Skip to main content

The Gaze of Development after the Cultural Turn

  • Chapter
Social Research after the Cultural Turn

Abstract

Development studies is a multidisciplinary field that interrogates the practices and policies of international development. There is a strong emphasis in the discipline on building theoretical models intended to predict how the manipulation of specific variables may impact on economic growth. With the exception of two theoretical streams with a very marginal status in the field – Post-development and Marxism – it views development as congruent, indeed as isomorphic, with the expansion of the liberal capitalist model on a global scale. In as much as development studies involves a critique of global liberal capitalism, it is a critique of its worst excesses and many of these – poverty, inequality and even exploitation, for example – are viewed as a remnant of earlier economic forms and not as intrinsic to capitalism. Notwithstanding this belief in a benign form of capitalism, it also acknowledges that economic growth on a national or global scale has not reduced inequalities in the distribution of material resources and may even have exacerbated them. In response to this persistence of material inequality, it is centrally concerned with how to ‘lift people out of poverty’ and with erasing the widening material and symbolic inequalities that practitioners, policy makers and academics alike generally regard as the contradictory impacts of development. Given the enormous scope of the development project it is hard to find a discipline that cannot lend itself to the interrogation of development. Its theoreticians include people trained in biology, engineering, health, education, sociology, anthropology, political science, international relations and of course economics. It also engages policy at national and international levels, and has practitioners in government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities. With such a vast theoretical and practical scope the only unity that development studies can claim is in its attention to the same object – economic development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asad, T. (1993) ‘A Comment on Aijaz Ahmad’s in Theory’, Public Culture, 6(1): 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, M. (1988) All that is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. (1999) Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. (1995) ‘The Invention of Development’, in J. Crush (ed.), Power of Development, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crush, J. (ed.) (1995) Power of Development, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edkins, J. (2007) ‘Whatever Politics’, in M. Calarco and S. DeCaroli (eds.), Agamben: Sovereignty and Life, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’ Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Minneapolis, MN and London: University of Minneapolis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. and Graham. J. (2006) A Postcapitalist Politics, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. (1997) The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzo, K. (2008) ‘Imaging Humanitarianism: NGO Identity and the Iconography of Childhood’, Antipode, 40(4): 632–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, C. (2008) Post-colonialism and Development, London: Routledge. Nicholson, L. (2003) ‘I can’t face another war report about dead children’ The Guardian, April 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe, S. (ed.) (2006) ‘Culture in Development Thinking: Geographies, Actors and Paradigms’, Culture and Development in a Globalizing World: Geographies, Actors, and Paradigms, London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V. and Walton, M. (eds.) (2004) Culture and Public Action, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, M. and Edwards H. (2007) ‘Traffic in Pain’, in M. Reinhardt, H. Edwards and E. Duganne (eds.), Beautiful Suffering, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, C. (2007) ‘International Political Economy/Development Otherwise’, Globalizations, 4(4): 573–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, W. (1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, London: Zed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schech, S. and Haggis, J. (2000) Culture and Development: A Critical Introduction, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. 2008. Humanitarianism and Governmentality: An analysis of The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Unpublished Msc Development Studies Dissertation, Birkbeck College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sontag, S. (2003) Regarding the Pain of Others, New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (1999) ‘Development Studies and Post-colonial Studies: Disparate Tales of the “Third World” ’, Third World Quarterly, 20(4): 703–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Karen Wells

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wells, K. (2012). The Gaze of Development after the Cultural Turn. In: Roseneil, S., Frosh, S. (eds) Social Research after the Cultural Turn. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230360839_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics