Espen Fikseaunet

Global Environment and Local Development

- Considering the Homogenizing/Heterogenizing Influence of Global Environment

Discourse on Local Development Projects

Place of study: NTNU Dragvoll

Date: 03. June 2013

1. Edition

“… development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.”

- The United Nations (1992)

Table of contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

Globalization and development ...................................................................................... 2

Environment discourse in anthropology ......................................................................... 3

Permaculture and Earthaven ........................................................................................... 4

Local knowledge ............................................................................................................ 5

Failures and learning ...................................................................................................... 7

From stakeholders to shareholders ................................................................................. 9

Grass-roots .................................................................................................................... 10

Measuring success ........................................................................................................ 12

Homogenization or heterogenization ........................................................................... 14

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 15

1

Introduction

‘Think global, act local’ is the watchword of environment discourse. Scientists are searching

for local solutions to global problems as technological advances have come at the cost of

natural resources and environmental conservation. This is equally true for the social sciences,

where socio-economic development projects have become oriented towards sustainable and

environmentally viable approaches. In studies of environmental questions anthropology has

moved away somewhat from popular political and economic ideas and moved towards studies

of how nature is socially constructed and how different actors debate environmental

questions. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) As the environment discourse is intensified parallel

to globalization processes and the looming climate crisis, we may wonder how it will affect us

globally and locally. To clarify, I am not talking about environmental determinism, but rather

the influence of environment discourse.

I contend that the global environment discourse is linked to and shapes our awareness

of the global, and wish to investigate this change of awareness in relation to how development

projects are formed and executed. This prompts the posing of at least two related questions: Is

the globalization of environment causing the homogenization or heterogenization of

development aims and practices? And in what ways are these two processes determining

factors in the performance and success of local development projects?

The assessment of these issues will clearly not be comprehensive. It could be

advantageous to discuss some of the theories of environment, globalization and development,

through an empirical case. I will therefore center the discussion on the case of the Earthaven

ecovillage project. I will first review some concepts of globalization, followed by a brief

summary of the environment debate and its relevance to anthropology. Earthaven, presented

to us by James Veteto and Joshua Lockyer (2008), represents what many would consider to be

a success story in development. I will try to discuss the various ways in which success can be

measured, after reflecting on the failures and philosophies that have been prevalent in

development mentality. These reflections will consider the need for acknowledging local

knowledge and the agency of the grass-roots in general. The discussion will hopefully reveal

some of the effects of environmental discourse is having on development through observing

certain elements; the choice of focus and main emphasis for the project, the theories and

methods employed, the criteria for measuring what constitutes a success or failure, the extent

of collaboration with the target population, the degree of inter-disciplinary approaches, etc.

2

Globalization and Development

As I will be employing concepts such as ‘global’, ‘local’, ‘globalization’, ‘development’ etc.,

it could be useful to briefly define these concepts to start. Jonathan Xavier Inda and Renato

Rosaldo (2008:4) give a simple definition of globalization as “… the intensification of global

interconnectedness[.]” ‘Globalization’ has sometimes been synonymous with

‘modernization’, which again has been used interchangeably with the term ‘development’. In

the era of colonialism, global development discourse was framed in terms of bringing all

peoples to the same material and social level. This tendency towards evolutionist thinking

indicates progress on a linear scale where technological advancements and financial gains are

usually at the top, and has been subject to substantial criticism. Nevertheless, ‘development’

remains a foundational concept for a significant number of organizations and governments,

and is a dominant feature of globalization discourse. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) The

intensification of globalization is understood in popular discourse to prompt homogenization

and uniformity. Meanwhile, empirical observations from all sorts of venues and social

practices indicate that heterogenizing forces are also at work. (Inda & Rosald) There is wide

consensus among scholars is that globalization has not resulted in homogenization. (Moore

2004). Global processes are locally manifested, thus creating diversity.

While global flows involve the movement of technology, people and commodities

across the world, they also include the spread of ideas and discourse. Attempts at making clear

analyses of global processes are impaired by the fact that the social sciences are themselves

affected by global changes. The output of social scientists is now reaching a larger audience,

as “[g]lobal practices challenge social scientists to internationalize their venues…” (Tsing,

2008:67) Yet anthropologists and other social scientists are surely affected by the input of

popular discourse on the global level.

