Development from Within: Facilitating Collective Reflection for Sustainable Change

By Varun Vidyarthi and Patricia A. Wilson

"Development from below" is not enough. The key to sustainable social change is development from within- change in individual and group consciousness that leads to collective capacity for self-management among people's organizations. This book is a conversation between a practitioner and a scholar of participatory development exploring the inner and outer journeys of both development facilitators and women villagers. It is grounded in the experience of manavodaya, a non-profit organization that has facilitated self help groups among rural poor and trained development practitioners in methods of dialogue and empowerment for over twenty years. The book presents a successful method of dialogue called collective reflection that has enabled significant changes in the lives of the participants-both development professionals and villagers alike.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 9, 2008
• ISBN: 9781469121895

Varun Vidyarthi

Varun Vidyarthi has a formal background in engineering and business management. The Indian spiritual tradition of finding a purpose in life led him to abandon a corporate career to live and work in rural India. Formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, and a Research Fellow at the East West Center, Honolulu, he is the founder and Chief Executive of Manavodaya ( Human Awakening ), a center of excellence in self help and values- led development. Patricia A. Wilson, professor of participatory development at the University of Texas, Austin, Graduate Program in Community and Regional Planning, holds degrees in economics and planning from Stanford and Cornell. A practitioner of contemplative traditions herself, she writes and consults internationally on participatory community development planning.

Book preview

Copyright © 2008 Manavodaya Institute of Participatory Development.

Library of Congress Control Number:       2007903736

ISBN:         Hardcover                               978-1-4257-8933-6

                   Softcover                                 978-1-4257-8930-5

                   Ebook                                      978-1-4691-2189-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval

system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Published by Apex Foundation

198 Van Buren Street

Herndon, Virginia 20170-5338

1.703.709.0333

[e-mail]

2008

Excerpt from Avatamsaka Sutra on first page of Chapter 6 is taken from

Francis H. Cook, Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, Penn State

University Press, 1977, as quoted on web page of Phil Servidio, www.heartspace.org.

Cover: Top photograph of Sarla Kursi, a village woman who is leader of a regional

federation of women’s self help groups in UP. Photo courtesy of Manavodaya, 2007.

Bottom photograph of a self help group meeting in a village near Lucknow, UP. Photo

courtesy of Patricia A. Wilson, 2003.

Text photographs: Courtesy of Manavodaya.

Photo of Patricia Wilson: Courtesy of Kathy McCall, 2007.

Note: Names of field participants in text have been changed.

Cover designed by Ares Florencio Jr.

The authors are donating all proceeds from the sale of this book to Manavodaya.

CONTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Epilogue

Appendix

Bibliography

About the Authors

For Amla

and the next generation

It is a principle in Yoga to recognize the determining power of what is within us—for that is the deeper truth—to set that right and establish the inward strength as against the power of outward circumstances. The strength is there even in the weakest; one has to find it, to unveil it and to keep it in front throughout the journey and the battle.

—Sri Aurobindo

Foreword

The power of a nation state—political, economic or military—is not a measure of the country’s development; rather, it is the opportunities that people have to unfold their inherent potentials that sums up the quantity and quality of development. Development of a country has therefore to be seen as the sum total of the physical and spiritual assets and liabilities that each generation of its citizenry creates, and leaves behind for the generations to come to make this world a better place to live. The final goal of development is to obtain for each individual a life worth living.

If this is what development means, then why the controversy about development? The problem lies in the theoretical and operational definition of the ‘life worth living’ and the choice of the means to secure it. Three schools of thought, with some interfacing and overlapping elements, deserve our attention. According to one school, the ‘life worth living’ is the one that is marked with material prosperity and access to a maximum range of consumer goods and services; and that enjoys maximum social and political freedom. Continuing economic growth in conjunction with scientific and technological innovations, urbanization, and industrialization is a sine qua non for development in this school of thought.

The second school views growing poverty and environmental crisis as signs of limits to growth. It is not against growth per se but lays emphasis on transferring resources from rich to poor countries through aid and trade and from rich to poor people through affirmative policies and programs. It also calls for ecological balance, resource conservation, and what one may broadly call human development through improvement in educational and health services. It prescribes economic growth with better distribution and greater environmental concerns.

The third school takes a more holistic perspective and defines development not so much in terms of economic growth, or access to income, consumer goods and services but in terms of inner development of human beings. It calls for a culture specific development with priority for meeting the basic needs of all—food, clothing, shelter, education, health, security, and self-esteem—at a level the biosphere can support without adversely affecting life on planet earth. It lays emphasis on provision of opportunities for unraveling the creative potentials of human beings; on making each one a better human being—physically, intellectually and spiritually; and on encouraging people to work together (cooperation) rather than against each other (competition). It treats economic growth as a means rather than an end of development. The overriding goal of development in this school of thought is the unfolding of the human being through inner as well as outer development.

Measuring development in terms of GDP, the shift from agriculture to industry and services, from rural to urban living, from simple tools and techniques to modern science and technology, and from informal to formal social relations has given rise to a civilization which Gandhi rightly termed ‘a disease.’ Humans have progressed on the material front but regressed on the cultural and spiritual fronts. More innocent men and women are killed in wars today than in all the great wars fought by our ‘less civilized’ ancestors. The shift from primary to secondary and tertiary sectors may mean development for a few but it means disaster for millions of farmers and agricultural laborers. The new technology is not a boon for all. It may empower some and improve their material well being, but it robs many others of even the bare minimum that they must get to keep their body, mind, and soul together.

