* A THE OBSERVATION PROBLEM AND THINKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT: TOWARD A PARADOXICAL VIEW Dimitri HALLEY UNIVERSITY OF ARUBA The classical research paradigm’s epistemological point of departure is the point of view or standpoint. Yet it largely ignores the fact that what is viewed (observed) is dependent on who is observing and the state of the observer; i.e., the point from which the observed is viewed. In this article, it is argued that researchers more often than not remain oblivious to the role of their own state in the knowledge acquisition equation, and that they often do not see the biases to which they themselves fall prey, as latent aspects of the observer are imputed on the observed. A comparative method, developed by the author, is applied to grasp the relation of the researcher and the researched in the context of the dominant left-right (political) ideologies of development. For instance, while European colonialism is vehemently criticized in Latin American socialist literature, Latin American socialist thinkers normally do not see that socialism and communism are themselves ideologies of European origin and thus are themselves also based on hegemonic discourses of colonialism or envelopment. It is argued that by becoming more aware of this interaction between researcher and researched, it is possible to adopt a paradoxical view, where both poles are considered in order to grasp the whole. The point of view of the observer affects what is viewed and observed. Only when both sides of the coin are evaluated we can get a complete knowledge picture, which is often not as clear cut and linear as we would like. Much of the Latin American liberation literature of a leftist slant theorizes from a victim perspective (Mignolo & Tlosonova, 2006; Lander, 2002). When caught under the influence of the self- construct of victim Caribbean speakers and writers who adopt this point of view are inevitably prone to construe the western European project in our region in terms which validate this victim standpoint. Phenomena which don’t fit this picture are sanitized out of the equation to the point where the capitalist ‘West’ is presented in ways which exaggerate its ability to determine the history of the world and the destinies of its peoples. This in turn does not do proper justice to the complexity and multidimensionality of the Caribbean narrative, which is much more than that of an agentless victim. Self-constructs based, for instance, on those of first generation slaves who were brought against their will to the Caribbean and America, to be found for iple in the viewpoint of DuBois (1895) have in many cases not been updated to 1reflect a rich subsequent history of often successful struggle by slaves and m: against the institution of chattel slavery. It is argued here that all points of view are ethnocentric and subjective. Therefore i practice, what we find is that people with certain beliefs tend to construct arguments and ‘facts’ designed to continuously convince themselves that those beliefs are right and correct. The approach proposed here is thus not the ‘discovery’ and re- engineering of facts to support one point of view and beliefs or another, i.e., either a capitalist or a socialist perspective. A so-called field view is advocated instead, where multiple opposing competing viewpoints collide toward a ‘wide screen’ view which foremostly overtly includes the observer as codependent on what is observed. The field view that emerges from this collision of competing viewpoints is that both the left and right contain core values of great importance, opposed in this way to each other, and either side rejects the other out of hand, both fall into extremist standpoints. The goal of the approach argued for in this article is not only knowledge about the other but also self-knowledge (awareness). The researcher must also reflect on his/her own thinking. This approach proposes a method for thinking about one’s own thinking which constitutes a form of awareness. It is argued that the observer remains unaware of the epistemological fact that her/his perspective and biases select or even co-create what is observed. The victim remains unaware that this (victim) perspective will convert the West into a much greater enemy than really is the case. Yet the researcher often remains unaware of the extent to which s/he is stuck in his/her perspective. The picture is simply not complete if we don’t see the link between the observer and what is observed. The wide field includes the observer and so the observer also needs to be accounted for. We must also understand how the researcher's viewpoint influences what is observed. In terms of the above mentioned method of understanding the researcher and researched as a pair of variables, we can account for the interaction between researcher and researched. In the classical approach, the observer is not factored into the knowledge acquisition equation. When we explain how this variable (the observer) co-determines what is thought and observed, we have accounted for the impact of the researcher on the researched. For example, the extent to which the researcher feels victim(ized) is positively correlated to the extent to which the researched will be demonized as abusive or despotic. The way we observe the other inevitably says something about the state we (the observer) are in. If we are afraid we will experience the other as a threat. The state we are in either deflates or inflates what we observe. Observation can thus be seen as being based on a binary or oppositional dynamic. In yet a broader sense, what is observed always contains latent aspects of the observer, which the observer prefers to sanitize from his/her self-concept. In terms of fractality or self-similarity this does not mean that what is observed in the other is not there, butinstead that the observer also incorporates these characteristics. Observers tend to deny certain aspects of themselves, which they find to be present in the object of their observation. As formulated by Karl Marx, socialism and capitalism are dialectically opposed poles ‘or thesis and antithesis of a single opposition. One pulls us absolutely toward the individual thus negating society, while the other pulls us absolutely toward the group, thus negating the individual. The one is the shadow of the other, hence they turn into each other’s axis of evil. Consider for instance the now well known remarks of Hugo Chavez referring to George W. Bush as the devil (“aqui huele a azufre”/it smells like sulfur here), while holding Noam Chomsky’s book in his hand in his United Nations address, while on the other hand Bush refers to Venezuela as part of the “Axis of Evil’. This illustrates how both of these politicians have become each other’s shadow. The problem of the shadow, which is inherent in systems of thought which are not sufficiently self-referential, fractal and paradoxical, leads to the problem of contradictions between what is preached and what is practiced (self-deception and the inevitable corruption that accompanies it). In such vein we find western nations preaching the free market and democracy to poor nations while keeping their own despotically