Naturally, this may cause us to wonder also what exactly the relationship between the

local and the global is. Their definition is problematic as we still don’t understand just how

they’re interconnected. Some have even suggested that we replace these concepts with

entirely new ones. Henrietta Moore (2004) argues that it could well be fitting to do so;

however, the key to true understanding is the realization that no concept ever reflects reality.

A concept is static, whereas the world itself is always dynamic. Conceding to Moore’s

arguments, the use of terms like ‘local’ and ‘global’ in this text is made with the understanding

that they are mere representations of a world in constant flux.

3

Environment discourse in anthropology

At present, it seems that globalization discourse is no longer characterized by notions of

material progress to the same extent as before. Instead, the grand discussion has moved on to

concern how people are collectively confronting social injustice and climate crisis, which are

considered to be the common enemies of all. But what are the global and local implications of

this change of ideas? In order to understand these implications better, I will first try to

summarize the theoretical discussion of environment issues, and then use empirical examples

to illustrate how these theories are actualized. Anna Tsing (2008:69) points out that “… as

globalization becomes institutionalized as a program not only in the academy but in

corporate policy, politics, and popular culture, it is important to attend to these sites to

understand what projects of globalization do in the world…” One of the things globalization

does is produce discourse on environmental questions.

There is ongoing debate on environmental issues at all levels, largely linked to the

presence of controversial ideas of the current climate crisis. In recent times there has been

much discussion around whether human beings are actually responsible for the changes in

climate, or whether these are just natural fluctuations. A recent survey suggests that over 97 %

of scientists believe that global temperature changes are indeed induced by human activity.

(Schneider, Harold, Prall, Anderegg, 2010) Those who dispute this belief may argue that

majority agreement on something doesn’t automatically make it a fact. (Oreskes, 2004) The

counter-argument is that even if we are not causing the changes in climate, that doesn’t mean

we should just perpetuate our polluting and non-sustainable behavior patterns. I am reminded

of the cartoon Joel Pett made for the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009:

(Pett, 2012)

4

Climate related studies are at present not only considered important, but vital, since the effects

of human consumption appear to have compromised the eco-system and threatened the further

survival of the human race. Regardless of the facts and the moral issues, the majority of

opinion among scientists on environmental issues is at least socially relevant. The experience

of a climate crisis is so firmly established that it must hold some sway on human behaviors.

For this reason, questions of climate and environment are more relevant in anthropology than

ever, although they have in fact had longstanding importance in the social sciences.

Part of their earlier emphasis has been on geographic determinism, which is the idea

that environmental factors are socially and culturally decisive. These theories have been

criticized for perpetuating racist thinking. Still, it is widely acknowledged that climate and

ecology are important influences on our life-patterns, since we tend to adapt our behaviors

and social life to our environment. (Peterson & Broad, 2009) Anthropologists continue to

focus on environmental questions, although at present the focus is widened to include the

global impact of cultural influences. (Bodley, 2001)

Apart from the influence of popular climate discourse, Carla Roncoli, Todd Crane and

Ben Orlove (2009) give three reasons as to why anthropology is increasingly becoming

involved in climate research. First, climate change is affecting the peoples that

anthropologists are already engaged in studying. Second, the importance of studying the

human consequences of climate change is becoming increasingly recognized. And third,

approaches to studying climate issues are more often interdisciplinary, creating more space for

anthropologists to participate. One of the crucial elements anthropologists bring to the table is

a questioning of the nature-culture relationship. (Kattel, 2005)

Permaculture and Earthaven

In this connection, James Veteto and Joshua Lockyer (2008) give an interesting description of

Earthaven, which is an ecovillage located in the Appalachian region of the United States.

Fundamental to the founders of Earthaven is the idea that humans constitute an integrated part

of the ecosystem. Thus the human-nature relationship is characterized by holism, in the sense

that human beings and human doings are not separate from nature. This cosmology is

essential in producing the incentive to live an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. (Veteto &

Lockyer, 2008)

5

Earthaven village was constructed by way of permaculture, which is a strategy for designing

environmentally sustainable solutions. It is composed of the three words permanent, culture

and agriculture. The permaculture strategy consists in following certain ethical principles and

guidelines that seek to combine social responsibility with environmental sustainability. (Ibid.)

