It’s time to fashion a new language of development which responds effectively to real people’s real needs
Poverty, hunger, communicable and non-communicable diseases, the destruction of habitat; these problems have been with humanity wherever and whenever we have lived. The stoics would say human suffering is inevitable, but it’s how we respond to it that counts.
I would suggest that, in the context of development work, it’s important to focus more on action and problem solving than problem stating. Some environmental anarchists may say humans are a curse on nature and ourselves. I don’t like this … I believe humans are infinitely capable of transformation, growth, and ingenuity.
We need to focus on the things within our domain of control
To the point, attending workshops and seminars on development in 2022, a key reflection for me has been the urgency for discussion spaces to be organised for what society, non-profits, and their corporate social investment (CSI) partners require for achieving measurable results, resounding lessons and to effect real change. It’s about the style of our story — the place in our bodies where we speak from. The old “talk shop” format is stale and does not serve the purpose of communicating impact, and how to achieve it. We all know the problems. The style of presentations and discourse in development is too often boring and outdated.
I wonder if the Holocaust survivor Jacob Bronowski, hit the nail on the head when he observed that in the present epoch, “we live in an age of experts”. He frequently spoke about the way technology made humankind’s ascent possible, and how increasingly specialisation and advancement have put humanity at risk of catastrophe. Mutually assured destruction is a likely reality if any nuclear power deployed its weapons.
Are we afraid to speak on topics that are not within our specialisation? I think so, and I also think we need courageous generalists to shake the hallowed halls of knowledge. Discussion content often doesn’t cover the topics that are of real interest to understanding the human condition, and individual and societal advancement, and I imagine corporate players who together with non-profit organisations (NPOs) want to effect meaningful change, are frustrated like I am by the same narratives that motivate giving.
There is a lot of couching argument in endless caveats. We understand the scientific method. Yet, as people, ancient and sacred — we appreciate honesty too.
Our education system has not sufficiently equipped graduates with the resourcing skills to expand their knowledge and skills independently; to distinguish between valid propositions relevant to our age, and the confidence to abandon outdated social ideologies which have patently failed.
We must acknowledge that unfortunate realities today have not come about by accident. Many have their genesis in systems and ways of doing things which are within our power to change — approaches to justice, policing, employment, energy generation, consumption, family structure, and a host of other facets of life which we are either individually or collectively fully capable of amending — and which need our attention.
To use a disease analogy, do we want to merely treat the symptoms of social maladies, or target their underlying causes? Terms like food insecurity, seem to me to obscure the painful feeling of hunger. Sterile language dominates our modern narrative. Hunger has consequences for a child’s ability to concentrate in school or employees’ ability to perform their work; it also has character implications if hunger drives a person to crime.
Styles of leadership and moral conviction may be distinguished by the themes they employ in arguments for social change and development. I don’t pretend to be a philosopher, but I have a love of knowledge and classical wisdom. The Ancient Greek division of these styles was, logos — the divine, the rational mind; ethos — the noble and heroic, the character of good renown; and pathos — feelings of sensibility and compassion for suffering. I update for modern inclusive description; the Greeks were less sympathetic to emotion, believing it dangerous to proper economy and political decision-making.
Knowing and clearly articulating the challenges is not enough. Human relations and encounters of all types must provoke critical thinking about how the work is done, and whether it can be done better, followed up by a real shift in the conversation when the truth is revealed. The big issues need to be discussed frankly without hiding behind the traditional parlance of development narratives. This is risky but nevertheless an intellectually honest process and a more respectable way to influence.
Investment partners are, I think, tired of the same problem-stating presentations — they want problem-solving and stimulating debate — deep down, we all want that. Panellists, presenters, and critically, practitioners, should contribute something new, and demonstrate passion. We must aspire to inspire; 28 years into democracy, the cause for a just and equitable society should be rejuvenated.
