Rahn Ema Par Critique

8/11/2019 Rahn Ema Par Critique

1/29


2/29

Alternatives V (1990),199-226

Participatory ctionResearch:The"LastTemptation f

Saint"Development

MajidRahnema*

A distinctive eature f the modern world s the production nd con-sumption f programs, lueprints, nd projects or ll purposes. heseare prepared n the basisof data, which, ydefinition, elongto thepast.Facts elated oevery uestion re thus processed nd problema-tized by teams f specialists, hemselves xpertly rogrammed. heresult s a

fragmented, rofessionallyonstructed

mageof how the

world hould ook and become, n the form f programs esigned ooffer ttractive olutions nd raise xpectations. major ideeffect fthese programs s that the creative nergy vailableat all levels toexplorefacts nd act upon them s often diverted nd dissipated nirrelevant, rivial,nd extremely ostly perations. evelopment soneof thesemajor rograms.

The Genesis of Participatory ctionResearch

For the combative, ationalist, ell-educated,nd modernized eadersof the colonialworld, evelopment nce appeared s the new author-ity." hese leaders believed evelopment asable to guide them notonly n their evolt gainst he crumbling uthorities ho had longdominated heir ast, ut alsoin their rand design ofind hefastestshortcuts o the future a future erceived, n fact, s nothing ut areplica f the present n the developedcountry hat erved s theirmodel.Asa result, oliticians, evelopment xperts, nd plannersjoined in to produce ong-,medium-, nd short-term rograms. acts,which heywereoften nable to understand, ere turned nto con-cepts nd abstract problems," hich n reality epresented nly heviews f the "problematizers"bout howthe same facts ad to be per-

*Port a Galre, 06590Thoule, France

199


3/29

200 Participatoryction esearch

ceived and acted upon. Consequently, roblems related to underdevel-opment, poverty, utrition, abitat, health, communication, verpopu-lation, and education became concepts that had no, or little, elevanceto the facts heywere supposed to explain. Nevertheless, s the prob-lems had been identified nd formulated by "experts," hese expertsalso gave themselves he authority f proposing solutions. Target popu-lations were manipulated into believing that they had neither thecapacity nor the material resources to cope with their own problems.They were asked only to go through a series of planned sacrifices o

helpthe

developersbuild the future

heyonsidered to be desirable for

the people.The more the development rograms were provided with ostlymate-

rial and human resources, nd the target opulations ulled into believ-ing that the problems (as identified y experts) were truly heirs, hemore did the blueprints vershadow he real-life rocesses. n less thantwodecades, the situation ecame so bad that, lready by the early 970s,a serious crisis f confidence had appeared amongst heearly elievers.

Meanwhile, number of dealists,many of them belonging to well-to-do city-dwelling amilies, ad been attracted o "field work."Resenting

the bureaucratic ttitudes f experts who were acting s the "priests" ndadministrators f the new development "church," they discovered totheir great atisfaction ewforms f solidarity hat had regenerated ifein some other depressed areas. These new forms epresented, orthem,development n one of its original meanings: "to unfold, ike a flowerfrom he bud." The encounters with ocal cultures hanged their ives nmany ways.Like the first isciples nd followers f a new religion, uchactivists ame to believe that hewrongswitnessed t certain perationallevelsneed not be attributed o the deology f development.

Participatory evelopment was a direct offspring f this profession e

foi. t promised a new, popular, bottom-up, nd endogenous version fdevelopment, free from ts colonial and techno-economistic hackles.As the approach was later elaborated and refined by more grassrootstheorists/activists, t gave birth to the Participatory Action Research(PAR), a "new methodology designed to define social change by thepopulations themselves," n the basis of their own perception of reality.For its founders, t was "a methodology within total experiential pro-cess," aimed at "achieving power nd not merely growth or the grass-roots populations."

The challenge posed by these modern "participatory mendicants"1was too serious to be brushed awayor frontally pposed, particularlybecause it came at a time when the former was facing pressure fromtwo different irections. On the one hand, both the donor and thereceiver countries now began to recognize that the billions spent onblueprints and projects had only added new problems to the old.


4/29

MajidRahnema 201

"Growthsnot equitably eaching hepoor," eclaredMcNamara, res-ident f the World ank, n 1973;rather herewas "greatermaldistri-bution f income n many eveloping ountries."2n manynortherncountries, hedisenchantment reated ydevelopment nd aid policieswas o great hat ightwingmovements,uchas Cartierism n France,were rompted omilitate or n abrupt nd to all forms f ssistance.

On the other hand, growing umber f development nalysts ndexpertsworking ithin he most responsible nternational rganiza-tions eganto recognize he mportance f participation. n the World

Bank,ome

stronglyecommendedt as a

keylement or hesuccess

of all projects ith sociocultural imension. t becameclear to manyobservers hatwhenever he ocalpopulations ctively articipated nthe projects,muchmorewas chievedwithmuch ess.

Under these pressures, evelopment radually cquired a newface the ace f repentant aint, eady o mend, owork na new ash-ionwith he poor, nd even o earn rom hem. rojects f more echni-cal and nfrastructural ature till ad to be designed nd implementedbyprofessionalxperts, ut for more ociallyriented rojects, henewgrassroots articipatory endicants ere ccepted s suitable artners.

To give tself participatory ace, nd a saintlymission o serve ndworkwith he poor, was thus he ast temptation f development. yrecognizing number f facts rought o the ttention f the develop-ment church," oth by ts own field-oriented lergy nd the selflessbelievers orking ith hediscriminated,t could once again demon-strate ts egenerativeapacities.

This s how, ythe end of the 1970s, heword articipation ecamepart f the official evelopmentargon. t had definitivelyost ts arliersubversive onnotation. or example,ECOSOC(the EconomicandSocialCouncil),recommended ts member tates adoptparticipationas a basicpolicymeasure n national evelopment trategies." lmostimmediately, ther UNspecialized gencies put the new "amoeba"or"plastic" ord3 n their gendas.

Participation: he NewHumanSoftware

At east ixreasons an be identified or heunprecedentednterest n theconcept fparticipation y overnmentsnd developmentnstitutions.

1. The concept fpartiapation s no longer erceived s a threat. overnmentsand nstitutionsnterestedngreater fficiencyndproductivityt ow ostare ncreasinglynneedofparticipationor heir wn urposes. hey havealso earned o control nd contain he isks ermane opossible unholy"abuses f participation.


5/29


2. Participation as become politically ttractive logan. n situationswhere governments ave learned to control nd contain participation,important olitical advantages re often obtained through he ostenta-tious display f participatory ntentions. oliticians ivetheir onstituen-cies the impressions hat they re really ensitive o all their problems,often nviting he latter to enlighten them on their needs and aspira-tions. Peacefullynegotiated forms f participation an relieve pressurein many ituations where development policiescreate tension nd resis-tance on the part of their ictims.

3.Partidpation

as becomeconomically

ttractive. ostdeveloping

oun-tries re economically roke or nearly roke. They are ready osell what-ever they can to anyone to pay their debts. Forced to adjust theireconomies, hepossibility f passing n costs o their oor in the name ofparticipation s very ppealing. The World Bank alone, for xample, hasdirectly nvested more than $50 billion n so


6/29

MajidRahnema 203

demonstrate hat hey, oo, an be professional ndparticipatory t thesame ime.Moreover,s the governments f the recipient ountries avesensed henew dvantages f beingparticipatory, hey re all paying ipservice oparticipation, n the hope that heir hances n the foreignfundsmarket ould otdiminish.

6. Theconcept f articipation sserving he rivate ector nd its upportersin the atest rive oward he rivatization fdevelopment.rends toward heprivatizationf development ave ately eenstrengthened y onverg-ing reports hatgovernments nd international ssistance rganiza-tions have been

wastinghe

taxpayers' money.t is

arguedthat

bureaucracies re not only bsorbing substantial art of programfunds or heir igh alaries nd other unjustified verhead xpenses,but re also actually reventing oluntary nd nongovernment rgani-zations rom elping hepopulations. hosewhoadvocate he privati-zation of development demand that the positive aspects ofparticipation houldnot be limited o the populations oncerned, utshouldbe extended o all private rganizations. he private ector, ntheir pinion, s in a position o deliver etter nd more competitiveservices. otonly ome"donor*1overnments, ut lso eading rgani-

zations f the UnitedNations, re already sing his xpanded onceptofparticipation, ith view osharingwith he private ector greaterpart f their ublic esponsibilities.