‘Sustainability’ is indeed one of the chief concepts in environment discourse. A very

often used definition of sustainable development is the one used by the Brundtland

Commision, formulated as “… meeting the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Smyth, 2011:77) From the “Rio

Declaration on Environment and Development” by the United Nations (1992), we read that

protecting the environment is crucial to sustainable development. Neither can be isolated from

the other, as they are interdependent. The declaration urges the nations of the world to enter a

global partnership in a collective effort to “… conserve, protect and restore the health and

integrity of the Earth's ecosystem.” (UN, 1992:2)

The United Nations expresses a common responsibility of all nations and governments

to participate in efforts towards sustainability, but underlines that some countries may lack the

means or opportunity to implement changes, stating: “The special situation and needs of

developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally

vulnerable, shall be given special priority.” (UN, 1992:2) The impression of socio-

environmental issues in globalization discourse leaves a challenge at the door of the social

sciences. Ironically (but perhaps not coincidentally) Earthaven is a project initiated in the

absence of social scientists and proclaimed experts, founded instead by amateurs.

Local knowledge

Nicole Peterson and Kenneth Broad (2009) indicate the relevance of the narrative element of

environmental concerns. They examine how perspectives on climatic changes are culturally

construed. There has been a shift from considering how ecology explains culture, to how

culture explains ecology. Ethno-ecology asks how understandings about meteorology affect

group adaptation. Roncoli, Orlove and Crane (2009) also try to elaborate on the different

ways in which people experience climate change. They argue that the experience is colored by

the cultural lenses, mental models, shared values and adaptive responses of the locals. Like

Peterson and Broad (2009), they emphasize the narrative aspects of climate change. People

6

perceive the phenomenon differently, and tell different stories about what is actually

happening. One key instrument for understanding environmental happenings is the human

body itself. Through their empirical senses, locals predict and compare weather changes. The

authors note that communities that rely on their surrounding natural resources tend to observe

more keenly the ecological course of events. They understand the local manifestation of

global change. Among some groups, nature and landscape features are personified so that

there is no real separation between nature, humanity and culture. (Roncoli, Orlove, Crane,

2009) This point is an important part of global environment discourse, as critics and activists

are asking for a more harmonious and integral relationship between man and nature.

The villagers of Earthaven express a willingness to learn from local traditions and

knowledge, as these may hold clues to sustainable ecology. In learning from traditional forms

of knowledge, the anthropologist does not solely rely on technological innovations. Nor does

he have to acquire the necessary learning through personal observations alone, but can draw

on the experience of generations of accumulated knowledge. The value of compiling a

‘cultural ecology’ database would be significant for development projects. (Veteto & Lockyer,

2008) This view accepts that there can be multiple knowledge systems, some scientific and

some based on local traditions. There has been a lot of focus on the differences of these

knowledge systems, but Peterson and Broad (2009) point out that there are also points of

agreement. Roncoli, Orlove and Crane (2009) advocate the building of a database from

knowledge gathered across several disciplines, including the knowledge of the locals

themselves. In studying the regional repercussions of global environmental changes, the work

of the anthropologist could consist in mediating scientific and indigenous knowledge.

“Multiple sources of information—drawing on qualitative and quantitative methods, spanning

local and regional scales, and covering both folk and expert knowledge—are needed to

develop a holistic understanding of climate change.” (Roncoli, Orlove, Crane, 2009:96)

As a scientific endeavor, the process of assessing climate change is limited by several

challenges. First, local knowledge systems tend not to store data accumulated over time,

which means that current measurements can’t be compared to previous ones. Second, even if

the data is recorded, it is not done so in a systematic manner comparable to natural-scientific

methods. And third, the local experience of climate is spatially and temporally different from

the processes operating at a global scale. Finally, even if a new database should be constructed

from the combined knowledge of scientists and locals, it would presumably become stripped

of its original cultural values in the process of rendering data.