run corporations afloat with subsidies, tax breaks and other indirect protectionist. mechanisms. On the other hand we find socialist despots lying dangerously in bed with special interests and upholding their own contrived versions of elitism. Each can be said to be in denial of the extent to which it is the shadow of the other. Such systems of thought depend on one’s ability to dissociate oneself from those of one’s own activities that contradict one’s endorsed and publicized policies (self-deception/corruption). Yet on the whole one extreme (left) tacitly sustains the other (right). It is argued that each pole inheres its opposite and its shadow side remains deeply concealed from the dominant side it aims to portray. A lack of self- awareness fuels this problem of self-deception and lack of integrity (corruption). Tt is argued here that these two self orientations form the basis the way that we end up defining ourselves as groups. So, while Western Europe’s colonial domination of Africa and parts of the world has been officially abandoned as incongruent with the values upon which Western European democracy is purportedly based, many still rightfully point out that Western European nations still haven’t come fully to terms with their shadow in this respect. Despite Chavez’ latest statement that the Dutch should officially apologize for their role in South Africa, one cannot reject the real accomplishments of Western European populations who have struggled for and the civil rights of the individual. Likewise, despite the repressive excesses of ism and socialism, no one can deny their important role in the areas of and social justice, and in providing a counterweight to West European 11314 Capitalism. In all of this, the epistemological constant remains that we cannot separate the observer from the observed or the left from the right. The new paradoxical approach proposed here is different from the classical European binary approach of both right and the left, not by virtue of rejecting them fully, but by integrating them and therefore transcending them. At their shared border (which geographically was not only Berlin but also the Caribbean) we find a new paradigm capable of simultaneously encompassing opposing standpoints (general interest versus individual freedom) and thus moving beyond exclusive points of view (Sankatsing, 1998). Self-knowledge (awareness) depends on such an all embracing field view. This more encompassing perspective is more able than conventional approaches to do justice to the paradoxical and complex field nature of (social) reality. It is also better able to fathom a paradoxical grasp of reality and development where both the core values of socialism (social justice) and capitalism (individual freedom) are included in development paradigms. In general, we find that the problem lies in excluding one pole of the by necessity paradoxical whole in the domain of social and political studies. The paradoxical "social-free state" is here proposed as a new ideal, which cannot be fathomed by the old paradigm due to its being trapped in a partial worldview and being pulled to one pole of the field. The proposed alternative is based on a collision of multiple points of view, resulting in the synergistic added-value of a paradoxical view on development. Two ideological self-orientations function within the old paradigm psychologically as two opposing group identities (self-constructs). They lead to ways in which groups define themselves in such a manner that they inevitably oppose each other. This seeming opposition between these two poles has caused us to remain confused between these two identities, instead of embracing both at the same time. Social equality is superimposed on private property and vice versa, while the one remains oblivious to the fact that it lacks what the other has. This keeps alienating us from embracing both poles (social justice and individual freedom) which are absolutely necessary for holistic and sustainable human development. The group is comprised of individuals and individuals are part of the group. The one cannot be reduced to the other and thus their relation is fractal. The left insists on social justice and solidarity while the right fights for individual freedom and private property. Within the new approach proposed here it is argued that they are complementary and necessary halves of one paradoxical whole. Both sides are crucial to the well being of the whole human being and the whole society. Both capitalism and socialism are based on materialism and focus on capital (generation ys re-distribution). Yet a non-local less materialistic view of reality is now emerging in the natural sciences and quantum physics has be necessity come to be based on a paradoxical notion of reality, which is collective but not centralized andindividual but not atomistic. This is why it is argued that we can neither do social science nor grasp social reality with the classical paradigm. The pair as one whole is based on an inclusive field perspective instead of the traditional binary perspective which by design results in exclusion and conflict. Without the individual the group turns into a mob, yet without the group the individual turns into a relentless egoist bent on self-interest. To a large extent Latin America and large parts of the Caribbean have been colonized not only by capitalist hegemonic thought, but also by communist and socialist hegemonic discourse. We remain at odds with one another via this left-right paradigm within (and between) nations not realizing that they form the required halves of the paradoxical whole: “the social-free nation”. Without self-knowledge neither half can transcend its own lopsidedness and limitations. The fundamental problem in the world is lack of self-awareness. People do harm because they can’t see what they are doing. We tend to be pulled toward the illusive sense of security and comfort provided by an exclusive alignment with one side of the paradox instead of suffering the tension of both poles. The group against the individual is as incomplete and counterproductive as the individual against the group. The paradox is the only way to approximate the whole and do justice to it. When becoming aware of one’s own role in observation, paradoxical social yet free thinking tends to emerge. In this sense the peoples of the Caribbean, with their multiply voiced and rhizomatic ways of thinking, speaking and acting in the world, are well placed to begin the process of re-integrating the left-right binary, based on the paradoxical self-construal which is already endemic to the Caribbean region. REFERENCES DuBois, W.E.B. (1895). The suppression of the African slave trade. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Lander, Edgardo (2002). Eurocentrism, modern knowledges, and the natural order of global capital. Nepantia: Views from South, 3, 2, 245-268. Mignolo, Walter & Madina Tlostonova (2006). Theorizing from the borders: shifting to geo- and body-politics of knowledge. European Journal of Social Theory, 9, 2, 205-221. Sankatsing, Glenn (1998). The Caribbean, archipelago of trailer societies. Seed Paper of the inaugural Allan Harris Conference, ISER, UWI, St Augustine. 115