practical program’ for fixing the vast array of problems associated
with current development practices is a modern idea, and the post-modern, post-
development school of thought does not provide such a ‘program.’ As Escobar (1995,
p. 217) states, “the process of unmaking development, however, is slow and painful,
and there are no easy solutions or prescriptions.” However, post-development thinkers
do provide some insight on where to go from here in terms addressing the problems
associated with modern development practices. In this essay, I will briefly cover the
insights of Arturo Escobar and Majid Rahnema.
Arturo Escobar
The first step, according to Escobar (1995; 2004) is to move beyond
modernity. “In short, the modern crisis is a crisis in models of thought; modern solutions,
at least under neoliberal globalisation (NLG), only deepen the problems. Moving beyond
or outside modernity thus becomes a sine qua non for imagining after the Third World”
(Escobar 2004, p. 209). In order to make this move, it is necessary to deconstruct
modernity. Escobar (2004) suggests to question the received essence of modernity and
view it in its intra-European context. In deconstructing modernity, we must recognise
that modernity is not an inescapable force of globalisation and that we can move
beyond it, toward alternative local worlds (Escobar 2004). In order to make this move,
there needs to be an examination of emerging social movements from the perspective
of colonial structures and race relations (Escobar 2004). In this examination, one can
see that current social movements, such as the Occupy movement and those of the
Arab Spring, are much less hierarchical and have more decentralised power structures
than social movements of the past. “This logic is partly strengthened by the self-
organising dynamics of the new information and communication technologies (ICTS),
resulting in what could be called 'subaltern1 intelligent communities’” (Escobar 2004,
p. 210). This is a useful way to imagine alternative local and regional worlds after
the ‘Third World’ has been deconstructed (Escobar 2004).
Finally, Escobar (2004) suggests an analytical framework from which an
alternative to development can be sought. He suggests that a non-Eurocentric post-
colonial theory be utilised since modernity and coloniality go hand in hand (Escobar
2004). In order to create alternatives to development and alternatives to modern
globalised coloniality in general, Escobar (2004) suggests rearticulating the global
world from diverse paradigms based on local histories while recognising the differences
between the hegemonic ways of knowing on which modernisation is based, and
the ways of knowing of the subaltern groups. It might also be necessary to rework
colonial difference, the divide between coloniser and colonised, to create hybrid world
cultures such as the Zapatistas who successfully created a culture which draws upon
Indigeneity, Marxism, and the ‘Third World’ (Escobar 2004). In this way, alternatives
to development lie in creating alternatives to the wider modernised and colonial global
system through local histories.
Majid Rahnema
Rahnema (1991), in his work on poverty, states that there is no ‘solution’2
to ‘poverty’ within modernity, but searching for alternatives is not easy because of
existing power structures that keep the ‘poor’ from creating and maintaining power. The
existing power structures include various nation-states involved in development, but
also the force of the modern globalised economic market and the control of society by
technical elitism (Rahnema 1991). In order to realise alternatives, new paradigms must
replace those paradigms which currently have control over and often twist the
mainstream view of what is real (Rahnema 1991). To realise alternative paradigms,
Rahnema (1997, p. 401) states that post-development “should not be focused on

1 ‘Subaltern’ refers to the post-colonial use of the term, which describes those who are generally excluded
from social or political representation in modern society
2 Here the apostrophes exhibit the use of deconstruction in Rahnema’s work -- he deconstructs both the