It cannot be about merely mitigating hardship and suffering but creating wealth and building a more prosperous society through long-term investment in work that makes a real difference. Public discourse should be infused with vibrancy and charisma, as well as useful lessons. Non-profit organisations need affordable and open ways to share their experiences around relevance, innovation, and transformed outcomes in the future — the bottom line of social impact.
When it comes to public intellectual discussion and sharing, we need to see how discourse in philanthropy could be improved. We can approach persuasion from three angles, namely, the head which strings together our logical arguments and can analyse data (logos); the chest, whose power lies in the heart, and that projects character and justice into the world when we do the right thing (ethos), and finally appeals to the stomach or emotions which are about the tragedy of underdevelopment, poverty, inequality, and unemployment and how we desperately desire to have happiness instead (pathos).
All forms of persuasion are valid. The severity of challenges facing society across social, economic, environmental and governance facets may seem insurmountable; solutions must be time bound and look at the long horizon of impact; and sustainability requires committed funds. Corporate partners could consider large investments of endowment funding to establish dividend-bearing mechanisms to fund social investment for long-term transformation. Governments may increase the fiscal purse, increasing the tax base by activating potential and reducing dependency.
Environmental sustainability requires tough conversations reminding people of the Malthusian argument which says agricultural production and water resources can’t infinitely meet the demands of a growing population. When first conceived in the 19th century, Malthus didn’t account for science’s ability to improve efficiency in production. However, diminishing returns have set in, with many soils being depleted of nutrients, and climate change afoot.
Simultaneously, limited economic growth combined with high fertility mathematically implies more poverty in the future, more hunger, more strife, and more crises. Can we please imagine a better model? Do conversations about carbon emissions change behaviour? Does the plight of amphibians or large mammals affect our choices when our choices are dependent on what the marketplace offers?
I think we should rather appeal to the essential character of humankind, lost in myth, in faith, in stories about ourselves and the demons previously slain, to return to that ancient place of community, echoing Johnny Clegg “… where we can stand in the light of the people and breathe life into the land again”. Regardless of the implications, change is necessary, and of course, with change, there will be sacrifice, but that’s a given.
Indeed, the head and stomach are important to development thinking. We must exercise rational faculties — good design and planning, financial management and respond to social and environmental injustice, advocating for compassion for the stories of individuals in pain as well as moral guilt to put the unacceptable acceptance of inequality in the spotlight, and admit that giving R2 grants no absolution.
With our heads up, our stomachs under control, with each issue in hand, let’s instead lead from our chests — from the desire to model arguments and action on the quality of the issues. Hands up, poised for getting the work of uplifting millions done and striving for an open, just, and good society; let’s be brave and courageous. We should be putting more focus on rational arguments for funding and finding solutions to society’s problems, as well as appealing to justice, equality, and morality — for our better humanity.
Monitoring and evaluation are critical too. Idealism and rhetoric are not enough to achieve justice. Discussions on development work can’t continue to speak to the tired narratives of how severe the needs are or to merely describe deficits across issues of poverty, education, employment, health, food security, climate change, and biodiversity loss, and other socioeconomic and environmental themes.
Instead, discussion must address tangible indices and report on successes and failures transparently. Solving complex problems requires ethical, purpose-driven leadership and commitment to impact and change. Change within ourselves and in the world around us. If social investment is to address the gaps, then evidence should demonstrate innovation, intelligence, collaboration, and integrity to the work done, and the methods employed to deliver it.
It’s time to rethink our thinking and the language of development. Society, responsible corporate partners, and philanthropic actors need new spaces which facilitate dynamic, honest, and interesting conversations for finding genuine solutions.
Existing discussion platforms I have enjoyed participating in have been organised by such diverse organisations as the Seriti Institute, NASCEE, JET Education Services, TIPS, and Kagiso Trust, among others.
Struan Robertson works with the chief executive of development facilitation agency the Seriti Institute to source funding for development programmes.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.