Participatory ction esearch ctivists ould rgue hat hey re fullyaware f the facts nd reasons orwhich he politicians nd develop-ment lanners ry ocoopt the concept of participation. hey think,nonetheless, hat heproposed ction research nd the type f nterac-tion are designedprecisely o prevent uch manipulation. his theyhope to do by nabling hegrassroots opulations odefine oth the

objectivesnd the modalities f participation. discussion f the deaofparticipation oth s a transitive nd an intransitive oncept anper-hapshelpusexplore ome f the difficulties elated o this ssue.

Participation s a Transitive oncept

The transitive oncept f participation, hared y ll parties o the pre-sent ebate, nvolves basic ssumption: lthough t s recognized hatparticipation ouldeventually ivethe parties oncerned n accruedmoral nd effective orce, hat ltimately egitimizes heconcept s itsreference oa "good" ather han "bad" ause. n otherwords, artici-pation s meaningful nlywhen t serves cause that s ustifiable nmoral, umanitarian, r social nd economic rounds. venwhen ar-ticipation s perceived nd defined s "the dea of merely reating


7/29


senseof participation,"8t sassumed hat his ense of participationsto be createdwith view oserving better,more humane r produc-tive ife. he basictask head of the ctors oncerned s,therefore, oidentify heends to be served what onstitutes good cause,whatshouldbe the nature nd modalities f a participation est uited omeet he desired nds, nd whodefines hem ll?

In the arly ays f hedevelopmentra, hings ere lear nough. orthe decisionmakers, conomicdevelopment as the onlyrecognizedobjective. he target opulations ere, ydfinition, nderdeveloped,and henceunable o

participaten the

process. evelopment bjectivesand programs adto be defined or hem, n a professional asis. husmany ard-line evelopers eld he pinion hat ocal populationshouldnot participaten decisionmakingrocesses, ut that heir articipationin the projects esigned or hemhad to be obtained, f necessary, yforce. n the contrary, hegrassroots opulations nd the participatoryactivistsnteracting ith hem hought hat he nds nd the means othhad to be defined y hepeople, ndon totally ifferent erms.

TheDichotomies n the PARApproachThe definitions f participation roposed y heparticipatory heoristsare worth onsidering n this ontext. ome address the question yfocusing n such pecific reas s communication, ccess,basicneeds,and decentralization.9thers, hohavetried o capture he ssence rthe central ssueof participation, avegenerally elated t to power.Thus, popular participation was defined in an UNRISD(UnitedNationsResearch nstitute or ocial Development) iscussion aper,as "the rganized fforts oincrease ontrol ver resources nd move-ments f those hitherto xcludedfrom uch control."10 or OrlandoFaisBorda,Anisur ahman, nd many ther PARtheorists, he im ofparticipation s to achieve power: a specialkind of power people'spower whichbelongs to the oppressed and exploited classesandgroups nd their rganisations, nd the defence f their ust ntereststo enablethem o advance owardshared oalsof social hangewithina participatory olitical ystem."11

These definitions ive first iew f the differences eparating heconventional evelopmentalpproach rom hat f the PARgroup. nthe first ase, he utsiders that s, heplanners, hosewhoknownd setthe objectives)re actually heonly nes to actually articipate n whatshould e done;the ocal populations erve nly sobjects "extras," r"human esources" obe developed.n the econd ase,the ntervenersadmit hat heir nowledge,venwhen t ssuperior n certain echnicalareas,remains rrelevant s longas the populations hemselves o not


8/29

Majid Rahnema 205

regard t as useful o their wn ends. The full nd activeparticipation fthe population s therefore onsidered essential t all stages. Moreover,this participation s perceived in terms of a continuous dialogue and"coaction," xcluding, ndeed, the subject/object elationship betweenthe ntervenors nd the ntervened.

The differences re significant nd important. et a closer look givesthe feeling that they re not, ultimately, s great as they ppear. For,despite the undoubtedly incere intentions f the PAR group in usingdialogue to help the populations earn from heir wn reality, hat the

"change agents" ctuallyo raises

quitea

disturbing uestion.Are

theyreally mbarked on a learning ourney into the unknown, where every-thing has to be discovered?Or, are they oncerned more about findingthe most appropriate participatory ays o convince the "uneducated"of the merits f their own educated convictions? f the latter questionelicits a *yes," hen their scenario is hardly different rom that of theconventional developers, nd their oactors are hardly more indepen-dent in their cting than the extras participating n development pro-jects. This leads to another question: To what extent could dialogue,per se, enable the so-called "voiceless" nd "less conscientized" o ques-

tion the essential, namely he ideological premises nd the hidden cur-rents that define the dialogue? To answer these questions, we mustprobe further nto the assumptions nd practices f the PARgroup.

We may tart with AR's concern for people's power," notion that weshall discuss ater n greater etail. For the PARgroup, the nature of thispower nd the means of achieving t are to be defined by the people. Yet,the dialogueon this most entral ssue eemsto be, mainly, participatoryexercise imed at elaborating number of ideological positions held bythe intervenors, or the PAR theorists eem to have no doubt as to whatkind of power s needed by the people,12what onstitutes heir just inter-

ests," nd what ype f experience nd valid data are required for he pur-pose. It is on the basisof these certainties hat heypropose "to fashionintellectual oolsfor heordinary orking lasses."13

Secondly, he PAR theorists eem equallyconvinced, n advance, thata free nd genuine dialogue willundoubtedly ersuade the "oppressed"to share immediately their own beliefs and ideologies. This, theyassume, shall happen almost automatically, hen patient, participatoryexercisesof conscientization ause them to reach "higher evels of con-sciousness," state that would ultimately uarantee their dherence tothe revolutionary deasof the people's conscientized anguard.

As to the new knowledge ystem ssumed to be the key element totheir "liberation," he participatory ctivists, ontrary o the experts,highly raise the people's traditional nowledge, heir common sense,and their wisdom.Yet, he same ideological certainties with which theyoppose the development experts ead them here into the behavioral


9/29


patterns f the experts. hus,when ommon enseprompts heordi-nary eople to disagreewith solution ffered hem y heir anguard,it s often een as a lackof cooperation nd attributed o their primi-tive onsciousness,"f not to counterrevolutionarynfluences. n con-trast, vanguardism"sdefended, ven mposed, n the ground hat tis "inspired y historical xperienceswhichhad been successful nother evolutionaryontexts lsewhere."14

This is a rather rief ccount of some of the schizophrenic rendspeculiar o many ntellectuals losely nvolved n participatory rass-roots ctivities. n the one hand, their humanistic rientations eadthem o believe that he populations re mature nough to organizetheir ives n total reedom. n the other and, he deological onvic-tions hey ave cquired re often o strong and alsosomuch part ftheir whole image as a committed companero," "comrade," or"rafigh") hatwhenever cleavage ppears etween hat hey erceivedirectly nd the beliefs hey hare, they eel much more secure indefending hepositions eldby heir deological amily.

