Constantino, Louie Antoine Ma. R.

Hidalgo, Steven H.
Ku, Francis Gregory L.
Manalastas, Gabriel
Nieto, Ana Ysabel

MA#3
Development and Progress

How different or similar are their notions of development and progress?

While the interviewees have relatively similar notions of development and progress, they
also have distinguishable differences. They are similar in that both the interviewees agree that
development is not always necessarily a good or bad thing as it is dependent on the perspective
and scale. They both believe that there is a need for lower-income sectors and minorities to be
included in the valuation of development to truly determine whether it is good or not. They are
also similar in that they associate material and wealth as an indication of development and
progress, but the interviewee from the rural area went more in-depth with social factors such as
rights and trust in the government while the urban mainly associated it with technological
advancement. Next, they also agreed that presently, they now realize the need for awareness
for the wellbeing of the community and the need for contribution from various sectors. A
difference, however, is how the rural interviewee sees contribution based on the area while the
urban interviewee sees contribution as an individual obligation. Another difference is how the
interviewees saw development as children. The rural interviewee associated development with
material possession and audacious avenues, while the urban interview associated development
with proper education and potential for financial sustainability through high-earning jobs.

What accounts for the difference/similarity? (You may include this by asking about any of
the following: (1) where they get information and ideas on development such as
news/media, school, informal kwentuhan with people, (2) line of work/ work experience
which may shape their notions of development, (3) locality/where they live, and so on.

The similarity between the notions of development and progress of both respondents
was due to the similarity of sources of information, social circles, and work experience. Although
Trisha and Skyler were both raised in areas with different socio-economic backgrounds, different
cultures, and different levels of infrastructure and development- they were both able to access
higher education in Manila. This meant that Trisha, although physically in a different area than
Skyler, was able to experience and learn about similar notions of development, talk and
establish social circles with people with similar beliefs, and establish similar notions of
development. This includes, although being in different schools, the receiving of similar
education in subjects such as social science and being exposed to multifaceted perspectives on
development. This is why both Trisha and Skyler see development as a medium that is not
merely good or merely bad and is instead something that’s benefit and perceived value is
“relative to the receiver.” It is important to note, however, that Skyler’s answers are more
centered on “individualism” and development of the “self” with both his notions of development
in the past and of others, being references to one’s own social obligations, economic status, or
position. Trisha, on the other hand, sees development more in the sense of the people, areas,
and communities. One possible reason behind the difference between their two views is that
Trisha, as a person born in Hinoog and as a senior high student government official that has
participated in underdeveloped communities in Cagayan de Oro, was constantly exposed to
development in the forms of small areas and communities. Nevertheless, both share similar
notions of development that look at opportunity, government, agency, and infrastructure and
how it relates to an individual and collective progress.

Do they view development in the level of global, national, or local? Economic or more
about human development, health, or environmental sustainability (or other forms of
development; you can categorize this)?

In the modern world, economy is oftentimes seen as the primary factor to the
development of a nation. This, in turn, makes nations such as the Philippines to be seen as
underdeveloped and poor and those such as Japan as highly developed and rich. Nonetheless,
the two interviewees do view the Philippines as an underdeveloped nation. The urban-based
interviewee seemed to focus more on how it’s “backwards,” while the rural-based interviewee
focused more on excessive urbanization of the nation, and instead looks more into the health of
the public, especially today with the pandemic becoming a serious problem. In general, both
seem to have the same general idea of development in a local, national, or global level: the
wellbeing of a person. However, it’s also worth noting how the urban-based interviewee seems
to focus more on the technology and wealth held by the nation, while the rural-based
interviewee focuses more on the social and political aspects of the nation (e.g. human rights,
community, government trust).

