Strange Modern Times

Liberty, individuality, rationality and justice: these are some of the fundamental values of Modernity that appear to be ingrained in our society. However, how were these ideals developed and, more importantly, are they truly adhered to and do they help construct a better society? The solution to the inequalities that exist in the planet, the gap between the haves and the have not, is often presented through the social development of “poorer” societies so that they resemble industrialized western countries. Is this development fair or even desirable? Not the current way it is being enacted.

To understand the objectives that social development seeks, and through what means it attempts to achieve them, it is first necessary to comprehend the framework that the idea of development was built upon. The construction of that framework began with the rise of modern nation-states and the ideals of Modernity. In Europe, during the transition from the Middle Ages to Modernity, different concepts began to appear and the way people understood the world and themselves changed. One major shift was the understanding of the “self.” During the Middle Ages, people were part of numerous circles that they identified with; some examples of these circles included the Church, different guilds, family, etc. The identity of an individual was deeply interlinked with the circles he was part of – that is why it was common for a person’s last name to reflect her profession (Schumacher, Smith, etc). However, throughout time, a shift towards individualism began to take place, and the idea of the “self” being something separated from the external world became the standard. This is exemplified in Descartes’ separation of the mind from the external world. With the Enlightenment also came a greater emphasis on reason, and the understanding of the world through experience was substituted for objective scientific examination.

As cities grew during the Middle Ages, a new social class, the bourgeoisie, became the economic force. Seeking greater rights so it could better engage in its merchant activities the bourgeoisie allied itself with the kings and erased feudalism. The “taming of the nobility” came through various processes, such as putting into law measures against noble ideals – it was the substitution of passion for reason, good name for economic power, individual alliances for stately order. A new entity that would protect and help expand the bourgeoisie’s economic activity was established: the nation-state. This entity was based on the concept of sovereignty, which meant that external forces should not interfere with a state’s affairs – the state was to govern itself, this helped protect the economy from external interference. The justification for such an entity came through the “natural law theory,” which using the new Enlightenment values of individuality and freedom, said that the state existed because of an act of consent by the people ruled by the state; they voluntarily gave away some of their liberties so that there would be order (Hobbes’ “bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”). Thus was formed a new society with new values; a society defined by the economy, the nation-state, and the civil society.

However, this process of “modernization” was at the time exclusive mostly to Europe and the United States. Although European countries promoted these values in the continent, the same was not for their colonies. Europe maintained the colonies under its dominion and exploited their resources without giving them anything in return. This caused a great trauma to the colonies because native residents were displaced, local traditions suppressed, and examples of genocide were not rare. Therefore, while Northern countries reaped the benefits and developed their economies with the help of the exploitation of Southern countries, the conditions of living in these Southern countries steadily decreased. Tensions grew as people from Southern countries became less and less satisfied with the exploitation of their resources and the fact that they could not enjoy the same rights as the Northern countries. Independence movements thus sparked because people from underdeveloped countries wanted to enjoy the same sovereignty that developed countries had. The independence of these colonies was often a bloody and traumatic event, as was the case with Algeria, and it often left the economy and infrastructure of these colonies in pieces. That is how the gap between the North and the South was formed, and the idea of social development originated as a way of improving the quality of life in these Southern countries.

Social development has as a premise that to increase the quality of life in a given country, that country needs to adhere to the values of industrialized nations. This means that these underdeveloped countries need to create a strong bureaucracy and expand a capitalist culture. This capitalist culture exorcises religious aspects of a society and helps with the formation of a secular state but, even though the state claims to be secular, its economy is not. Free market capitalism is offered as the solution because of the belief that an “invisible hand” will control the economy and prevent any abuses of the system – there is a belief that a free economy will balance itself out. This belief fails to acknowledge numerous issues, ranging from corruption to the “tragedy of the commons.” As this capitalist culture expands, local traditions start disappearing and people start loosing their native identity. This loss of identity leads to several problems – including higher incidents of alcoholism and depression – that only make social problems worse. This loss of identity is further worsened with the establishment of private property and exploration of the land for resources. Amongst the proponents of development, a patch of land is only useful if it produces something. Therefore local indigenous populations are uprooted from their communal land, which is often sacred to them, so it can be transformed into some sort of productive endeavor, whether it be mining, planting, hydroelectric plants, etc.

This uprooting of indigenous populations also has serious ecological problems. The people and corporations that take control of the land have no affinity with that soil, that patch of earth does not mean anything for them. This lack of identity with the land means that there is usually nothing keeping these people from exploring nature for maximum productivity. This is something similar to what happened during the Dust Bowl in the American Southern Plains. Farmers who migrated to that area in search of profit did not have a history with the land, so as soon as they had exhausted the soil resources in one area, they would just move on to the next. This took away the natural coverage of the soil and caused desertification, and whenever winds would build up huge dust storms, a symbol of the United States’ biggest ecological disaster, would occur. This kind of desertification is currently happening in China, and is a result of the desire for higher productivity and development. This new way of looking at nature, seeing it as a commodity that can be explored instead of an essential extension of human nature, is a product of Modernity, in where the idea that through science humans could control nature began to take shape. This is a major problem with Modern ideals; they destroy the symbiotic relationship that prevailed between humans and nature and establish an elusive master-slave relationship, where humans are the masters of nature and can control it for their purposes. However, nature always reacts, whether through dust storms or hurricanes, and these reactions usually cause hunger, displacement of populations, health issues, and other social problems.

Another problem with social development is that it believes that it can make societies equal by closing the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries. The big question is: can that gap be closed? Technologies implanted to improve underdeveloped countries are often years outdated when compared to the technologies of their rich counterparts. When an underdeveloped nation finally reaches a production goal similar to developed nations that richer nation has already increased its production. It then becomes an endless race, where underdeveloped countries never reach the head of the pack. This of course takes a toll on the environment and maintains these underdeveloped nations in a state of constant submission. Economic growth is therefore seen as an indicator of development but, in reality, it does not really offer tangible solutions.

The strong bureaucracy and the control of violence created by the modern nation state also restrict individual actions. The state controls the mechanisms for change, which can only be made through the appropriate channels, and that makes individual efforts extremely hard to succeed. Modern bureaucracy has its origins traced back to French Absolutism and was created to stabilize the nation state and prevent conflict. Any sort of dissatisfaction needs to be expressed through the appropriate channels, and these channels do not allow anything that may threaten the status quo to go through. With that, an increased feeling of powerlessness appears and people become even less inclined to attempt any sort of change. If dissatisfaction builds up to a point that revolts begin to happen the state, through its police force and army, is able to destroy that revolt through violence. Therefore, the individual is somewhat imprisoned by the state, if he is not a productive – and that means that he should be engaged in an economic activity – he is considered a delinquent, a persona non grata in the system, he is then excluded from society through the appropriate mechanisms – prisons, homeless shelters, etc.

So, what is the purpose of social development? Although its proponents might genuinely think that it will help solve the issues that haunt this globalized world, it actually enforces the power relationship between developed and underdeveloped countries. Development helps create the structures that restrict individual actions and replaces local traditions for an economic perspective. Instead of fostering comprehension and cooperation, it creates more competition and more drive for profit, thus enhancing the chances of conflict and causing environmental damage. Social development helps reinforce the ideals that have created much of the injustices in the world today, and since these injustices tend to increase, the proponents of development believe it needs to be applied more strictly. It then becomes a mutual relationship, with social injustices fermenting the drive for development, and development creating more injustices.