7

If the aim is to change people’s reaction pattern towards environmental changes, it would

therefore be necessary to translate that data back into local meaning systems. (Roncoli,

Orlove, Crane, 2009) Clearly the task of the anthropologist in these respects is not

insignificant. A holistic approach to the impact of environment changes would furthermore

require inter-disciplinary collaboration, forcing anthropology to become acquainted with new

frontiers of learning. For example, they may have to collect data according to scientific

methods with which they are not familiar. Veteto and Lockyer (2008) clarify that there is no

need for social scientists to feel restricted by such limitations. According to them, the key is to

translate theory into action while constantly refining the theoretical knowledge based on

practical experience. The permaculture project is a great example of how this is carried out in

practice. The principles of permaculture encourage among other things the refinement of

theories in light of acquired empirical knowledge through regular reflection. Action is then

adjusted accordingly, creating a synthesis of theory and practice that many would consider

superior to mere philosophical speculation and debate.

We hold that the permaculture movement acts as a sort of a natural laboratory wherein

potentially sustainable solutions are experimented with. Further, we believe that by engaging

with this movement, we can create a powerful dialectic between anthropological theory and

practice on the one hand and cultural critique in action for sustainability on the other. (Veteto

& Lockyer, 2008:53)

Failures and learning

One possibility for exploring the limitations and opportunities in environmentally sustainable

development is therefore the permaculture approach. Although Earthaven is not an

anthropological initiative, yet the principles of permaculture are related to several of the

suggestions for improvement that anthropologists have made in relation to development. For

example, the first principle of permaculture used at Earthaven is ‘observe and interact’.

(Veteto & Lockyer, 2008) It is close to Roncoli, Orlove and Crane’s (2009) statement that

most fundamental of social anthropological practices is ‘being there’. Observation entails a

constant posture of learning, keen observation and regular reflection. Veteto and Lockyer

write that Earthaven’s founders spent over a year at the location of the ecovillage in

observation, becoming acquainted with the landscape and surroundings. Only after that year

did construction start, and the process of ‘observe and interact’ continues still.

8

The willingness to observe and learn has been crucial for the progress of Earthaven. This

seems to verify Marc Edelman and Angelique Haugerud’s (2005) assertion that the success of

development projects hinges on the willingness and ability to learn, and that their failures are

likewise a result of the unwillingness or inability to adjust to new learning. The reason why

these projects continue to fail is not unknown, according to them. On the contrary, reviews of

failed development projects have produced basically the same criticism for some time. The

error is not so much in corruption and incompetence, however important factors they may be.

It is rather the structural inability to incorporate new learning into the organizations. Although

learning is acquired, and even accumulated, it isn’t duly considered and employed. The reason

for this is simply because it doesn’t have to be acknowledged. On the part of the agencies

themselves the ramifications of failure are not large enough to necessitate any major

adjustments. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) In the case of Earthaven, the organization consists

of the founders themselves. They clearly have an interest in adjusting to new learning as the

success and progress of the ecovillage is not only important in light of their cosmology, but is

also relevant to their material needs and well-being.

It should be noted that the focus of development critique is primarily directed towards

the failure of such projects, and that ”[n]early all analysts agree that most development

projects fail.” (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005:2) Meanwhile, few studies bother to evaluate why

some projects actually succeed. In addition to the neglect in considering the success of certain

development projects, there is also the tendency to criticize their failures without concrete

suggestions for improvement. This development critique is a distinctive contribution of

anthropological discourse. (Smyth, 2011)

Veteto and Lockyer (2008:53) state that “… too often our critiques of current

approaches to development are unaccompanied by viable solutions...” They speculate that

one of the reasons for the lack of constructive criticism is a general reluctance among

anthropologists to become politically involved. The role of the anthropologist is supposedly to

be a scientific observer rather than an activist. Attempts at testing out alternative solutions

might entail lobbying and facing political resistance, and while there are plenty of

anthropologists around to point out that the projects have not been well planned and executed,

there are few who supply a better way of doing things. Sometimes unexpected encounters

with local elements are blamed as the cause of failure. At other times, the inner workings of

the organizations are found to be inadequate, as the following examples will help to illustrate.

9

From stakeholders to shareholders

Traditionally, anthropological studies have evaluated the receiving end of development

assistance without paying much heed to the internal processes of the aid industry itself. More

recently, development anthropology is being replaced with the anthropology of development.

This means that attention has shifted somewhat from the beneficiaries to the benefactors.

(Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) An example of this is the interesting study by James Ferguson

(1990). He reviews a report from the World Bank on the situation in Lesotho, a small country

in South Africa. He finds that the report has invented facts and twisted statistics to make

Lesotho seem like a backwards country in dire need, such as the urgent need for agricultural

development. Some of the facts in the report had no basis in reality, like for instance the claim

that Lesotho has no monetary economy but only an aboriginal one. Moreover, the Lesotho

economy was portrayed as an independent national economy, although it is largely dependent

on the industry and mines of South Africa. This begs the question: why was the information

deliberately manipulated? The short answer is that the organizations wanted to give

themselves something to do, and possibly to enable them to extend their reach and power.

Not surprisingly, all of the projects in Lesotho failed. Ferguson (1990) found that

development continues to be pursued, not because of its successes, but in spite of its failures.

The reason for this, he argues, might be that the underlying purpose of development is to

serve the aid-industry itself rather than its recipients. As such, the latent function of

development efforts is to perpetuate the existence of various organizations and extend their

political reach. Ferguson’s study becomes obviously relevant when considering that

international agencies are promoting social action out of environmental concerns. Their

policies raise questions regarding the extent of how priorities are externally imposed on local

actors. The responsibility of anthropologist is to maintain equilibrium in this respect, so that

development projects are not uncritically adopted. (Peterson & Broad, 2009)

James Smyth (2011) makes a case similar to Ferguson’s, but in relation to

environmental sustainability. He observes that benefactors are influenced by the dominant

discourse, to such an extent that they will prefer projects that subscribe to environmentally

conservational and rehabilitative approaches. Sometimes the actual local needs are neglected,

and “in the most extreme cases contributing to the belief of environmental crises where in fact

none exist.” (Smyth, 2011: 80) He gives the example of Fairhead and Leach, who analyzed

the situation of a community in Kissidougou, Guinea. The area surrounding a number of

10

villages had scattered patches of forest. According to the two anthropologists, the area had

gone from a larger rainforest to becoming mostly a savannah. The locals claimed that the land

was naturally barren, and that the patches of forest had in fact been planted by the villagers. If

anything, forestation had increased during the last century. As the interest of donors could

most easily be captured through presenting the project as environmentally sustainable,

declaring the area environmentally damaged would have more appeal. (Smyth, 2011)

Earthaven represents what may be a distinctive exception from the long list of failed

projects. Since it wasn’t initiated by any organizations or social scientists, there was never a

question of persuading donors through reports or damage assessments. In the case of

Earthaven, the donors were the founders of the village themselves. It is the result of individual

initiative at the grass-root level. The founders were able to plan and build from scratch by

analyzing virgin territory (which is quite possibly an advantage for development projects).

Veteto & Lockyer (2008) suggest that social scientists should seek out people who are willing

to experiment with new methods rather than conforming to the status quo of the development

world. The permaculture movement is an example of one such grass-roots initiative, although

it has been mostly ignored by social scientists and development institutions.

Grass-roots

Critics have claimed that development has favored etic perspectives over emic ones, much to

the detriment of local peoples. Anthropologists are asked by the development industry to deal

with cultural and social elements, particularly those that might become obstacles for the

development project. There has been an impression among some social scientists and

organizations that the challenge of development projects lie in overcoming the irrationality of

the locals, so that these people will more easily put the newly introduced technology or

system to use. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005)

This applies to environmental concerns as well. In fact, the very presence of such ideas

as environmental sustainability may encourage the tendency to choose institutional (or global)

interests over local ones, forcing the latter into conformity. (Smyth, 2011) In this view, the

idea of social responsibility comes from an awareness of the global situation. Anthropological

endeavors have noted the correlation between environmental and social (in)justice in

development projects. (Peterson & Broad, 2009)

11

Lars Søftestad (1991) proposes that the global environmental issue can well become an issue

of human rights. This becomes obvious for example in cases where development projects

force involuntary resettlements. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) The failure of development

projects result in a number of responses from social scientists. David Lewis (2005)

summarizes three main positions anthropologists take in relation to development. The first is a

principal antagonism towards the ideas of development and its promoters. Some among the

adherents of this group claim that we are moving into the post-development era, as attempts at

development have failed miserably. The second main position is a reluctant participation in

the development industry, which consists of public and private, governmental and non-

governmental, regional and international organizations. They try to avoid these organizations,

and most of all their surrounding politics. The third position entails involvement at the grass-

root level, where anthropologists have attempted to mediate the needs and conditions of

marginalized populations to the world at large. (Lewis, 2005)

This critique has made its way into development oriented institutions (at least in

theory). The World Bank, for example, expressed their intention to also become a ‘knowledge

bank’ that pays due tribute to the knowledge and agency of local groups, announcing that “We

recognize that knowledge is not the exclusive domain of technologically advanced societies.

