Table of ContentsAnthropology and DevelopmentDeconstructing the “Evil Twin”Anthropology and Its Engagement in DevelopmentDevelopment and LinguisticsThe essay will examine different works within the discipline to develop this “evil twin” relationship as we move away from this iconic work to contextualize this debate within current anthropology. The first section returns to development discourse and anthropology, as the history of these two fields is essential in forming the context of Ferguson's article as well as the fraught relationship that exists between pure and applied forms of l 'anthropology. The second section will focus on the term "evil twin" trying to understand Ferguson's use of the term evil and trying to understand the two opposite ends of the meaning of developmental anthropology within the discipline. The final, and probably most important, section questions some of Ferguson's assumptions in the current context of anthropology, as one attempts to understand whether development is indeed "unwanted" or "undesirable" in the current context. current. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayAnthropology and DevelopmentAlthough the modern understanding of development became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, the ideology it perpetuates is that which has prevailed since the Enlightenment period in the 18th century in Northern Europe (Lewis 2005: 4). There was a rise of industrial capitalism which then continued to promote a universal history supported by the concepts illuminating the theories of philosophers such as Hegel. However, what sets this apart from modern notions of development is the fact that it was simply an idea for understanding world history. This was not used as a “justification for acting on this story” (Cooper and Packard 1997: 7). This would change in the 20th century, after Truman's speech at the Bretton Woods conference and the rise of supranational institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. In fact, the idea of ​​a modern notion of development is often attributed to the aftermath of World War II, when the 33rd President of the United States of America, Harry Truman, declared that "the Southern Hemisphere was a " underdeveloped area” (Sachs, 1997). : 15, Esteva 1993: 7, Cooper and Packard 1997). Development then became a process "intended to pave the way for the reproduction" of the "conditions that were thought to characterize the most economically advanced nations" in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Escobar 1997: 497). It has become a marker for people to explain “social and cultural difference on a global scale” (Venkatesan, Yarrow 2012: 1). This is to say that it has become a form of discourse where the argument is that underdeveloped countries should strive to achieve development. through economic growth. This would lead to some popular paradigms of development theory, such as modernization theory, which argues that development is a "progressive movement towards more technologically complex and integrated forms of 'modern' society" which would then replace traditional forms of society (Long 1992). : 18, cf. Gardner, Lewis 2015). Although modernization theory is still popular among some development economists, the definition of development will undergo some changes as the factors that define development move beyond being simply understood througheconomic growth. This means that "the well-being of an economy can be a prerequisite for development", but factors such as human rights and social well-being must also be taken into account to truly make a difference. development (Lewis 2005: 3). This approach was marked by the birth of a Human Development Index. Even though economic development remained the primary objective, with emphasis on poverty reduction and eradication (Gardner, Lewis 2015), this alludes to the fact that economics remains the dominant discipline in the discourse followed by powerful development institutions like the World Bank or the IMF (Fine 2009, cf. Mosse 2015 LSE Podcast). I would say that this is an important point to note, within the framework of anthropology, because the relationship between anthropology and development will also involve the study of economics as a discipline. This is consistent with Ferguson's assertion that development knowledge is closely linked to “the shape of disciplinary knowledge” (1997: 170). This amounts to affirming that anthropology is not the only twin in terms of development since other disciplines, notably economics, affect its definitions and practices. This would also mean confronting another type of relationship for anthropology, because a debate does not only exist between applied anthropologists and so-called “pure” anthropologists. It also exists between the fields of economics and anthropology. It was important to walk through a history of development in the context of this essay, because it has a lot to do with the history of anthropology and its long-standing discomfort with the development project. . Lewis Henry Morgan, in his iconic book, Ancient Society, would argue for a theory of cultural evolution influenced by ideas from the Age of Enlightenment. He would assert that human culture has seven different stages: lower, middle and higher savagery; lower, middle and higher barbarism; and civilization (Morgan 1877). Each stage is marked by some form of technological success and the final goal of all societies is to achieve some form of civilization (ibid.). This will become a very influential text in anthropology and the reason I talk about it is to show the Enlightenment legacy of anthropology. Although one could argue that this idea of ​​social evolution was refuted in the early 20th century, as Ferguson points out in his essay, "the break with evolutionism was less complete than is often led to believe » (1997: 142). This idea of ​​evolution is what is primarily criticized in Edward Said's seminal book Orientalism. He states that “the Orient was almost a European invention” (1978: 1). He develops this by asserting that Westerners produced or imagined an Eastern other in order to degrade it and justify its colonial domination. Talal Asad, in his iconic book, Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, complements this narrative by emphasizing that the discipline of anthropology itself played an important role in the colonial encounter. He argued in his book that anthropology is ideologically integral to the project of colonialism. He asserts that "anthropologists before independence were 'apologists for colonialism' and subtle agents of colonial supremacy" (1973: 15). The work of Said and Asad, as well as that of other anthropologists, put the discipline in crisis, with anthropologists feeling guilty about the history of the discipline. Although this has indeed led to "crises of representation", I would argue that it has also propagated and fueled the tension between pure and applied forms ofanthropology. This is not to