This difference in views alone already shows how the modern view of development only
applies to those who actually see rapid and constant development occur around them. Such is
the case of urban-based interviewee who lives in a rapidly developing area. They’re expected to
catch up to this tremendous speed, as being left behind could risk them to stay in the streets
and be labeled as “people of poverty.” While some may not see this as a bad thing, it doesn’t
help that they’ve been taught by their family, school, and everyone around them that being poor
and in the streets is the last thing they’d want. Hence, their views on development are fixed on
the economic aspect. As for the rural-based interviewee, wealth isn’t much of an issue, as
things around them are simple and slow. All that matters is that everyone is healthy and happy,
and that they have food, shelter, education, and a community. It doesn’t occur to them that
they’d become “poor,” as they’re not looked down as such, unlike the urban and modern view of
“poor.” Instead, they focus on people over money, hence their focus on social and political
aspects of development. Their views are simply tied to what they see in their everyday life.
Do they adhere to the development espoused by the 'West'? What makes you say so
(based on their responses)?

The western notion of development was often deemed as the sole process to
modernization. Through means such as colonization and intervention, Western nations were
able to apply their idea of development to third world countries. It created the idea that Western
civilizations are role models and examples that third world countries should model themselves
after. Western development highlighted technological advancement, individualism and a
capitalist structure as means to progress as a society. These notions were applied through the
aforementioned means to civilizations the West deemed to be underdeveloped such as the
Philippines and other Third World countries. The influence and application of this process of
development is still seen in the country today and evidence of this are the interviews we
conducted. Both interviewees adhere to the development espoused by the ‘West’ due to the fact
that both seem to associate development with material wealth, technological advancement,
industrialization and social freedom/agency. Their associations are all factors underneath the
development of a mature capitalist country, something the ‘West’ hailed as the blueprint for all
development. The interviewee from the urban area seemed to adhere more to the ‘West’ as he
seemed to adopt a more top down and technocentric approach to development. In contrast
while the rural area interviewee still adhered to what the ‘West’ suggests development is, the
interviewee also showed flashes of cultural awareness as she went a bit further in depth on the
effects of development on the indigenous people and lower income communities, as compared
to the urban interviewee.

Pick at least 2 concepts (Escobar's ideas on development, world-systems, Knauft's

progress, Kimura, etc) from Module 3. How would you link the interview responses with
concepts and ideas derived from Module 3?

Judging by the responses the interviewees gave, it was clear that their idea of
development was mostly centered in Escobar’s idea of development, in particular, that there is a
projected ill or enemy that society faces and must be answered through development. Think of
how Skyler automatically said that for them, development is lesser poverty. With Trisha, it is
implied in how she mentions how development means getting better from the current state.
Though Trisha’s is implied and does not mention a specified enemy or ill, she does suggest in
her “general notion” of development also including material growth of a community at times,
which can mean that lack of infrastructure and economic development may be considered the
enemy of development in her case. Both interviewees then seem to have been educated in the
same train of thought of what development is as defined back in the early 20th century.
Moreover, both their notions of development take into account “The promise of Science and
Technology” as talked about by Escobar. Skyler and Trisha get to show this when they both
speak explicitly on having technology, and implicitly on the benefits of technology (such as
logistical efficiency). They are able to also understand that there is a caveat to these notions of
development. They recognize how development must now take into account all social
delinations from the confines of the homogeneity of the global notion of culture, which is simply
the west’s own imposition of culture disguised in the idea of global benefit. This then seems in
line with Kimura’s second notion of globalization, on how Asia is the driving force behind
globalization and in turn, development. This is more explicitly stated by Trisha in how she now
declares it important that progress must come with what the indigenous communities deem best
with what they already have, combining them and making the proposed outcome of that
merging the standard of development. As much as most of their notions of development feel
hinged a lot on the westerner’s definition of it, it is heartening to recognize that they understand
that development is no longer just static, that of what the west says.

Personally, what are your notions of development and progress before and after reading
Module 3? Link at least 2 concepts (Escobar's ideas on development, world-systems,
Knauft's progress, Kimura, etc) from Module 3.

Before reading the module, the group generally saw development and progress through
an economic lens, focusing mainly on technological advancements and wealth. However, after
reading the module, everyone agreed that our initial notion was very wrong.