words poverty and solution to show that they are modern constructions.
merely operational or spectacular ‘plans of action’ or ‘strategies.’” Instead, he calls for a
commitment from those ‘good people’ in each community to create new paradigms
based on friendship and an actual sense of community with the goal of ending
modernity and global hegemony (Rahnema 1991; 1997).
Rahnema’s idea for an alternative future for development and the world tend to
follow the Foucauldian idea that transforming others is possible through transforming
the self (McKinnon 2008). Foucault states, “My role – and that is too emphatic a word
– is to show people that they are much freer than they feel . . . To change something in
the minds of people” (Foucault as referenced in McKinnon 2008, p. 289). He states that
in order to achieve this alternative future where we all live differently, we all must “begin
with ourselves” (Rahnema 1997, p. 402). Once people learn to live outside of modernity
as individuals by voluntarily leading simple lifestyles and recognising the limits and
possibilities present in the world, they can then gather together to create change in their
local communities, eliminating ‘development’ and the perceived need for it (Rahnema
1991). As the people gather, they can create grassroots movements opposing the
current world order, especially the globalisation of the market economy (Rahnema
1991). These grassroots movements will focus on self-reliance and using local ways of
knowing to create resistance (Rahnema 1991). Through resistance to modernity and
the creation of self-reliant communities, modernisation-as-development is made futile
(Rahnema 1991).
Conclusions
“In the early 1990s there were expressions of hope that the advent of
postmodernism could revitalize the discipline of development studies and enable the
theoretical reframing of North–South relations” (Slater 1992). One could argue that
these hopeful expressions were realised by stating that post-modernism gave rise to
post-development, and post-development offers a way to reframe North-South relations
through the deconstruction of development. Upon the deconstruction of development,
one might recognise that “development is a rebellion, an obstinate refusal to accept
necessity. It implies a simultaneous deconstruction of necessities and a reconstruction
of desires into needs. In the development discourse, needs are neither desires nor
necessities” (Illich 1990). This is a powerful but worthy description. Development
constructs the needs of ‘the needy’ through a Western lens and then forces strategies to
achieve these ‘needs’ onto ‘the needy.’ In the end, these strategies do little to help ‘the
needy’ and ultimately benefit Western elites.
One could argue that post-development is also influenced by post-colonial
thought because of the movement away from global modernised ways of knowing
(the coloniser’s ways of knowing) towards local (the colonised) ways of knowing.
Simon (2005) “sees the postmodern influence in development studies and its post-
development manifestation pushing increasingly towards postcolonialism.” Escobar
(2004) uses post-colonial thought more explicitly. He states that once a post-modern
world is imagined, one can apply this to development by recognising the diverse
paradigms and local ways of knowing of those subordinated by the global colonial
hegemony of modernism (Escobar 2004).
Does post-development offer a practical alternative program to development?
No, but that is not the goal of post-development. ‘Practical programs’ are a modernist
construction, whereas post-development seeks to abandon the modernist paradigm
altogether. While a practical program is not offered, post-development authors do
offer alternative frameworks and vague ways of realising these alternatives. Post-
development, in many ways, is suggesting that we allow countries and communities
at the local scale to pursue their own ‘development’ path as they perceive it without
the influences of global capital or other modern forces. Escobar (2004), for example
suggests that in order to find alternative frameworks, global society must first move
away from and deconstruct modernism. After this, it is possible to view anti-globalisation
social movements outside of the modern context in order to imagine a world after
development. Rahnema (1991) echoes and expands on this sentiment in writing how
grassroots movements can counter modernisation and development through creating
self-reliant communities based on local ways of knowing.

References
Derrida, J 2002, ‘Force of law: 'The mystical foundation of authority',' in G Anidjar (eds),
Acts of religion, Routlege, New York.
Escobar, A 1995, Encountering development, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Escobar, A 2000, ‘Beyond the search for a paradigm? Post-development and beyond,'
Development, vol. 43, no. 4 pp. 11-14.

Escobar, A 2004, ‘Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-
globalisation social movements,' Third World Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 207-230.

Esteva, G & Prakash MS 1998, ‘Beyond development, what?’, Development in Practice,

vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 280-297

Hobart, M 1993, Introduction: the growth of ignorance? In M Hobart (eds), An

anthropological critique of development: the growth of ignorance. Routledge, New York,
pp. 1–24.

Hogg, MA 2010, ‘Deconstruction’ in RL Jackson II (eds), Encyclopedia of Identity,

SAGE Publications, pp. 196-199.

Illich, I 1990, ‘Needs’ in W Sachs (eds), The development dictionary: guide to

knowledge as power, Zed Books, pp. 158-175.

Jakimow, T 2008, ‘Answering the critics: the potential and limitations of the knowledge
agenda as a practical response to the post-development critiques,' Progress in
Development Studies, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 311-323.

McGregor, A 2007, ‘Development, foreign aid and post-development in Timor-Leste,'

Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 155-170

McKinnon, K 2008, ‘Taking post-development theory to the field: Issues in development

research, Northern Thailand, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 281-293
Müller, M 2006, ‘Discourses of postmodern epistemology: radical impetus lost?,'
Progress in Development Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 306-320.

Pieterse, JN 2000, ‘After post-development,' Third World Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
175-191

Rahnema, M 1991, ‘Poverty,' in W Sachs (eds), The development dictionary: guide to

knowledge as power, Zed Books, pp. 158-175.

Rahnema, M 1997, ‘Afterword: towards post-development: searching for signposts,

a new language and new paradigms,' in M Rahnema & V Bawtree (eds) The post-
development reader, Zed Books, pp. 377-403.

Rosenau, PM 1992, ‘Post-modernism and the social sciences: insights, inroads, and
intrusions,' Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Sachs, W 2010, ‘Sustainable Development’ in M Redclift & G Woodgate (eds), The

International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.,
Cheltenham, UK.

Slater, D. 1992, ‘Theories of development and politics of the post-modern: exploring a

border zone,' Development and Change, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 283–319.

Winter, C 2007, ‘Knowledge and the curriculum: Derrida, deconstruction

and ‘sustainable development’,' London Review of Education, vol 5. no. 1, pp. 69-82.