In actuality, o matter hat heirworld iewmay e (modern, radi-tional, evolutionary,eftist, eformist, emocratic, r participatory), t

is through heir elf-made ensesand synthetizers produced by thesame world viewor ideology)that hey ee and listen o the world.Deepdown, articipatory ctivists re evenproud omaster he helpfulcorrective evices that allow them to see and interpret he worldclearly, bjectively, nd, for that matter, cientifically. or them, hedevices epresent, fter ll, the work f the world's est minds n thevarious ields f human thought. hus they ften egard t as theirmoral bligation opassthe "science" n to the "uneducated" nd the"nonconscientized."he belief n their cience s so strong hatwhen-ever he theory ails o corroborate fact, hey uestion hefact atherthan he theory.The feeling f ecurity nd self-confidencerovided y hese orrec-tive ools nourishes source of endless llusions. ialogical ction sone of them, or he ine qua non of dialogue sthat he participantssee and listen, nencumbered y ny orrective evice, ny ondition-ing, ny preconceived mageof one another, r anyfear r design fanykind.Otherwise, o one really elates oanother, nd the dialogueis transformed ither nto multimonologue, sheerwaste f time ndenergy, r into an opportunity or ome to manipulate thers withgreater ubtlety. t best, the dialogue thus conditionedwould be aseriesof transmissions f lifeless, econd-hand nformation memo-rized knowledge nd experiences) oothers hrough he magepro-jected by ndividuals, ach programmed ifferently. t is hard toimagine hat his kind of dialogueor participation ill ver llowtheparties nvolved o discover ach other s human beings, r to learn


10/29

MajidRahnema 207

from ach other. he participants ay ventually earn only howtopresent heir etrified eliefs n more ashionable ays.

Freirian onscientization eexamined

For better nderstanding f Freirian onscientization,t s nterestingto read gain omeof the basictexts manating rom aolo Freire, neof the most venerable athers f the new participatory chool and,

indeed, compassionateeacher n the rt f

dialogue.In many ays, or easons hat re easy ounderstand, reire's ritingshave ad great mpact n world hinkingn matters fparticipation.heyhavehelped arge umbers fpeople, articularlyt the grassrootsevel, osee, ounderstand,ndtoface heir ealityna more ucid way et, nmorethan necase, onscientizationxercises avenot ctuallyed to he ypesfdialogicalnteractionuggestedyFreire. ould t be that he eeds f theschizophrenicrendsre ontainednthe riginal essagetself?

Freires theory f "historical onditioning nd levels f consciousness"stipulateshat, ndependent ocietiesnd n the transitionalhases,"he

oppressed o not yethave "critical onsciousness,"ut a "semi-transi-tive," r "native ransitive,"r "popular" onsciousness.hishistorical-cul-tural ealityeads hem o "internalize he alues f he dominant roups,"and thus o have distorted erception f their wn ondition.15 ence,the necessityxists or rogressiveroups f nonalienatedntellectualsotranscend heir lass nterests nd to engage nconscientizationxercises.

The "existential uality f the oppressed" as a concept has con-tributed uch othe understanding f the colonizedmind, nd Freirewasright henhe identified hesyndrome s one of the mainreasonsfor he false erception f reality. et, n Freire's ongchapter evoted

to this uestion, othing s said on the fact hat he outsiders namelythe ntellectuals r activists ngaged n conscientization) orking iththe oppressed re equally ffected ythe same syndrome. he omis-sionparticularly eakens he mport f the concept.

In the amecontext, hehighly laborated lassification f evels fconsciousnessaises number fquestions. n the first lace, s tbasedon facts irectly bserved nd noted by he uthor, r s t that hey renothing ut concepts, erhaps eflecting hephilosopher's xposure,as an intellectual, o a particular uropean volutionist/ ositivisthink-ing of the nineteenth entury? he assumption hat here re suchimportant ifferencesn the evels f consciousness f the participantscreates n almost nsolvable roblem or he uthor's roposed ialog-icalaction. he exercise s ntended o be a learning xperience or ll.However,t mplies hat he participants re not really qual and, there-fore, hepersonswith "primitive" r "semi-transitive" onsciousness


11/29


have to learn from he fewwith "critically ransitive onsciousness"before being able to make any meaningful ontribution o the dia-logue.Asthese re, also, the only nes who have a historical/criticalvision f reality, t s not urprising hat hey re always erceived s thenatural eaders f very roup n their onscientization ourney.

To sum up, t s true hat articipatory ctivists ave different, orepeople-oriented, nd educative pproach to dialogue and participa-tion. t is also true hat he ntentions nd the objectives hey ave nmind re different. et, n a situation here nly radical hanges reable to

give meaningfulenseto

participation,he

questionemains

whether hesedifferences re substantial nough to allow for uchchanges.Can they lso prevent, ltogether, hevariousmanipulationsintrinsic o ntervention? an they, n particular, ake t possible or llparticipants o relate nd interact ith ach other, ree rom he fears,the prejudices, nd the dominating r manipulative esigns,whichgenerally ip in the bud the genuine forms f participation? inally,there s no doubt that he PAR-related ctivities aveproduced andcontinue oproduce visible nd tangible esults n particular reasofintervention. et, s it likely hat hese results will ead to the wider

goalsof a truly articipatory ociety?s it not more probable hat heongoing processes f cooption willultimately, ften ndirectly, elprefine nd reinforce hemajor esign f conventional evelopers?

The Meaningof Participation

To be clear on what we mean by participation, et us consider ormomentwhatparticipation s not. Although he word iterally, eans"the ction or fact f partaking, aving r forming art of (OxfordDictionary), articipations seldom voked, n the present ebate, s anintransitiveoncept. t s almost ever sed as "the heer fact r condi-tion f haring ncommon." ather, t s the of," r the motives nderly-ing the will o partake, hat efines heconcept.Assuch, nteractionsaimed t violent, estructive, anipulative,r humanly egrading bjec-tives re not onsidered s participatoryxercises. imilarly,he onceptis not generally pplied to groups rought ogether nly oagree onsomething, speciallyf hat asnegative r undesirable onnotations.

Being lsoperceiveds a serious nd mportant ctivity, participatoryexercise s considered seless nd counterpurposivef the participantsare self-centered ersons nable o relate o others, r seeking o oin agroup only oimpose heir iews n others r manipulate hem. heconcept s also never sed in the case of mechanical ssociations fthings r persons nable oact as free iving umanbeings. nstead, tmay e said that ormost ctivists nd personswith humanistic orld


12/29

MajidRahnema 209

view,participation s viewed as a voluntary nd free exercise, amongresponsible dults, to discover together he oys of conviviality, nd tomake the best use of their bilities both as individuals nd members fa larger group - for reaching a more humane and fulfilling ife.Moreover, articipation s intended not only to achieve such a goal, butalso to foster he very rocesses eading to t.

Then, why s it important, t all, to participate n a particular ctivity?In other words,what re the eventual dvantages f participation s com-pared to nonparticipation? s indicated earlier, he new participatoryschool sees

participations the most relevant

wayf

involvinghe

popu-lations n activities oncerning their "development," nd a guaranteethat decisions concerning heir ives would be taken n their best inter-ests.On the other hand, conventional lanners lso have come to regardparticipation s a positivehelp to their work. The controversy ver thelogics and the ethics of participation eads us to yet another question:What re the main ngredients f a genuine participatory xercise?

Quantity r Quality?

Is the concept f participation ervedmore by the quality f participants rthe quantity f persons nvolvedn the exercise? he ideal would, ndeed, beto secure both objectives. et,when t comes to choose between the two,some tend o prefer he econd. Whatever ne does on the micro evel, heybelieve, s inevitably vershadowed by the macro, which, by definition,remains quantitative henomenon. or others, hiswholeconcern for hemacro s nonsense nd an illusion. f heparticipants re totally onditioned,inwardly nd outwardly ivided, r manipulated y forces hey re not in aposition ocontrol r understand, he wider heir number nd the moreunpredictably angerouswill e the result n suchcases, herule of number

createsmoreproblems han t an solve.

Inner r Outer Freedom?The above dilemma leads to another: Which is more important to aparticipatory ctivity the inner or the outer freedom of the partici-pants? Here again, saysone group, what could be the use of any nnerfreedom if the people concerned were not outwardly free? Forinstance, what f they ivedunder a terroristic nd repressive egime, orin a legal-political etup, or under social-cultural r economic condi-tions with no chance for nyone to express oneself? Others may reply:What about the millions iving n a near total bsence of inner freedom(freedom from ear, rejudices, greed, nduced needs, and so on), con-ditions that have often gnited nd turned nto the most deadly formsof war and brutality, ometimes even due to a sudden flash of outer


13/29


freedom? A minimum f outward reedom, heywould argue, s indeednecessary for any kind of life to manifest tself. ut is it right hat theidea of freedom hould continue to be perceived only as a fragmentedpart of its wider totality? imilarly, ould a so-called universal reedom(based only on rights, aws,or outward onditions) do justice to a real-ity hat sby far more complex and difficult oapprehend?

Sensitivity o"What s"

Aquestion

that remains entral oany

humanactivity

s: How can we besensitive oVhat is" how can we see and understand he facts f our lifeas clearly nd intelligently s possible? his s unavoidably nd fundamen-tally personal ct. nner freedom s therefore ssential or hat ndividualto come out of the dark. Relationship dds another major dimension o it.But no one else, and, indeed, no concept, methodology, r theory an seeor in any wayreplace the sensitive, nwardly ree ndividual. n actuality,dependence on such outside factors ends o dim, f not destroy, hat en-sitivity. he corrosive ffect f that dependence becomes even greater tmass evels. Therefore, s it not more important o focus on the human

quality f the participants nd their ensitivity o facts f ife, ather hanon numbers nd concepts, f ne is to giveparticipation tsfullmeaning?

TheQuestion fMeansand Resources

A question often mentioned n participatory rojects s that f means andresources. But, here again, are these really o important s some claimthey re? In any case, a clear distinction eeds to be made between themeans nd resources hat he participants re in a position ocontrol, ndthose hat end ultimately o control hem.

TheQuestions n Means and Ends

Conventional planners and developers re not really reoccupied by llthe above questions. What they re interested n is,basically, hatpracti-cal and realistic forms of participation would give development thefacelifting peration it needs. PAR and other participatory roups, onthe contrary, ealize the importance f these questions, lthough someof the philosophical aspects of the questions may seem to be of sec-ondary mportance ven to them n their ailywork.For them, he spe-cific ssues, uch as dialogue, empowerment, he search for new blendsof knowledge, nd conscientization, eem to be key oall others.

This position eavesus with wo basic questions, which we shall try oexplore. Are these keys really the right ones for opening the rightdoors? And, even if they are, can all the well-intentioned efforts


14/29

MajidRahnema 211

invested n the processbring bout the expected radical changes,considering hat he wider eality emainswhat t is? n other words,assuming hat coupleof selected oors are actually pened throughthe proposed ctivities, ould hey ltimately ead to the objectives ffreedom nd happiness, shopedfor?

"We" and "They" n the Participatory ame

To better nderstand, et us firstdentify

heactors oncerned: we,"the nterveners, nd "they," he ntervened. n participatory erminol-ogy,we insist n the necessity operceive ll the actors oncerned ssubjects nd coactors, ut things o not actuallyhappen that way.Although erecognize omeof our differences ith them,**n termsof education, ocialposition, nd economic privileges, we" akepridein transcending hese, asing ur nteraction ith them" n the manythings we" hink eshare n common.A first est f awareness ouldbe, therefore, o take fresh ookat our differences nd commonalitiesas they re, free rom he mageswe have built f "us" nd "them." he

exercisewill how us that neither he commonalities or the differ-ences are whatwe think hey re. They rather epresent ntellectualconstructs, ften imed t egitimizing ur ntervention.

Commonalities etween lis" and "Them"

Letusfirst ook t the ommonalities:

1.We both are conditioned y our respective asts, ur knowledgesystems,ur memories, ur traditions, ur beliefs nd subcultures, ndthe education we have received. n short, we both see the worldthrough he mageswe haveformed f ourselves nd others.Weall ivewith he llusions nd fears roduced y ur conditionedminds.

2.Weboth hink eknow, utnoneofusreally oes.Theknowledgenwhichwetotally epend ounderstand nd to act upon the world s,byessence, ragmentednd imited oonly part f the reality. he fact hat"we"nowbelong oa knowledgeystem hathas made unprecedentedadvancesncertain articular ields asnot t allaltered hephenomenonthat ours" s till s relatives "theirs."

In the meantime, e have ll become so dependent n our respec-tive nowledgeystems, ith ll their egemonistic rends nd certain-ties, hatwehave ostour capacity o learn. For different easons,weare no longer ble to look at the world nd ourselves, ree rom urrespective ears, abits, redefined pinions, nd udgments. espitethe very dvanced orms f our technical nd scientific nowledge, e


15/29


continue to live n the dark. The lights we use are nothing but certain-ties and illusions, which give us a false feeling of security n the frag-mented niches of reality o which we have become accustomed.

3. The psychological isorders produced by these facts ffect s all.Our perception f reality scorrupted by the concepts and ideas we con-tinue to build on our past experiences. We both are fearful, nsecure,and impatient. ur fears nd habits make us indifferent o the world, oothers, nd to our real self.We look for quick answers o our problems,seldom realizing hat ur conditioned reactions othem do not allow usto

identifyhem s

they eallyre. As such, facts we act

uponare often

the symptoms ather han the deeper causes of our sufferings. he godsand ideologieswe create are meant mainly o provide us with oothingillusions, nd the exits most uitable to our fears. And the more we putour faith n them, the more they re transfigured nto certainties orwhich we are ready to fight. he violence we display n defending urcauses is then called courage or conviction. Often, t s nothing but thevery xpression f our fears nd conditioning.

4. We both tend to live for future hat has very ittle o do with whatwill actually happen, for t reflects nly the projections nto an imagi-

nary future f our fears nd illusions, nformed yall the dead, second-hand, and fragmentary pictures of the reality produced by ourrespective knowledges. Thus, we all fail to predict the unpredictable,which, more than anything lse, defines the future. Our urge to escapethe hardships of the present s so compelling that action, at any rate,becomes a fetish nd a permanently evived source of illusion. Thestrength f the waves that constantly reak up against the illusions wehave built for our psychological ecurity hardly discourages the com-pulsive activist n us. The old and forgotten rt of acting, out of sensi-tive attention to facts rather than under the blind tyranny f dailypressures, eems to us a wasteof time nd energy.

Differences etween Us" and "Them"

We now come to the real differences eparating "them" from "us,"the ones we are not always ware of.

1. The first ifference s that we are differently onditioned, eventhough we may hink we are not. Manyof us have gained a knowledge,a know-how nd privileges f important otentialities, ome of whichcould help us in fostering he quality f our interventions n other peo-ple's lives, and ours as well. In actuality, hey have given us only newmaterials or building more sophisticated mage of ourselves.Namely,many of us have come to really elieve that our education has made us


16/29

MajidRahnema 213

more conscientized han the uneducated, to such an extent that we areable to conscientize hem.

Some of us, in the PARcrowd, xpress his uperiority y the very actthat we do recognize and respect the validity f traditional nowledge,whereas nobody else does. On the other hand, the objective uperioritywefeelwehave n the fields f our competence gives s the moral respon-sibility, f not a mission, o intervene, with view o change them. Whilesome of us "feel bad" about this,we are nonetheless onvinced that fterall,wehappen to knowmore, nd they o not, for he simple reason thatwe are more educated.

Consequently,we could and should

changeor

develop them, n one way r another. The fact s that they ever think o.And we seldom draw ny essonfrom his mportant ifference.

2.As a rule,we the nterveners, hinkwe have he nswers o the problemsof the ntervened: omeof us because we haveno doubt as to the efficiencyof our professional ompetence; some, more humble and participatory,becausewe assume that, hrough AR or other methodologies nitiated yus,we will ither ind he nswers r ultimately onvince he other hat ursis right. he hypothesis s never magined hatnone of us could have thoseanswers, s none might aveyet ut the right uestions.

Moreover, he right esponse to any problem s, for us, an immediateand visible ction, able to produce a tangible result, o matter what theaftereffects f that ction are when we no longer re there. Once a situ-ation is duly problematized, t is unimaginable for us not to take anyaction; t would be a shame to be accused of favoring naction. Even ifwe are inwardly onvinced that a proposed action will only creategreater problems, we prefer o undertake t rather han lose the imageof our efficacy n action. We are never mpressed by the historical factthat the oppressed have not alwaysbeen well served by spectacular ordramatic ctions, imed only t providing hemwith n illusory elief.