We need to give a new meaning to empowering poor people[,] not as recipients of knowledge,

but as contributors and protagonists of their own development.” (World Bank, 2004:vii)

Of course, the practice of these principles is another matter. Veteto and Lockyer (2008)

actually propose that the permaculture approach should not be adopted at international level

development organizations like the World Bank, because it would only suffer from the lack of

‘bottom up’ modes of thinking. That is to say, the vertical hierarchies of organizations such as

the World Bank could be potentially damaging to permaculture projects; they would benefit

more from horizontal networks of participants. Their argument contends that a strategy

executed by such organizations is not really from the grass-roots after all, even though the

grass-roots approach is a theoretically feasible starting point.

James Smyth (2011) further states that the exhortation to work together with target

groups is not one that is universally agreed upon. There are some who argue that even in the

contemporary and much advocated grass-roots approach, we run the risk of withdrawing our

own influence completely and thus “… uncritically privileging ‘‘the local,’’ ‘‘place,’’

‘‘culture,’’ ‘‘the people,’’ or ‘‘popular discourse from below’’ without acknowledging ‘‘the

12

potentially deeply conservative, and occasionally reactionary, aspects of such local

particularisms.” (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005:50) The attempt at avoiding ethnocentric

approaches may lead to the assumption that local ways are somehow more correct or

beneficial than those super-imposed from the outside. They may be, or they may not. The

local knowledge repertoire does not necessarily favor sustainable solutions. The target

communities may likewise consider cultural elements a barrier between them and the

benefactors. (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005)

Some have found that development serves both local and organizational interests as it

is a fluid and undefined concept, ready to be shaped by the different actors involved. Locals

may equally manipulate the development discourse in order to serve their agenda, even

though notions of sustainability are part of a discourse being externally imposed. The agency

of the beneficiaries themselves should therefore not be neglected. However, including the

locals as agents of change creates tension. When we can no longer suggest universal solutions

to be implemented at the local level, we may find that the progress of development projects is

much slower. The permaculture approach notes that learning can only be acquired over time,

whereas many development institutions and organizations depend on financial donors who

expect rapid results and quick fixes. Earthaven ecovillage itself required all of 15 years even

just to establish a minimal infrastructure and social system. It is the slow and deliberate

progression of the Earthaven permaculture project that is the reason why Veteto and Lockyer

(2008) consider it a success. But their acclaim of the project begs the question: how should we

actually evaluate success, particularly in the framework of the global environment?

Measuring success

The principle aims of development have varied along with its shifting ideologies and

terminologies. Subsequently, the benchmarks for measuring success in development projects

have been subject to constant review and alteration. (Lewis, 2005) For example, the idea that

economic growth must be inherently good has been presented as a universal solution and it

has therefore been thought that financial improvement would be some sort of panacea for

social injustice. But the solution has not been justifiably locally effective, and some say it has

done more harm than good. Consequently, people are looking for other concepts that would

more aptly define progress without compromising local values in favor of ethnocentric

ideologies. (Hirata, 2003)

13

Apart from economics, developmental standards have also included life expectancy, health,

educational attainment and freedom of choice. (Cardoso, 2007) The United Nations

Development Program created the Human Development Index, which is an analysis of

literacy, formal education, political participation, longevity, GNP, and access to resources

combined into a single figure. (Hirata, 2003) (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005) Whatever the

standard, it has invariably been criticized for being one-dimensional. (Hirata, 2003)

More recently a preference for the assessment of 'well being’ has gained influence –

based of course on the arguably modest assumption that well being is a value worth pursuing.

This vision of development has come to gradually replace the economic benchmarks

traditionally measured by GDP growth or financial return in development projects. (Edelman

& Haugerud, 2005) An outstanding example of using well-being as a development marker is

the policy of Bhutan to measure GNH – Gross National Happiness. As a concept, the notion

of measuring national happiness is interesting, although it evokes questions surrounding

intricate ethical philosophies and subtle points on subjectivity that might be controversial. The

government of Bhutan seems to have maintained the concept while carefully avoiding

complex theorizations concerning value relativism. Instead, they have based it on “… an –

intuitive or conscious – ethical endorsement of GNH as being conducive to good

development, with ‘good’ understood in a comprehensive, ethical sense.” (Hirata, 2003:99)

Hirata (2003) speaks of development, not as a goal, but as a regulative idea. It is the

process of narrowing the gap between actual and potential goodness and well-being.

According to this understanding, all nations are developing. Good development must further

be justifiable in relation to future generations and other nations. This corresponds to the GNH

standard which considers environmental sustainability as intrinsic to well being. Statistically,

there is a partial overlap between happiness and income distribution, but only to a point.

Evidence indicates that rich nations are generally happier than poor ones, but there is no

correlation to show that people over time become happier as they get richer. The concept of

GNH does include ‘economic self-reliance’ as one of its four major goals; nevertheless,

financial gain does not appear to be the alpha and the omega of happiness. Bhutan relates

GNH to three other major goals, which are ‘environmental preservation’, ‘cultural promotion’

and ‘good governance’. (Hirata, 2003) The goal of environmental preservation is of course

our main interest here. The four goals for GNH could well be influenced by current global

trends and discourse. For example, choosing to emphasize environmental preservation as

conducive to happiness could be a result of the current focus on the climate crisis.

14

From Earthavens principles the measurement of success can be extracted and summarized in

terms of several factors: the degree self-reliance in production, social justice and equality,

political unity and consensus, a balance in consumption that preserves both the earth and the

people, flexibility in adapting to surroundings, and environmentally sustainable solutions.

Veteto and Lockyer (2008:48) find that permaculture is an instrument of fostering global

awareness and sustainable solutions: “At Earthaven Ecovillage, permaculture has been used

as one of the main tools for building bridges between global social and environmental

awareness and concern and the development of local, sustainable practices.” This is because

it harmonizes theory with practice, where empirical research leads to theoretical and

methodological revision.

Heterogenization or homogenization

Several of the points I have mentioned indicate a heterogenizing effect in global processes.

The impression that Western culture is spreading and creating uniformity is being challenged

by the understanding that the global processes flow both ways. For example, GNP – perceived

to be a Western capitalist conception that is being applied in the entire globe – is challenged

by the GNH, or the concepts of well-being, sustainability, and permaculture as alternative

ways of relating to development. Of course, these concepts are not foreign to the West; but

they seem to have originated on the local level, outside of the institutionalized development

framework. Viewed in this light, socio-economic action is generated through discourse from

both the local and the global level.

Simultaneously, an awareness of the global is reflected in our attitude towards the

environment. It may be homogenous in the sense that environment issues have become a

collective focal point, but we must keep in mind that local knowledge systems can color how

global climate changes are perceived. It seems likely that global environment discourse is one

of the primary reasons why the Earthaven project was initiated. Environmental discourse isn’t

the only likely reason for the change of focus in development projects, but it is an important

one. It appears to have led to an increase in anthropological studies on environmental issues

and in sustainable solutions in development. Regardless of whether there is a causal

relationship between globalization, environment discourse and development, there is surely a

correlation between them.

15

Conclusion

I will now summarize some of the observed effects that (for better or for worse) the global

environment discourse may be having on development projects.

1. Environmental concerns compel us to consider sustainable solutions. In turn,

sustainability requires prospective and long-term thinking. This leads development

away from short-term solutions and quick fixes, as in the case of Earthaven.

2. Sustainability moreover necessitates holistic thinking in several ways. One is that

it forces us to compare financial profit against environmental conservation. This

entails a re-evaluation of how we measure achievement and success. The

benchmarks of success have lately been broadened to also include environment,

happiness and well-being.

3. A holistic mindset further demands that we consider both the global and the local

without viewing them as mutually exclusive or with opposing interests. This

includes paying heed to both indigenous and natural-scientific forms of

knowledge, and possibly combining the two.

4. The combination of different forms of knowledge requires inter-disciplinary

collaboration, challenging anthropologists to enter into fields previously unknown

to them.

