The Power of Local Knowledge
St. Francis Secondary School, where I taught English for 3 weeks
Another complicating factor to participatory development involves the role of knowledge. In fact, according to a 2010 study published in the Community Development Journal, determining whose knowledge counts is the foremost challenge of this type of development. Recently, the importance of incorporating local knowledge into development strategy is widely recognized. “The community and its members know and respect the particular constraints and possibilities of a given physical ecosystem or cultural value system.”[1] An understanding of this situational knowledge is crucial if a development program is to have any hope at sustainable success. When development initiators do not pay enough attention to such knowledge, problems inevitably ensue.
For instance, before UPFORD came into their communities, the residents of Nnindye did not possess a culture of saving money. Rather, they tended to use money as they earned it to address their most urgent needs, such as food and medication, on a daily basis. This traditional way of handing money might be considered part of their ‘cultural value system.’ For better or worse, UPFORD overturned this system when they introduced Saving and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) as the way in which profits from the garden were to be controlled. The SILC model requires members to pay a small weekly fee. In return, they are able to request loans and pay them back with interest, thereby allowing the internal fund to grow. Perhaps these SILC programs will be beneficial for the residents of Nnindye in the long term. However, right now, without any prior knowledge of such saving and lending schemes, the people of Nnindye are left confused and upset.
Throughout the course of my interviews, many individuals explained that they do not feel the money made on the garden is their own. They ask questions such as, “Why can’t we just divide profits from the garden as we have in the past?” “Who has control of the money we earn?” And provide answers such as, “This project is not our own, because we don’t have a say in the planning process.” “I bet the leaders in UPFORD are pocketing our profits.” These questions and answers are a major threat to the future success of the UPFORD program. Before UPFORD implemented such a radically new idea as a SILC scheme to the Nnindye community, they ought to have provided thorough and comprehensive explanations of the program to the people. Perhaps they should have considered incorporating local approaches of money handling into their program. For, as the study referenced above notes, “while participatory processes may willingly seek community input or opinions, few give weight to community knowledge.”[2]
For instance, before UPFORD came into their communities, the residents of Nnindye did not possess a culture of saving money. Rather, they tended to use money as they earned it to address their most urgent needs, such as food and medication, on a daily basis. This traditional way of handing money might be considered part of their ‘cultural value system.’ For better or worse, UPFORD overturned this system when they introduced Saving and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) as the way in which profits from the garden were to be controlled. The SILC model requires members to pay a small weekly fee. In return, they are able to request loans and pay them back with interest, thereby allowing the internal fund to grow. Perhaps these SILC programs will be beneficial for the residents of Nnindye in the long term. However, right now, without any prior knowledge of such saving and lending schemes, the people of Nnindye are left confused and upset.
Throughout the course of my interviews, many individuals explained that they do not feel the money made on the garden is their own. They ask questions such as, “Why can’t we just divide profits from the garden as we have in the past?” “Who has control of the money we earn?” And provide answers such as, “This project is not our own, because we don’t have a say in the planning process.” “I bet the leaders in UPFORD are pocketing our profits.” These questions and answers are a major threat to the future success of the UPFORD program. Before UPFORD implemented such a radically new idea as a SILC scheme to the Nnindye community, they ought to have provided thorough and comprehensive explanations of the program to the people. Perhaps they should have considered incorporating local approaches of money handling into their program. For, as the study referenced above notes, “while participatory processes may willingly seek community input or opinions, few give weight to community knowledge.”[2]
The Risk of Reinforcing Local Power Structures
Women sit apart from male leaders at SILC meeting in Nnindye
While this local knowledge is important in order to ensure feasibility and sustainability, development initiators must recognize the danger of relying on it entirely. As David Mosse, an anthropologist from the University of London, explains, “Local knowledge reflects local power.”[3] He emphasizes that this local knowledge often subjects community driven development projects “to the effects of dominance and muting.”[4] Due to their marginalized role in patriarchal societies, women’s views often go unheard throughout the process of planning, implementing and monitoring a development project.
Many of my conversations in Nnindye confirmed this reality. Since men hold the overwhelming majority of leadership roles, both within the community and the UPFORD program, women do not feel they have an outlet to voice their concerns or opinions. Furthermore, most women feel unqualified to assume leadership roles. The women in one of my focus group discussions explained that their village always selects younger men as leaders, as they have the most energy and highest levels of education. A study published by the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) reiterates these sentiments. The study claims, “Women’s marginalized status within the community renders their voices less significant than those of men.”[5] Due to their responsibilities at home, women have limited time and mobility to attend planning meanings. Although women make up the majority of workers on the UPFORD garden, “inclusion has not always translated into… equal access to benefits for women.”[6] In fact, a number of women I spoke with told stories about their husbands confiscating either the money they made or banana suckers they acquired from the garden. A perpetuation of existing power structures prevents a number of women in Nnindye from achieving to the extent that men do. Ensuring that policy makers understand this reality is the first step toward the empowerment of women. As Gloria Braxton wrote in her study on Designing Gender-specific Interventions in Zaire, “If project planners adequately consider sociocultural and political factors in gender planning, project intervention produces a higher level of success.”[7]
Many of my conversations in Nnindye confirmed this reality. Since men hold the overwhelming majority of leadership roles, both within the community and the UPFORD program, women do not feel they have an outlet to voice their concerns or opinions. Furthermore, most women feel unqualified to assume leadership roles. The women in one of my focus group discussions explained that their village always selects younger men as leaders, as they have the most energy and highest levels of education. A study published by the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) reiterates these sentiments. The study claims, “Women’s marginalized status within the community renders their voices less significant than those of men.”[5] Due to their responsibilities at home, women have limited time and mobility to attend planning meanings. Although women make up the majority of workers on the UPFORD garden, “inclusion has not always translated into… equal access to benefits for women.”[6] In fact, a number of women I spoke with told stories about their husbands confiscating either the money they made or banana suckers they acquired from the garden. A perpetuation of existing power structures prevents a number of women in Nnindye from achieving to the extent that men do. Ensuring that policy makers understand this reality is the first step toward the empowerment of women. As Gloria Braxton wrote in her study on Designing Gender-specific Interventions in Zaire, “If project planners adequately consider sociocultural and political factors in gender planning, project intervention produces a higher level of success.”[7]
[1] Eversole, Robyn. "Remaking Participation: Challenges for Community Development Practice." Community Development Journal 47.47 (2012): 29-41. Online, p. 33.
[2] Ibid, p. 35.
[3] Mosse, David. "'People's Knowledge', Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development." Participation: The New Tyranny? Ed. Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. New York: Zed, 2001. 16-35. Print, p. 19.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 55.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Braxton, Gloria. “Designing Gender-specific Interventions in Zaire: A Social Science Perspective.” Women and Sustainable Development in Africa. Ed. Valentine James. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1995. 63-83. Print, p. 65.
[2] Ibid, p. 35.
[3] Mosse, David. "'People's Knowledge', Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development." Participation: The New Tyranny? Ed. Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. New York: Zed, 2001. 16-35. Print, p. 19.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 55.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Braxton, Gloria. “Designing Gender-specific Interventions in Zaire: A Social Science Perspective.” Women and Sustainable Development in Africa. Ed. Valentine James. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1995. 63-83. Print, p. 65.