The problem with the notion of development and progress today is that (at least in the
non-Western nations) we have to throw away our “backward” ways and cultures in the promise
that we would prosper. It follows a Western view that essentially says that our cultures, our
lifestyle, our religions—they’re all wrong, or as Escobar puts it: “abnormalities” that should be
reformed. It’s an ethnocentric view of the world, which assumes that everyone in the world has
the same values, cultures, and backgrounds as us—or in this case, the West. Such ethnocentric
view could also be seen in the colonial period, when the Western world justified its actions of
exploiting and slavery as a way of making them “more developed” or “more educated” when the
colonies were obviously doing alright with their own methods such as spice trades.

The problem that people face today with development is that it’s not something that
everyone wants, but rather is something that is being forced into us. Not everyone wants to be
surrounded by money, some just want to watch the stars with their family. Unfortunately, that
can’t happen unless people choose to stop looking through an ethnocentric view of things and
understand that there are other cultures, societies, and communities that are prosperous in their
own way. The only way to get past this barrier is if people choose to accept that there aren’t any
wrong but different values, cultures, and backgrounds in this world. Just as Tu Wei-Ming hopes
to see, we need to learn to accept each other's differences, and maybe even pick up each
others’ values. That way, we can all live in a world full of diverse yet harmonious cultures.
Interview Proper

Person 1: Skyler Kho Person 2: Trisha Abao ( Rural)

(Urban)

● I guess I associate it ● Wellbeing of the citizens

What is your general
notion of
development and
progress? What
words, images, or
emotions do you
associate with it?
with Technology (do they have rights?)
and I guess Wealth, ● Material well being of
I guess less the area (roads and
poverty in a sense, infrastructure)
just better quality ● Logistical Efficiency of
of life in general an area
● Trust in the government

● I guess growing up,

How did your notions
of development and
progress look like
when you were
growing up?
● Basic idea of
the idea of ● When she was young,
development is that she thought progress
you are able to was about the flashy
finish school and things (how many malls,
pursue business how advanced is the
or become a transportation)
doctor, well-paying
jobs
development: able
to sustain yourself
financially in life
 ● In the Philippines, ● It’s not just about the
How does it look like not so good for the flashy stuff, but also the
today (compared to next few years, it’s well being of the people.
what you thought of probably gonna be ● Not everywhere has to
it when you were really slow or even be a metro area / very
young)? backwards urbanized area
● In general, the world ● “If an area can take
Based on current after the pandemic advantage of their
events, how do you will continue to specialization”
think development progress as usual, ● Prioritization on public
and progress will we also have to health because of the
look like in the balance it with pandemic (shift in
future? problems of global developmental
warming, corruption progress)
and political
agendas. Even
though there’s still
gonna be those
problems, I think in
general the world
will be better
 ● Depends on where ● Not necessarily bad;
Do you see the development is, development and
development and if it’s exclusive or progress implies
progress as only to the upper getting better from a
good/positive or class and the certain state
bad/negative? why? politicians, then it’s ● When done too much
How would this obviously not a very (development
perspective on good thing because aggression)
development impact it doesn't really ● People in the marginal
your everyday life? benefit the general communities are being
population or put in jeopardy fo the
those who need it sake of development
more, so it depends ● This is when it becomes
on what kind of negative (harms the
development it is lives of people)
● Development is
relative
● Digitalization/urbanizat
ion looks like
development to us, but
what about the
indigenous peoples
and farmers?
● HAS TO BE DONE IN
AN ETHICAL AND
MORAL WAY
● This impacts her in what
she cares about, her
advocacy, the
organizations that she
focuses on, & future
career choices (used to
be capitalist centric)

Other ideas and ● No ● The government is

comments they may super important, so
wish to add, or came please vote for the right
up in the interview people (2022 is coming
up fast)
PHOTO PROOF :

INTERVIEW WITH SKYLER KHO

INTERVIEW WITH TRISHA ABAO

OTHER PROOF ( UPLOADED VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT, CONSENT FORMS:)

-https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L4tT4aRogzX-PVDcPNRzYDJRTtBMKu3b?usp=s
haring