This is one of the reasons whywe always esent people's resistance oany of our actions. Whenever we encounter such forms of resistance,on behalf of persons whom we seek to educate, to conscientize, or tochange, we are seldom ready to perceive them as possibly epresentingsome form of wisdom. Armed with our respective ideologies, weattribute he reasons, instead, to such factors s their primitive on-sciousness, heir ack of education, their raditional eliefs and behav-iors, or their inability o understand the complexity f modern life.And, more often han not, we tend to use strangely articipatory ormsof manipulation n order to convince them that we are right.

In short, we assume that we know who VeMare, who "they" re, andwhat can and should be done to change "them" for the better. They"never make such assumptions. ecause of that, t seldom comes to ourmind that perhaps we need to change, more than nyone else. The world


17/29


wouldbe in muchbetter hape, ndeed,wereweto realize hat uch achange hould e the first nd the most mportant oint n our genda.

Thesecomments akeusback o the uestion: owfar anparticipa-tory xercises rganized ccording o a particular ethodologyin ourcase,PAR)bring bout changes hatwouldbe fundamentally ifferentfrom hose pursued bydevelopment? an these ffect hebasicfacts,eventuallyeading o radical hanges nhuman ondition?

Changes n the outer,material onditions f certain arget opulationscan ndeed be realized,n specificallyhosen reas. hat s what evelop-ment has precisely one,and continues odo, in many ields f humanendeavor. AR nd other imilar ovementsre,no doubt, na much et-ter position oachieve venbetter esults,n a more ost-effective ndhumanized ashion. et, hemore participatory, r people-oriented,approach fPAR annot asicallylter he act hat, imilar odevelopment,it eeks nly o mproveome f he uter, ragmentedspects freality, is-regarding heir lose relationship ith he nner orld f hepeople ivingthat eality. ssuch, t also leavesno room or he regeneration f theactor's nner world o crucial o that nd. Assuch, t s llusory o maginethat t will e able to overcome he

majorbstaclesoradical

hange, nlybecause ts ction sbased n more dequate orms fparticipation.Let us not forget hat evelopment tarted lso, na way, s a "partici-

patory hallenge" o colonialism t the national evel.Considering hatcolonialrule had never ssociated he populations ith ecisions on-cerning heir ives, evelopment roposed newconcept, ased onsimilar rinciples f democratic articipation, elf-determination,nd,in many ases,"people's power." ut as the proposed changeswereintended nly oalter he outer spects f reality, evelopment ounditself ltimately ooptedby hevery orces hich t had originally ried

to destroy. he analogy may appear too farfetched; et, for thoseamongst s who really are, hematter sworth earing n mind.It s difficult,ndeed, na society f onditioned ersons, obring bout

genuine orms ffree articipationnd nteraction nd, t the ame ime,avoidviolence nd manipulation. lso, hedesign obring bout newforms fhuman elationshipnd radical ransformation y cting nly nthe ther manifestationsf ife svery nrealistic,fnot mpossible.

Toadd to thepoints lready entioned, ediscuss ere ome f hediffi-cultiesntrinsico"participatory"pproaches.everal ther ifficulties ustalsobeconsidered.

On Dialogue

Dialogue s,no doubt, mostdecisive nstrument n the genuine pro-cessof ocial nd individual ransformation, etno methodology lone


18/29

Majid Rahnema 215

is able to realize hekind f horizontal, pen-ended, nd free ialogueso much part f the Freirian chool. Dialogue s never nnocent. sthe participating ctors re seldom nwardly ree, hosewhodispose fsuch nstruments f power s ideology, nowledge, ducation, r per-sonal harisma re tempted, ooner r ater, o use them ormanipula-tivepurposes. he fact hat heir ntentions maybe pure, moral, rrevolutionarynly hanges henature f the manipulation.

On KnowledgeThe PAR roup's ssumption hat heir pproach roduces newkind fliberating nowledge,in uch way hat he dominated, nder-developedsocieties an articulate heir wn ocio-politicalosition n the basis ftheir wn valuesand capacities," annot be accepted at face value.Although hegroup dmits hat ll knowledgeystemsarry number f*Values"nd "biases,"16t doesnot eemto extend hat ruth o the newknowledgetwants obring bout Neither oes t eem o pply othe ra-ditional r ocalknowledge. oreover,t s believed hat new, evolution-ary, r total cientific nowledge( )anbedeveloped,17n the ssumptionthat he hange gents re trained o earn rom hepeople, ather han oimpose n them heir wnknowledgeystem.

Inreality,he nteractionsrenever s nnocent sthey replanned obe.The "illiterate"nd the uneducated"re,more han nce,reminded hatthey re qual othe rainers,nd engaged ncolearning rocesses ith helatter. he reminder s,however,o make hem racefullyccept he vi-dencethat ertain orms f knowledgethe ones detailed y hechangeagent) remore elevant omodern ealityhan thers. owever,snot hevery redefinedntention fblending wo ifferent orms f xisting nowl-

edgeomehow denial f

genuine earning rocesses?oes not

earningimply,nthe irst lace, hat o one really nows,nd that ealitystobe dis-coveredogether,ree rom llthe orruptivendmanipulativenfluencesfestablishednowledgeystems?

On Power

A third asicdifficulty, ntrinsic o many participatory deologies, srelated o the concept f power. he very otion f empowerment,18key lement n the newparticipatory

pproach,s questionable n

many rounds.WhenA considers t essential or to be empowered,assumes otonly hat has no power, ut lso that Ahas the ecret or-mula f power owhich has to be initiated.

Yet he fact hat eoplehavetheir wn, ifferent orms f power ro-videsno basisfor he ssertion hat hey aveno power. he belief hat


19/29


they houldgive p their orms f power gainst thers as never eenvalidated. n the ontrary, hehistorical ecord uggests hatwheneverhas been empowered ccording oA's vision f power, his as oftenserved o transform into newtyrant, otally lienated rom ts wnlife-source ower.Moreover,t seems natural hat s long s the peopleremain ypnotized y concept f power s institutionalized iolence,they re disabled n their reative fforts imed t cultivating heir wnforms f ife-sourceower.

On ChangeAgents

The notion f "change gents"was ntroduced mainly s a substitutefor the professional r expert hired by a development roject. heintention was to do away through hisnew, non-, r aprofessionalintermediary with ubject/object elationships, o replace he alienauthority f the outsider ith coactorwhosemainrolewasto act as acatalystn an endogenous rocess f self-regeneration. et, ere gain,just as the development stablishment asquietly ut surely oopted

participation, s there not a high risk hat he change agent maybegradually eleguidednto ollowinghe teps f the old expert? o whatextent ould tbe possible ostop uch trend, hich ikelymight urnthis gent nto naive ut militant arefoot eveloper, oing he amejob with more human ace but perhapswith ess professional ompe-tence? hese questions eserve deeper xamination f the ctual oleofchange gents n the process f ocial ransformation.

Technical, utward hanges, ddressing articular ituations, equirequalified nd trained ersons. ut the nondirectional, pen-ended ro-cesses f change ake lace, n real ife, s a result f events, ncounters,and insights hat lone or together ause, n each particular ase,therelease f creative nergies, hereby rompting person ogo throughthe desired hanges. t s n this ense hat veryone salways otentiallyone'sown gent f change. he concept f a change gent, cting romwithout, mplies hat uch nondirectional, pontaneous rocesses renot enough. n other words, hange stoo serious matter obe left neverybody's and;particularlyrained nd conscientized ersons houldbe givenboth the authority nd the responsibility f intervening nother people's ives, ssisting hem o "critically eflect pon, analyseand understand he ocio-economicealitynwhich hey ive."19

Nodoubt, achcommunity arbors number f gifted ersons whoare more nstrumental han thers n the creation f that ommunity'sculture. hesepersons, hohave earned o master articular ualitiesof heart nd mind, re also n a position o cultivate hepossibilitiesfchange and self-discovery,enerally ormant n the averagepeople.


20/29

Majid Rahnema 217

Grassroots ovements f exceptional mportance ave owed many ftheir chievements o the presence,within hem, f such gifted er-sons. n Asia, heGandhian, heChipko,20nd the Swadhyaya21ove-ments re examples f the ways uch nspiring gents ntereact ith essinspired ersons. o the author's nowledge,n none of these move-ments asthere een any ttempt ogive heagents professional rsocial tatus, or to submit hem ystematicallyospecialtraining ro-grams oasto confer uch tatus n them.