5. The agency of target groups is becoming recognized, and environment discourse

may be supportive of a grass-roots approach, as can be seen in the Earthaven case.

6. Permaculture projects like Earthaven translate theory into action, and action into

revised theory. Some will undoubtedly prefer this pragmatic anthropology over

mere philosophical debates.

7. Concerns of the environment carry the risk that benefactors become more occupied

with their own opinions on environmental issues than with local needs. This can

lead to social (in)justice and human rights issues.

Global environmental discourse may lead to a homogenization of focus, in that the climate

crisis is centered as our common enemy. Meanwhile, the diversity of methods and

benchmarks from the grass-roots indicate a heterogenization of development practices.

16

Sources

Books

- Edelman, Marc & Haugerud, Angelique. 2005. The Anthropology of Development and

Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism (1st

edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

- Inda, Jonathan Xavier & Rosaldo, Renato. 2008. The anthropology of globalization: a

reader (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Articles

- Bodley, John H. 2001. ‘Anthropology and Global Environmental Change’. In

Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, pp.1-5.

- Cardoso, Joana Gomes. 2007. ‘Applied and Academic Anthropology in Development:

Distance or Engagement?’ In Antropologica, Escala et Memória, Vol.2, pp.102-117.

- Hirata, Johannes. 2003. ‘Putting Gross National Happiness in the Service of Good

Development’. In Journal of Bhutan studies, Vol.9, pp.99-139.

- Lewis, David. 2005. ‘Anthropology and Development: The Uneasy Relationship.’ In A

Handbook of Economic Anthropology, pp.472–486. London: LSE Online.

- Moore, Henrietta. 2004. ’Global Anxieties: Concept-Metaphors and Pre-Theoretical

Commitments in Anthropology.’ In Anthropological Theory, pp.71-88.

- Peterson, Nicole & Broad, Kenneth. 2009. ‘Climate and Weather Discourse in

Anthropology: From Determinism to Uncertain Futures.’ In Anthropology and Climate

Change, pp.70-86. California: Left Coast Press.

- Roncoli, Carla & Crane, Todd & Orlove, Ben. 2009. ‘Fielding Climate Change in

Cultural Anthropology.’ In Climate and Culture, pp.87-115. California: Left Coast

Press.

17

- Kattel, Shambhu Prasad. 2005. ‘Sustainability or sustainable development: An

anthropological perspective.’ In Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology,

Vol.9, pp.258-277.

- Smyth, Luke. 2011. ‘Anthropological Critiques of Sustainable Development.’ In

Cross-sections: The Bruce Hall Academic Journal, Vol. 7, pp.77-85.

- Søftestad, Lars. 1991. ‘Anthropology, Development, and Human Rights: The Case of

Involuntary Resettlement.’ In Ethnologie im Wiederstreit.Kontroversen über Macht,

Geschäft, Geschlecht in fremden Kulturen. Festschrift für Lorenz G. Löffler, pp 365-

87. München: Trickster.

- Tsing, Anna. 2008. ‘The Global Situation.’ In The anthropology of globalization: a

reader, pp.66-98. Oxford: Blackwell.

- Veteto, James R. and Lockyer, Joshua. 2008. ‘Environmental Anthropology Engaging

Permaculture: Moving Theory and Practice Toward Sustainability.’ In Culture &

Agriculture, Vol. 30, pp.47-58.

Internet

- Knowledge and Learning Group. 2004. ‘Indigenous Knowledge: Local Pathways to

Global Development – Marking Five Years of the World Bank Indigenous Knowledge

for Development Program. ‘

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/ikcomplete.pdf (Retrieved 27.May 2013).

- Pett, Joel. 2012. ‘Joel Pett: The Cartoon Seen Around the World.’

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/18/2115988/joel-pett-the-cartoon-seen-round.html

(Retrieved 27.May 2013).

- United Nations. 1992. ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.‘

http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/environmental.development.rio.declaration.1992/portrait.a4.

pdf (Retrieved 27.May 2013)

18

- Schneider, Stephen H. & Harold, Jacob & Prall, James W. & Anderegg, William R. L.

2010. ‘Expert credibility in climate change.’

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf (Retrieved 28.May

2013)

- Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. ‘The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know

we’re not wrong?’

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-

chapter-4.pdf (Retrieved 28.May 2013)