A recent article in the Times seeks to ruffle a few feathers by suggesting that African development is dependent upon faith. The development industry, guided by secular voices, cannot bridge the current gaps that prevent Africans from taking ownership over their own development. Faith, or at least the evangelical espousing by faith-based NGOs and their ilk, provides the proper grounding and renewal (or rebirth) necessary for real development to take place.
The author, Matthew Parris, says that he has come to the realization, against his rationalization as an atheist, that religious (he focuses his argument to Christianity) organizations are the best conduit to development. He writes of his time in Malawi, "In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall."
This is contrasted with the tribal beliefs that foment hostility and individualism. "Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders."
This groupthink (his word) stifles creativity and prevents individualism and, by extension, entrepreneurial experimentation. Therefore, he argues, before we can advocate development "A whole belief system must first be supplanted."
I won't quote the final statement but it is, to my mind, especially condescending.
The responses to the 'article' are almost evenly divided between those that applaud Parris' argument and those that cringe at his selective memory. A couple of interesting points are below:
"I was born in Nyasaland, too. I am delighted to hear of good works but fear that things are just a bit more complex than Matthew thinks.
How, for example, does he view decades of Catholic teaching against contraception (i,e use of condoms)?"
Robert in Vancouver is more direct:
"Balderdash. Missionaries should never have entered Africa -or any other country - in the first place, disrupting culture on a devastating scale
I say this in honour of the millions killed and traditions abolished by the Holy cross and the white habits.
Oh, those Brits will never learn !"
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This story reminds me of the work of Weber on how societal developments are to a large part grounded in cultural elements and shifts therein, especially religion. His big thing was that the development of modern capitalism was ultimately dependent on the rise of Protestantism - that the Protestant Ethic gave the "spirit of capitalism" (rational economic behaviour) a moral grounding and valuation that it needed to steer human behaviour on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteAre we onto something similar here? If so, how should we evaluate it?
Weber wasn't all that critical of religion's contribution to capitalist development; he more just told the story - his take - on how it happened. Ultimately, he said, capitalist behaviour lost its underpinnings - its grounding in the "calling"; modern capitalism took off on its own terms, rather automatically, after awhile.
I'm uncertain whether I agree or disagree with Parris on development's need for religion. I've met people for whom religion provides people hope, comfort, and motivation. Some populist leaders have instilled similar feelings, and maybe more Obama-esque charisma would be better than reliance on religion, which is so often accused as being empty, misleading, and destructive. But are we really in a position to automatically dismiss and de-value any and all religion for its adherents? The conservative elements - e.g. anti-contraception - are certainly troubling, as have been culturally-destructive colonial practices. But how do we balance the bad against the good, and who should be doing the evaluating?
I think we need to know more about which Christian denominations Parris has been looking at and what types of messages and practices they've been promulgating.