Theproduction nddisseminationf uch hange gents n a mass evelcouldwell e

prompted y enerousntentions,r macroreasons.et,

xpe-rience hows hat uch designs ften roduce pposite esults. he manysensitivenddelicate uman actors, hich ften onvergento gniting hesparks ecessary o such nteractions, annot imply e reproduced nmasse. heyneed the right ersonsn the right lace, particular ype frelationshipmongst he ersonsnvolved,nd host f ther onditions.

If these onditions re not respected, hoguarantees hat uch hangeagents ould otultimatelyeused ocarry oareasyet ntouched y heconventionalevelopershevalues nd biases f n alienating nowledge,together ith heir wn oliticalnd deologicalonditionings?n another

level, hen mbitious nd power-thirstyersons ith ositions f nfluenceand authority re thus arachutedn small ural reas, s t not ikely hatthey ould roduce ther, ometimes ore angerous,ypesfproblems?22

Is t possibleorealize he articipatorydeal y emovingnly hepoliticalandphysicalbstaclesoparticipation?r, would ot hepurpose e betterserved y eexamininghe henomenonn totally ifferent ontext, ne nwhich he uter ndthe nner bstacles ogenuine ormsf ooperationndrelationship ould ease o be separated rom ach other? n that ontext,could articipationeperceived,ventually,s an ntransitive ovement,ndonly nother xpressionf being-as-relating?hatwould,ndeed, aise he

question fwhethert s t llpossibleor s, he nterveners,o reate partic-ipatoryocietyf substantiallyifferent ind.nother ords,s t possibleorus, s conditionedswe ll re, o top cting nder he hauntingnfluencefour ears,rejudices,deologicalertainties,nd llusions? nd f o,how ouldwe earn o relate o others n a meaningful ay, obe sensitiveotheworldaround s, odiscoverur imitsndpossibilities,orespond ith ntelligenceandwisdomowhat s, nd o ctupon urrealitys free nd responsibleer-sons? his ection robes eepernto ome f heseuestions.

On the Art f ObservationObservation asalways een, n all cultures, hemain foundation orlearning nd acting. ts role n the genesis f the present cientific ivi-lization n the north s better nown oeveryone. et, ust as fast-food


21/29


shops nd technology re gradually ubstituting hemselvesor he oldart of cooking nd eating, dependence on ready-made ackages ofknowledgeseroding ur natural ift f earning y bserving.

Observation eans otal ttention oeverymanifestation f the real-ity n and around us. t s to isten with are nd attention othings ndpeople, sensitivityhat evelops,n the first lace, s one learns howto observe ne's ownthoughts nd attitudes. t is to ookat **whats,"directly, nd, as much s possible, ree rom he deas,prejudices, ndimages hat end o distort t. t s a selfless,ompassionatect, imed t

understandinghetruth, ot n

attemptouse t for

reconceived ur-poses.Only uch quality fobservation evelops elationship.

On Relationship

Genuine relationship oes not represent he um of conditioned, epetitiveinteractions akingplace among persons haring nly denned physicalspaceand brought ogether y hance.Assuch,not ll people belonging oconstituted ational nd economicgroups, r evencommunities nd fami-lies,

necessarilyelate o each other. uch social ntities

mayometimes

ro-vide fertile round n which heir membersmay elate, ut they end lso,more rather han less, to create superficial elationships ased either onmutual need and usage;on fear-born eligious, olitical, r cultural reeds;or on a certain onditioned dea of community ife.Assuch, ocialentitiesare generally cause of violence and division. ommunion, which s theessenceof relationship, eases when one seeks nly o use another or ne'sneeds,physicallyr psychologically.

Relationships the opposite f these uperficial elations.t sthe mirror nwhich ne can see oneself s one is. Andone cannot ee oneself hat way f ne

approaches twith conclusion, n ideology, r with ondemnation r ustifi-cation. or this indof relationship oflower,t salso essential ounderstandits rucial lace n the processeseading ofreedom, t both he ndividual ndcollectiveevels. elationship an helppeopleto observe, o isten, obe atten-tive nd alert, nd to understand ne another. nability o relate eadspeopleto run away rom heir eality, hroughmeaningless,rrelevant, nd energy-wasting ctivities. t causesthem to developonly patterns f participation,which produce nothing but superficial orms f relationship, ometimesbreedingmore iolence, esistance, nd conflict t cannot ring bout organicforms f participation,ntrinsic ogenuine elationship.

On Self Discovery

Asan individual earns o observe nd to enter nto relationships iththe world round, hat ndividual tarts he ourney oward elf-discov-


22/29

MajidRahnema 219

ery nd freedom. he attentive bserver o longerwalks r ives n thedark. oexpress t more ccurately, ne's awakened ntelligence llowsone to see,even n the dark. One starts o perceive, or he first ime,the fears nd the llusions hat havetransformed ne into n object fone's own elf-image,ndlessly epeating outine cts.The myths, hehalf-truths, nd the conditioned eflexes hathavehelped form hatimage tart alling part. The image s shattered romwithin s onerecovers ne's free, iving I."

The same s true f human ormations, sconvivial elationshipsndcollective bservations ead them to rediscover hemselves s

livingentities. rocesses f self-discoveryllowa group to listen more riti-cally o ts wn past nd present, olonger aged n the deadimages fa community, n ethnicity, r a nation. Theyhelp separate hewheatfrom he haff f traditions. hey llow hegroup orecognize, ithoutfear r prejudice, hegood and the bad aspects f new cultures ndinfluences owhich t s exposed.The notion f cultural dentity anthus be freed rom ts presently ichotomic onnotations. he differ-ences between heorganic nd the psychologicalr cultural orms fconditioning re also perceived ith reater larity. wareness f these

differences elpspeople to strengthen hedeeper roots f their ul-ture, hosedefining hevery uality nd limits f their egenerative"sap."Similarly,t helps them o critically ssess, nd cope with, heinfluences hatmay hwart hedynamics nd the free low f that ap,regardless f their rigins n time nd space.

On Action

We ive n a world n which taking ction"has become compulsiveneed.

However,he ctions hat

resently hapeour

destinyre

mostlythe products f alienated, hattering inds, rightened y he mmen-sity f problems hey re unableto confront s they re.Yet, hefear flosing ne's mage, ither s a professionalscientist, xpert, olitician,activist,nd soon) or a goodor socially ommitted uman eing, endsone always o take visible ctions with mmediate, angible esults,aimed t mpressing ne's constituencies.

Nodoubt, he ppalling orld e ive n makes t mperativeor ny en-sitive erson o act n every ay, nd at all levels, here cting epresentsthe nly right" ay obe and to relate. ut o act thatway stotally iffer-

ent from he compulsive eed of the modern manof action," r the"plans f ction" ppropriate o assistance r development rganizations,which re a total, ompassionate,nd creative esponse o ife, reciselyfree rom he fears nd the pressures eculiar omodern actomania."Actomaniarawsts ssence rom he ame nergy ntrinsico ove nd cre-ation. nd, eing he ery xpression f iving nd relating,t lso creates,


23/29


24/29

Majid Rahnema 221

ship. The contrary asalsobeen witnessed, nd more democratic/devel-opmentalist egimes have succeeded in subtly integrating" n processesof economic growth, ertain grassroots movements that had initiallybeen self-reliant. s a result, hese movementswere nipped in the bud,losingforever heir riginal momentum oward reative elf-discovery.

Another fact s often eft n the dark. Outer, macro" onditions, n allhuman society, re evolving and changing, according to their owndynamics nd contradictions. echnological, political, nd other outersocioeconomic conditions are improved n one place through violentrevolutions, nd in another

throughdemocratic

processes.As

partof

these events, hird World ountries, sing the contradictions nd hege-monic trends f present nternational ower-politics, ill most probablybe affected by the development model, regardless of the democratic,the repressive, r even the terroristic ature of their own macropowersystems. hese outward changes will also, inevitably, e followed byunpredictable events, ome favoring, thers discouraging the appear-ance of greater pacesof freedom or hevarious ctors of change.