E. J. Mishan in his 1977 book, Economic Growth Debate, rightly said:

To punish mortals, the gods grant their wishes. But, whether seen as nemesis or boon, the vision evoked by this interpretation of events is a frightening one: that Western civilization, the civilization of the Enlightenment, the civilization of Science, a civilization born of high hopes, and today frothing with power and glee, is being piped gaily to the brink of the abyss. And all that yet might stay the fatal plunge is lying in the mud, discarded and in decay." (pp. 266-67)

Before we are forced to take a fatal plunge, can we not try to evolve a world order that keeps intact the biosphere on which life on the planet earth depends while at the same time protect the fundamental interests of all—developed and developing countries; poor and rich regions within counties; and empowered and deprived communities, families and individuals within societies? Can the exploitative relationships between humanity and nature on the one hand, and between human and human on the other be minimized to a tolerable level, if not completely eliminated? The answer is no, so long as the development style we are pursuing remains what it is. What humanity has achieved so far in terms of material well being is creditable indeed but what it has lost in terms of human values and relations and the happiness derived there from is not only deplorable but also suicidal. The balance sheet of what we may call ‘happiness’ is minus. To turn it into a plus we need a new development paradigm and style. Development must be human development centric, not economic growth centric.

We need a ‘Whole Theory of Development’ that promotes economic development; protects the environment; and ensures spiritual advancement of each and every human being. Mahatma Gandhi tried to pursue this paradigm of development but in the dust and din of the freedom struggle he could not perfect the model. He drew inspiration from Indian culture, which prescribes fourfold goals in life: Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Dharma asks man to perform his duties towards society; Artha calls upon him to earn his livelihood, and produce goods and services; Kama enjoins him to rear family to ensure the continuity of the human race; and Moksha takes him to bliss through self-realization. A judicious mix of these goals is the essence of the art and science of living. And to achieve these goals, the life span of man has been divided into four stages: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Banaprastha and Sanyasa—each of 25 years or so. It is enjoined on each and every individual to devote the period of Brahmacharya for learning; the period of Grihastharama for family life and production of material goods; the stage of Banaprastha for social service; and that of Sanyasa for self-realization. In each of these stages the mix of the above four goals will be different but none will be absent in some form or the other.

A creative art of living leads to a blissful life—a life of happiness. Human development should not therefore be seen as mere provision of material goods like food, clothing and shelter, and social services like health, education, etc. Human development means the creation of a natural, spiritual, social, economic and technological environment in which each individual can secure happiness. It means training for self-reliant development from within and without; the creation of social and political institutions to spread love and affection and to secure the human rights of all; and the adequate production of goods and services to meet the needs of all, ensuring, of course, the capacity of the biosphere to endure human interventions in its functioning. It means improving the methods and techniques to understand the laws of nature better and the processes which give rise to happiness and a life worth living.

To say that all these are ideals that have never been achieved in the past is to deny the possibility of the continuing evolution of mankind into a better human being. Human evolution has depended on the natural environment in which mankind lives. Mankind’s interaction with nature has produced a vast experience that has been accumulated as cultural heritage. Today, man claims to have become the master of his own destiny. But, which destiny? He is on the verge of becoming an endangered species not because of the natural pralaya but because of his Bhashmasuri (suicidal) development. He has acquired the power to destroy himself and other life forms on the earth, and may soon acquire the power to intervene in the affairs of other planets too. What humankind lacks most is the wisdom to use this power for the welfare of all and for making this earth a planet of peace, harmony and happiness.

With the advent of the third millennium, mankind has reached a turning point in the journey to self-realization, self-actualization, and self-manifestation. The choices are obvious. We must go back to our roots to relive his present and to consciously create a future wherein unity of life, compassion, love, sharing, sacrifice and peace are more important than conflicts, wars and ever increasing quantity and quality of goods and services. We must work in tandem with nature and sublimate the biosphere’s limits on material progress in social design and day-to-day behavior. Alternatively we can continue to follow the revolutionary path of material and technological progress charted during the last three hundred years by accumulating endless consumption goods and services but living in the midst of mounting unease, stress, natural as well as self-generated diseases, violence, and death.

Among the innovations to stem the environmental rot, a new paradigm of development called Sustainable Development has come into currency. It emerged from the realization that exhaustion of natural resources was no longer a problem of the future, and that it had already become a major source of diseases and disasters. Recognizing the imminent danger to life on planet earth, it was suggested that only that progress was genuine that could continue uninterrupted forever into the future. More and more people now realize that happiness is not a linear function of how much consumption one does. Rather, it becomes a function of the satisfaction humans derive when they willingly and lovingly play their roles as part of the family, the workplace, or the larger community.

Unfortunately, the growth advocates have hijacked this paradigm too. While agreeing that the biosphere should not be disturbed beyond its own capacity to recover and that development must be human centered, they insist that this can be accomplished only if the economy grows fast. Environmental sustainability and poverty eradication need huge capital investment. It can come only if the economy grows at a rapid rate. They have a firm faith in technological solutions to all the problems related to sustainability and human development engendering a false hope in the midst of a hopeless future. So the business of the growth advocates continues unabated in the midst of the seminars, conferences, summits, books and reports warning of the dangers ahead.

Tinkering with the system here and there would not do. What we need is a new a new way of looking at the system of production and consumption with sustainability and distribution, and inner development of man to acquire a higher level of consciousness. The issue at stake is not only the physical and social limits to growth but also whether growth should be equated with development. Should we envisage an economically standstill world? Both growth and development signify continuity and linear progress. Should this progress stop? The answer is no. Mankind must continue to progress, but not necessarily linearly and not just economically.

Denis Goulet in Development Ethics (1995) posits the following objectives for development:

1.   to provide more and better life sustaining goods to members of society;

2.   to create or improve social conditions of life in some way related to a perceived need for self-esteem;

3.   to free human communities from servitude (to nature, to ignorance, to each other, to institutions, to oppressive beliefs, etc.) so as to release them for positive self-actualization.

In other words,