say that it was born out of this guilt, but I believe that it played a role in moving some anthropologists away from applied forms of work towards a more theoretical framework. This can be seen when scholars like Escobar use Asad's argument to compare the "development encounter" with the colonial encounter, arguing that an anthropology of development will resonate with the discipline's relationship with colonialism ( 1995: 14). I believe that James Ferguson, as a post-development scholar like Escobar, would have a similar view when he describes development and its anthropological study as the "evil twin." Deconstructing the 'Evil Twin' The introduction to this essay saw a quote from Ferguson's article which established that the evil twin in the title of the essay referred to the anthropology of development rather than development itself. even. This section will take a close look at the term "evil twin" as it attempts to understand the implications of a language choice while proposing a possible alternative in the form of a "moral twin." The relationship between pure and applied forms of the discipline has always been conflicting, in which the former "considers the latter as second rate, both intellectually and morally, while the latter considers the formal as irrelevant, both theoretically and politically" (Gow 2002: 299, cf. Ferguson 1997). This has been a subject of debate as Malinowski argued for a more practical anthropology through its contribution to policy while Evans Pritchard would argue for an opposite approach and distance himself from this applied anthropology (Lewis 2005). : 1, cf. Grillo 2002). Ferguson would describe this debate as a "Jekyll and Hyde conflict", in which the academic side is the good doctor while the applied side refers to his evil counterpart (1997: 170). In fact, he would argue that this is specific to anthropology since other disciplines like sociology and political science pose this problem as "a problem not so much for applied researchers as for 'area studies' or specialists." international” — a distinction that has little importance. force in anthropology, where everyone is a specialist in regional studies” (1997: 150). However, this Jekyll and Hyde metaphor as well as the use of the term “evil” to describe the applied mode of anthropology is enough to support his position. in the debate. He argues that this is wrong because “it conflicts with the most fundamental theoretical and political commitments of its own discipline” (ibid.). But they are also twins since they also share the field's distinctive specialization, "which is always interested in the 'less,' the 'below,' the 'not yet.' . . developed” (ibid.). It is these characteristics that make him the “unwelcome ghost” or the “uninvited parent” who haunts the discipline with his presence (ibid.). David Gow would challenge the above view of the evil twin while he would argue that developmental anthropology is, in fact, a moral twin. Gow argues that Ferguson, by using the term evil, challenges the anthropology of development in moral terms. He argues that the problem with the applied side of the discipline lies in its inability to transform development into something that is not morally problematic (Gow 2002). He takes up this point and develops it by asserting that one way to better understand the anthropology of development would be to try to do a "critical analysis of the values, in particular ethics, which underlie this sub-field" (Gow 2002: 300). Help us turn this into a moral project rather than an evil one. He would refer to the work ofRobert Chambers, Amartya Sen and Martha C Nussbaum to argue that the emphasis should be on the moral narrative. He argues that anthropology must define and specify its moral values, because any project should emphasize “the quality of life that will result from the realization of these rights and needs” (2002: 309). We could escape the “tyranny of ideology, academic discipline and political fashion” by structuring development values ​​around the moral question, as opposed to an economic or political question. While this argument is quite compelling and suggests a more optimistic future for developmental anthropology, there is one example in his work that is perplexing. This is confusing, especially in the context of his moral narrative, as the statement he cites from the work of Michael Cowen and Robert Shenton on development is quite problematic and elitist in nature (cf. Szpotoicz 2015). He asserts that intervention by international development organizations is imperative since "third world national elites are generally corrupt and show little interest in such populist approaches" to moral development. This statement is consistent with the idea of ​​development that favors difference. and claimed that the West was superior and better in so-called underdeveloped areas. This makes the whole story quite disturbing, but it doesn't take away from his argument in my opinion. Therefore, the idea of ​​an anthropology of development built on a moral narrative remains a powerful idea, but one might question the ethics and moral assumptions that Gow has in mind. That's still not to say that it's a superior or inferior approach to Ferguson's Evil Twin. The aim of this particular section is to contrast Ferguson's contempt for the discipline's evil twin with Gow's celebration of the field as moral twin (cf. Gardner, Lewis 2015: 5). Anthropology and its commitment to development. This engagement is not only important for understanding the anthropology and the evil twin. He would argue that development and, therefore, the field of developmental anthropology seeks to destroy what this discipline loves to study. He asserts that a study of "the modernization of people might well have considerable practical or political importance", but it could hardly be "central in the most prestigious arena of anthropological theory" which has been built on the the study of “societies as little contaminated by development as possible” (1997: 146). Although this idea may have been dominant when Ferguson wrote his essay, it no longer applies to today's world of anthropology. The introduction of a subfield such as urban and digital anthropology has helped ensure that anthropology is no longer a study of local or primitive culture. This amounts to asserting that even the theoretical aspect of the discipline, which has nothing to do with development, deals with development in one form or another. I would like to reiterate Lewis's argument that anthropologists do not have a unique position regarding its relationship to development. In the context of this reiteration, the following paragraphs and subsections consider some of the ways in which the discipline has moved beyond the study of development solely through an applied lens. Katy Gardner and David Lewis will revisit, update and republish their book, Anthropology, and Development: Issues for the 21st Century, in 2015 as the notion of development has (1995: 64).