Q. Is it possible to define Development?

Just like religious beliefs, can

Development also be treated as a belief?

A. INTRODUCTION
“Development is about transforming the lives of people, not just transforming economies. So,
while economists took the sociology out of political economy, sociologists took out the
economy.”
-Amartya Sen

The quote stated above by Amartya Sen highlights how sociologists view the term
development. They do not restrict it to the monetary understanding, which involves the growth
and development economies. Rather, it is a term shared by many in a variety of fields.
But it is important to understand that when psychologists speak of development of intelligence,
mathematicians of the development of an equation, or photographers of a development of a
film, it gives a unified sense of the word development as growth, progress or an event
constituting a news stage in a changing situation.

Hence, the term development is used in several ways, but however most sociologists agree that
development should mean, at the very least, improvement or progress, at least for people who
desperately need positive change in their lives.

DEFINING DEFINITION
One may ask why it is important to define dynamic words like development in a changing
world like ours, where definitions may not be permanent due to evolving environments. The
answer lies in the fact that words like “development” are terms that are often used very widely,
but unfortunately we fail to understand what they encompass and where they origin from.

And it is true that there has been a change in the definition of development overtime, it has
oscillated between the economic and social understanding throughout the years. Nevertheless,
we should not deprive such integral terms of a definition because definitions enable us to have
a common understanding of a word or subject; they allow us to all be on the same page when
discussing or reading about an issue.

Like President Abraham Lincoln said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend
the first four sharpening the axe”, we all should take out the time to “sharpen the axe” and give
some thought into properly defining the words we use in our daily vocabulary.
So, despite changing overtime a definition should comprise of everything, it should be holistic.
We need definitions to make ideas universally clear so that their application is uniform, in order
to avoid confusions.
To have such clear definitions, Durkheim has proposed a two-fold model that are the basic
features every definition should include:

1. Holistic: A definition should cover all phenomena and meanings. Abstract and dynamic
words like development give more scope for exploration of the word and the elements
it encompasses.
The fact is that the terms we use on a daily basis do not have just one correct meaning.
Words can mean different things at different times. They come into existence to express
thoughts by a group of people that share them, at a point in time, with a meaning that
reflects their origin, use, and timeframe.
Take, for instance, the word awful. Originally, that word meant "worthy of awe", as in
"very inspiring". However, over time it has come to mean bad, displeasing, offensive,
etc. Therefore, any definition should view terms and their properties as wholes and
capture the varying essence it carries.

2. External characteristics: Characteristics here refers to A distinguishing feature or

attribute of an item, person, phenomenon, etc., usually divided into two categories:
(i) physical, and (ii) functional.
To understand how these characteristics are applied, lets define a telephone.
Accordingly we use all traditional thoughts and characteristics to understand it. We
would define it as a system for transmitting voices over a distance using wire or radio
(functional characteristics), typically consisting of a single unit including a handset with
a transmitting microphone and a set of numbered buttons (physical characteristics).
It is only with the external characteristics that one can fully understand the definition
of any term and/or object.

To summarise, we would define any term with the help of the following pointers:
• A definition should be devoid of preconceptions. Rather it should consist all the
phenomena and meanings with the help of which it is fully understood.
• It focuses on external characteristics to communicate a physical and functional
definition.
• A definition should not be a pseudo definition by being the ideal types. It should be
realistic. It has nothing with how you think but what is actually happening.
DEFINING DEVELOPMENT
As explained above, in order to define something, we first have to focus on all meanings and
elements related to it. There have been several debates regarding the definition of development,
and what exactly it encompasses. In ordinary language, the term is used to denote either a state
or a process associated with such concepts as material well-being, progress, social justice,
economic growth, personal blossoming, or even ecological equilibrium.

The varying concepts it comprises of are expressed by the multitude of definitions the word
carries, for instance:

 The Report of the South Commission defines development as, “A process which enables
human beings to realize their potential, build self-confidence, and lead lives of dignity
and fulfilment. It is a process which frees people from the fear of want and
exploitation.”
It understands development as giving individuals the freedom of space to grow and
prosper.

 The Petit Robert Dictionary views the term with respect to underdeveloped and
developing countries, and hence understands the term in the sense of a process of
growing and blossoming, while stating its definition as, “Developing country or region,
whose economy has not yet reached the level of North America, Western Europe.”

 The Human Development Report stated that development can only exist if people are
given equal opportunities by saying, “The basic objective of human development is to
enlarge the range of people’s choices to make development more democratic and
participatory.”

We might comment at length on these definitions and demonstrate their various

presuppositions: social evolutionism (catching up with the industrialized countries),
individualism (developing the personality of human beings), economism (achieving growth
and access to greater income). We might also show how the definitions themselves are either
normative (what should happen) or instrumental (what is the purpose).

The most important question, however, is whether these really are definitions?

To answer this, Gilbert Rist attempts to make a definition with respect to the requirements of
a definition that are mentioned above. It is not sufficient to speak of development as social
change, rather it has to reflect a “developmental” change which distinguishes modern societies
from those which have gone before.
The definition is as follows, “Development consists of a set of practices, sometimes appearing
to conflict with one another, which require, for the reproduction of society, the general
transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations. Its aim is to
increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by way of exchange, to
effective demand”.
  The practices in question (economic, social, political and cultural) correspond to the
‘external characteristics’ that Durkheim invoked to exclude from a definition any
normative aspect stressing what is hoped as against what actually occurs.

 The reproduction of society include practices that enable the world system to reproduce
itself by expanding the area within its grasp, so that it assures the existence of societies
(or social classes) included within the system, and washes its hands of those excluded
from it.

 The general transformation and destruction of the natural environment... refers to the
economic process where a previously available resource is thus converted into an object
or a product whose recycling is either problematic (requiring new energy costs) or
impossible; with the result that the destruction of the natural environment becomes
worse (pollution).
Continuing with this, ...and of social relations refers to the fact that social relations are
not free from the rule of the commodity and exploitation, i.e. from exchange-value
determined by supply and demand.

 To increase the production of commodities (goods and services) means the process is
geared to increased production, on the assumption that ‘more’ necessarily means
‘better’. For many instances this is true, but it should be borne in mind that all
production necessarily involves destruction.

 Geared to effective demand means that people produce in order to sell, and they
sell so that they can buy something else. This axiomatics of self-interest, explicitly
excluding any reliance on the kindness of others, stands in radical contrast to the
practices of generosity and gift-exchange that characterize most societies in the past.

The definition we have used above has the advantage that it describes a historical phenomenon,
synthesizes what is common to a mass of diverse practices, especially since this definition is
the path that development has chosen in many countries for the past two centuries.

The truth is however that we are still stuck on a western notion of development, comparing all
the third world countries to North American and European nations, holding them as examples
of what development means. Though the definition above focuses on a historical perspective
of the term, it still emphasises on the economic notions. The main debates about development
are underpinned by modernity, meaning that development agencies such as the World Bank
and the United Nations aim to replicate within developing societies the material and cultural
experience of modern Western societies such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
Because of such a definition third world countries are treated as outcasts. Moreover expansion
of human capabilities is not given as much importance as economic growth.

So while it is possible to define development, we are unfortunately stuck on an economic

perspective which limits us from drawing a full picture of what the commonly used term means.
DEVELOPMENT AS A BELIEF
When we talk about the trajectory of the term development to being understood as a belief, we
first need to understand what a belief is. In simple terms, it can be viewed as a set of principles
or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.

Over the years, development as a definition has shifted from the economic understanding. It
states that just as economic growth is necessary for human development, human development
is critical to economic growth. The issue is not only how much economic growth, but what
kind of economic growth. However till date, many believers of developments wish to pursue
economic growth, hence restricting the entire concept of development.
In fact, just like any social belief, let’s say religious belief, even development can be treated as
a belief in the same manner. Such social beliefs are a kind of collective certainty; their
concrete forms may be debatable, and they may even be doubted in private, but it would be
improper to question their validity in public.

In other words, socialisation of groups have led us to widely accept certain beliefs, even though
if we personally do not agree with them. On the surface the entire belief of development seems
like a good idea as it fosters growth, progress, and prosperity for any country. However some
of us may not be comfortable with the methods used to pursue development as a belief system.
In today’s say and age, the entire concept of development, especially as economic growth has
led to widespread destruction.
Similarly, not everyone agrees that technological progress and economic recovery can solve
unemployment and poverty. Nevertheless such ‘floating propositions’ propagated by
authorities are accepted publicly.

Despite privately disagreeing with the methods of development, many still publicly accept how
things go. This is because in a society, defying widespread social beliefs like development,
religion, human rights, leads to alienation and aloofness. A person would be treated like an
outcast if they speak against the current trends of development.
Religion and development can both be understood as the belief of a given social group in
certain indisputable truths, which determine obligatory behaviour in such a way as to
strengthen social cohesion.

Development is viewed as an element of modern religion, because people rarely threaten the
existence of the term as a belief, especially since in the name of development promises are
tirelessly repeated and experiments constantly reproduced.
Just as Christians know all about the numerous crimes committed in the name of their faith,
yet continue to uphold it, so do the ‘development’ experts increasingly recognize the mistakes
without questioning their reasons for soldiering on. Belief is so made that it can easily tolerate
contradictions especially as, unlike scientific theories, it cannot be refuted. This is why science
changes faster than belief.

Thus, development appears to be a belief and a series of practices which form a single whole
in spite of contradictions between them. The belief is no less real than the practices, because
they are indissolubly linked to each other. Together, they reflect the logic of a society
undergoing globalization.