Grassroots populations have learned to live with those outwardmacrochanges, s they ontinue o do with he macroelements, hich, n

nature, ometimes ring hemgood weather nd rains, ometimes arth-quakes, floods, nd droughts. s long as they ontinue to learn, they willalso succeed, most ikely, o develop the inner qualities (and the outerskills) hey eed to cope with heeverchangingmacroelements.

A major lesson they have all learned in the process is that time and,indeed, very mportant means, often beyond their ife-time ossibilities,are needed to witness substantial hange n the outer macroconditions.But t s quite possible, esirable, nd necessary or very erson and one'simmediate human "family" r community o cultivate nd strengthenthose nner nd endogenous qualitiesnecessary ocope with uter condi-

tions s they hange. To relate to one another, within he limits f one'shorizons, nd hence, to participate n the efforts imed at increasing ne'spossibilities f self-reliance nd conviviality, as thus been the most naturalway f iving or ll extended human families r communities.

For these very easons, ll societies, articularly he "traditional" nes,havebeen, and remain, articipant. one of them needs to be trained rinitiated y outsiders r professionals o the "secret" ormulas f modernparticipation. his leaves us, still,with major question: What causes oneto participate an outer r an inner uthority r motive? nd, n so doing,is the participant rompted yneed, greed, nsecurity, ear, nterest, ame,power verothers, r some other actors, r is there no motive r objectivefor he participant's aring, ther han he nner necessity or ne to relateto others s a sensitive umanbeing?

Assuming hat people's participation s basicallyprompted by goodmotives, he PAR and other participatory roups are essentially eeking


25/29


to bring about a more democratic atmosphere with the people con-cerned for these motives o be harmonized, nd possibly, o serve theobjectivesof a development "with human face." They think hat newforms of group interactions and processes of conscientization, ofempowerment, of knowledge creation, among others, can highlyimprove oth the content nd the direction f participation. heir pro-posed methodology s intended to- and does indeed facilitate hecommon search for new elements of change along the same lines. Asthe approach does not at all touch upon the deeper question of human

conditioning,which defines

people'sultimate easons to

participate,t

remains basically n attempt t improving he modalities of participa-tion, lwayswithin he old transitive aradigm.

The most sensitive questions explored in this article remain, thus,hardly ouched by the PAR groups: Can participation, r any superfi-cial, outwardly rganized form of relationship r cooperation, change,in any serious way, a society of persons who have psychologicallyremained the same; that is, persons who, for their own, sometimesunderstandable, reasons, remain violent, fearful, reedy, nd indiffer-ent to each other? f nothing can affect his fact, s it not ikely hat par-

ticipation as development, s education, as nationhood, and as manyother colonizing concepts of our time) would be ultimately ooptedand used, in the framework f still more sophisticated nd "civilized"forms f violence, division, nd indifference? n another evel, s anyparticular methodology lone able to actually hange the psychologicalreasons for which people do or do not participate? Or, is it not morerealistic oaccept the fact that uch methodologies an change, at best,only the external, superficial reasons, the objectives pursued by theparticipants, lso submitting hem to more democratic ules?

These questions may appear discouraging o the activist. et t s per-haps time to bear them n mind. It serves no one to make a new fetishout of participation, nly because nonparticipatory evelopment hasfailed n everyway. o do so willbe to create yet nother llusion.

A participation, lanned in advance, to serve particular ause, exter-nal to the deeper psychological easonsprompting t, s, by definition,served from ts iving ource. t can foster nly hattering, rantic ctivismor, at best, social, political, or economic purposes of very econdaryimportance. t is, ultimately, dead tool. And as such, it is inevitablybound to fall nto the hands of the highest idder on the power market.It can never erve freedom, elf-discovery, r creative ction.

The essence of the participatory ream, dear to our modern mendi-cants, resides n the truly bserving nd compassionate ndividualwhohas learned to relate o facts nd to other human beings, ree rom ears,illusions, mages, nd colonizing concepts, which prevent hemind fromseeing reality s it s. As such, any transitive orm f participation that s,


26/29

MajidRahnema 223

interested articipation becomes estructive f he ntrinsic ctofrelat-ing.The latter s not moral uty r an obligation oanonymous thers.It s a oyful ecessityor ne to ive s a human eing.

To live hat way equires, ndeed, tremendous nergy, ntelligence,and sensitivity,nd above ll, an unusual nner reedom, articularlyna worldwhere hemediatized egemony f authoritative nd attractiveconcepts ssystematicallyorrupting eople's faculty f perception. timplies that one questions endlessly ne's own motives, ttitudes,beliefs, ays f ife,habits, raditions, nd thought rocesses. nd to

questions not to be

pathologicallykepticalbout

everything;tonlymeans obe criticallyelf-awarend yet assionately ompassionate. y

fully articipating n the world, uch a person ecomesnot only ne'sown hange gent, ut ne who,by he ame oken, hanges heworld.

The last,but ndeed not the east, uestion s now n the reader'smind: How "real" and "common" are such unique and beautifulhuman eeds? And f uch eeds do exist t all, s t possible hat, hanksto some man-made onditions, heygrow nd multiply o becomeforests ventually? s it conceivable that uch agents of self-changedevelop nto quantitativelyubstantial orce s well?

Theanswerso his uestion,f ny,merit new rticle, f t east he amelength. et he ollowingints ased n the bservation f couple frecentsignificantrassroots ovementsre offered,nconclusion,s modest oodfor hought lthough are,many uchpersons anbe found ho re relat-ing o and acting ith thers, ithout nypeculiarmotive r self-interest.Rather han particular ethodology,erhaps special piritual uality23nrelating o the world ransforms hem nto ources f nspirationo others.Finally,he elationshipsndthe ery resence f his mall roup fpersonsproduce staggeringontagion f ntelligencendcreativity.osaymore nthe ubjectspremature t this tage.

Notes

1. Mendicant s used here in its old religious ense. The controversy hat edGrard d'Abeville to launch his notorious attacks on Saint Thomas could becompared today to the differences between the new change agents and thehard-line evelopment planners and programmers. ike d'Abeville, the latterbelieve that a "professional," elf-respecting nstitution hould know what thepeople want and how to meet their needs, before they have even discoveredthem. Public funds re too precious to be left n the hands of irresponsible r,

worse, "underdeveloped" people. In contrast, the new participatory gentsseem to follow he old mendicants n their belief that true charity onsists n aconversationter auperesa dialogue or intercourse with he poor), rather han aliberalitas rga auperes condescension over the poor). See MichelMollat,Etudessur 'histoire e a pauvret Paris: Publication de la Sorbonne, Srie Etude, Tome8, 1974),p. 156.


27/29

224 Participatory ctionResearch

2. R. S. McNamara, "Address o the Board of Governors,*1ddress deliveredto the World Bank. Washington, .C., September 25, 1972d. 83. "Amoeba** r "plastic** ordswere coined by Uwe Prksen and Ivan Illich.

They describe words that modern argon uses like plastic pieces of toys for llpurposes; they mean nothing nd everything. s they re totally evered fromthe culture, the space-time, nd the context to which they riginally elonged,they can very well serve manipulative purposes. Development, sexuality,resource, problem, dentity, elfare, rocess, nd communication re examplesof such words dentified y Prksen. See Uwe Prksen, Plastikwrter ie Spracheeiner nternationalen iktatur Stuttgart: lett-Cotta, 988), especially page 41,which contains a list f such words.

4. SheldonAnnis,

The Next World Bank?Financing Development

from heBottom Up,*1 rassrootsevelopment1 No. 1, 1987):25.

5. Annis, note 4, pp. 25-26.6. Ibid., p. 26.7. On the fast-growingnterest n the NGOsby both the private unding rga-

nizations nd governments f capitalist ountries, ee Majid Rahnema, "NGOs,Sifting the Wheat from the Chaff,** evelopment, ociety for InternationalDevelopment No. 3, 1985):68-71.

8. Andrew Turton, Production, ower nd Participation n Rural Thailand(Geneva:UNRISD,1987),p. 12.

9. Other definitions re sampled n Turton spresentation Turton, note 8, p.12) A first ne suggests the need to bridgewhat sperceived o be a communica-

tion gap between die people and the tate.** nother ivespriority o"creating et-ter ccessor mechanisms or receiving ew nputs nto a more or lessunchangedlocalpolitical nd economic tructure, r of allowing or ome satisfaction f basicor felt needs.** third laces emphasis misleadingly,*1n Turton s erms, on thedecentralization f power which often results n increasing he participation fexisting ocal power holders.**or Turton, hesedefinitions, lthough eventuallyleading to some beneficia] utcome, re all limited nd partial.

10. See Matthias Stiefel nd Marshall Wolfe, The Quest for Participation,**UNRISDmimeographed reliminary eport, une 1984,p. 12. The authors ndicatethat, or hem, the entral ssueof popularparticipation as to do with ower, xer-cised by some people over the people, and by ome classesover other classes. . .Closely inked o this ocussingn power sthe notion f the Excluded' and the deci-sion to focus n their truggles or ncreased articipation.**aving tated hat artic-ipation an be "viewed s an encounter etween he excluded and those ocial forces,values and ideologiesthat maintain heir xclusion,**heyhad come up with heVorkine definition**uoted n the main ext f the paper.

11. Orlando Fais Borda, Knowledge nd People'sPower New Delhi: IndianSocial Institute, 988), p. 2.

12. For a more elaborate discussion n the concepts of power and empower-ment n relation with grassroots movements, ee Majid Rahnema, "Power ndRegenerative Processes n Micro-Spaces,**nternational ocialScienceournal no.117, August 1988), a UNESCOpublication.

13. Fais Borda, note 11,p. 5.14. Ibid., p. 32.15. Paolo Freire, Cultural Action or Freedom Harmonsworth: Penguin

Books:1975).dd. 57-71.16.According to Orlando Fais Borda, "Any cience as a cultural product has

a specific human purpose and therefore mplicitly arries those biases and val-ues which cientists old as a group.** aisBorda, note 11, p. 93.


28/29

Majid Rahnema 225

17. See Fais Borda, note 11, p. 88, where he states, "Academic knowledgecombined with popular knowledge nd wisdom maygive as a result total sci-entific knowledge of a revolutionary ature (and perhaps a new paradigm),which destroys hepreviousunjust lassmonopoly."

18.Rahnema, note 12,pp. 364-367.19. Harsh Sethi, Refocussing raxis, report of the UNU-UNDP Interaction

Programme or enior Action Researchers n South Asia, ndia, 1987, p. 52.20. The Chipko movement literallymeaning the people who hug the trees)

is the modern expression of an older movement aid to have started 250 yearsago in a village n the desert rea of Raj sthan. Amrita Devi, ts first eader, wasa young girl who had been taught to love and protect trees, as one of the

twenty-nineenets f her Vishnoi aith. When the

Maharajaof

Jodhpursent his

men to cut the trees round her village n order to build a palace, Amrita ndher friends pposed them by hugging he trees. As a result, more than 350 peo-ple, mostlywomen, were chopped by the axe men. The tragedy o upset theMaharaja that he decided to stop the operations. The present Chipko move-ment began in the early 1960s by a group of young social workers fromNorthern Uttar Pradesh, all devoted to Gandhian ideals. In the 1970s, theywere forced nto confrontation with commercial nterests. oday, they consti-tute a powerful grassroots movement. They address local problems in fullawarenessof their cological and wider macrodimensions. The movement hasinitiated n Indian law now forbidding he felling f trees growing 1500 metersand more above sea level, in the entire Himalayan range. The movement s

largely sustained and animated by women. See Vandana Shiva and J.Bandyopadhyay, "The Evolution, Structure and Impact of the ChipkoMovement,"MountainResearchnd Development (no. 2, 1986):132-142.

21. Swadhyaya, iterally meaning self-knowledge r self-discovery, s quite alarge grassroots movement, now mainly covering Gujarat and Maharashtraprovinces n India. Although henumber of people involved n the movement sestimated o be over three million, nd the social and economic activities nder-taken by ts members have changed the livesof thousands of communities, t isless known n the developed world. The movement has almost no structure, oprogram, no methodology, nd even no registered member or administrativesetup, n the conventional ense. It looks, rather, ike a huge family in Hindi,panvar, as it is actually called by the Swadhyayi), inspired by its founderPandurang Athwale hastri, ffectionately alled Dada, or the "elder brother.**Dada, a 68-year-old rahmin cholar of Bombay,who does not have any formaleducation, thought f the movement he calls t a "stream**)hirty-five ears go.But as he did not believe n any kind of directed ntervention, e waited almostten to fifteen ears orhis deas on self-discovery o be realized by the first nter-ested villages.The basic idea underlying he whole movement s related to anold Hindu belief hat here sa god in each person. To discover nd to relate tothat nner god is the key o one's liberation, or hat discovery ivesone all thestrength eeded in life. elf-reliance s therefore ot only moral attitude, ut adirect onsequence of the power derived rom he constant nteraction with hatinner god. One of the most original and interesting eatures of Swadhyaya sthat t has succeeded in generating ven great material wealth, utside the eco-nomic paradigm. With no assistance rom ny outside source, t s said already ohave economic assets estimated to be over one billion rupees. There is littlematerial, n English, n Swadhyaya. wo scholars of the Centre for the Study fDevelopingSocieties,Ramashray oy nd R. K. Srivastava, re preparing bookon the subjectfor heUnited Nations University.


29/29

226 MajidRahnema

22. The situation eported byOrlando Fais Borda in Puerto Tejada (and thePeople's CivicMovement of Northern Cauca, which grew nto a political frontas a result of the local PAR experiences in 1978) is worth mentioning. Here,the dogmas carried by the change agents were those of the "vanguard eft romwhich most of the cadres were drawn." The movement, which tarted s a popu-lar one, suffered reatly from he unexpected self-sufficiency f some of thefounding cadres who, perhaps overacting, began to create difficulties ndimpose their views at all costs on the meetings. The movement no longerbelonged to the people and became an arena for Byzantine onflicts t theindividual nd group levels. The movement became a vested nterest reatedfrom bove and from outside the people's base organizations" (Fais Borda,note

16, p. 42).Anisur Rahman makes

interestingomments on the "new

forms f domination over the masses"by the vanguard party pproach. See histhoughtful rticle, The Theory and Practice of Participatory ction Research,"in Orlando Fais Borda, The Challenge of Social Change (New Delhi: SagePublications. 985). dd. 107-133.'11

23. Short of a better word, "spiritual" has been used, here, to express thequalities described in the last part of this article: sensitivity, he art of seeingand listening o the world (the inner and the outer), without he "me" constantly nterfering n the process; the ability o relate to others and to do andact, without ny particular "plan" or ulterior motive; and indeed those basicqualities of ove,compassion, and goodness, now so rare n monetized ocieties.It matters ittle whether ne has a religious, n atheistic, r a scientific mind.

For a spiritual person, human beings, n their relations both with each otherand with nature, are not instigated by only material, conomic, and worldlyinterests. here is a "sacred" dimension to their ives which transcends hose,giving meaning to such awesome phenomena as life, death, ove, beauty, ndperhaps the gods or the od in which they believe. As such, the spiritual ersonfully understands and empathizes with people's sufferings nd concern formaterial or worldly hings. Yet, he does not believe that the answer to suchproblems can be provided only through outward nterventions f a materialand fragmented ature. ndividuals and groups who are aware of the spiritualand sacred dimension n them are in a much better osition ofind more ntel-ligent nd holistic nswers. Free from the limitations f the egocentric mind,they an go to the heart of problems and take the right ction without hatter-ing and philosophizing. A religious mind has generally that spiritual quality,incompatible with the ritualistic r fanatical belief in a particular religion asagainst nother. The spiritual uality annot coexist with he arrogant cientificbelief hat he world s nothing but matter, hat ll human affairs an be under-stood and properly managed through cience, and that no phenomenon is ofinterest hat annot be scientifically alidated.

Documents

Rahn Ema Par Critique