Development: For Whom and for What?

In my time in Bhutan, I ask myself again and again, what is the real purpose of development?  In the realm of ‘international development’, there are a number of definitions that are at the same time competing, overlapping, and complementary.  There is the classic (at least in the 20^th century) ‘economic development’, as well as Sen and ul-Haq’s ‘human development’ that the UNDP favours.  There are also social dimensions of development, and of course we now have the term ‘sustainable development’ being used more and more, and it is now increasingly likely that the post-MDG goals will be the ‘sustainable development goals’.  But what I have seen in my time in Bhutan is the need to consider ‘holistic development’, and this goes beyond any of the other dimensions to also consider what I have been calling ‘non-material’ dimensions of development, especially spiritual and psychological, happiness and well-being.

The purpose of a caterpillar.

I have argued in an article that I am hoping to have published that this type of development is not something that is new.  In fact, it is something that is old, pre-modern, primal, primordial even.  Have not humans always considered that there is some point to human existence?  That we are here for a reason?  When we talk about ‘development’ in the international and economic context, are we supposed to just ignore the fundamental question of ‘what is it all for?’  I mean, I understand that meeting the basic material requirements of all humans is a fundamental and immensely difficult task, but I still hesitate to stop there.  I know that development in the international context arises from modernization theory, with its concomitant ideals of secularism and enlightenment values (if any), but for me it is impossible to stop at this basic level of material needs and gain.  And, as I’ve seen in the work I’ve done overseas, in ‘underdeveloped’ areas, it’s usually those people who are thought to be most in need of ‘development’ that are still more in tune with what this development might be for.  The paradox is that, often in the rush to develop, this dimension of human being is somehow forgotten, or shoved aside and lost along the way.

Again, returning to Bhutan and GNH, the world now has something of a development paradigm that does not forget or ignore this fundamental question, in fact it is inscribed within it.  The Bhutanese development paradigm strives to recall this spiritual dimension of human being, and even to measure it.  The value of doing so, that is measuring it, is something I’ve been thinking a lot about, and will hopefully get to soon, but for now, let me focus on this idea that this model of holistic development is not something new, it is something old, and something that bears remnants of the wisdom of our forebears: and this helps explain why it is so attractive these days.

So, try to imagine for a moment the world before the rise of modernity.  It is no stretch to say that religion, and religious values, permeated the day, up until at least the 14^th century in the West, and to the colonial era in the rest of the world.  What did people whose worldviews were shaped by religion think was the purpose of human life, of human development?  A big question, no doubt, and obviously there were no unanimous assertions across cultures and continents.  But, obviously, it was something that needed to be considered, a question that could not be ignored.  I am of the belief that, despite the outwards differences, there is something in all traditional religious cultures that is unanimous, something that they all share.  And this something can be defined in terms of human development.  For all human beings share a common goal, and a common source, which are one and the same.  Whether it be defined negatively, as many Buddhists would, or positively, as believers in the theistic faiths do, there is no doubt that there is somewhere we are headed, somewhere that is the point of our existence to reach, or to ‘develop’ towards.  Few would have argued this point, anywhere, prior to the 18^th century.

Bhutan's dzongs safe-guarded a tradition of protecting humanity's development endeavours.

Let me be honest.  ‘Development’ is a bit of a stretch for a term to use for this goal.  In fact, in traditional cultures, human society is usually thought to be in a state of devolution, in a movement away from a golden archetype.  From the Ancient Greeks to the Hindus, from the Maya to the Muslims, to everyone in between, the world was thought to be deteriorating, and the quality of human beings doing the same.  So how can humans be said to be ‘developing’?  Well, that’s precisely the point.  It is up to us to resist this deterioration, this devolution, to develop ourselves and overcome this trend.  When I look up the etymology of development, I note that ‘-velop’ is actually the same word as our English ‘wrap’, meaning that develop means, somewhat, to ‘unwrap’.  Maybe it means to unveil, to uncover the good we have within us, which society and learned negativities cover up.  Maybe ‘develop’ means to resist these negativities and find something positive beyond them, or beneath them.

This is pretty speculative, but I think you get where I am poetically going with this.  And it’s not so different today, that is, if we can get past the environmental destruction, poverty, ill-health, imbalances, and all of the other things that modern development seeks to overcome, then we can get at the real purpose of human development, the unwrapping of our true potential.  Those of us from the ‘developed’ world should already have the ability to do so.  Unfortunately, too few of us do, preferring to live in that envelope of materialism, growth, money, cars and TVs and modern art, rather than peel it away and ask what it is all really for.  And unfortunately, this is all too often something that those in the development community also fail to do, and so those whose societies and nations are being developed are led to make the faulty assumption that development is an end in itself, that its results are material wealth and its fruits.  But they forget somewhere along the way that these in no way are the equivalent of happiness.  

Yes, having one’s material needs met is a starting point on this quest for well-being, but meeting these should not be the only goal.  There is more to development, and this is something we should not forget.  Let us, like the Bhutanese (or at least His Majesty the 4^th King who coined the phrase, though he is unfortunately increasingly a voice crying out in the darkness, even in his own country), not forget that Happiness is the real goal.  And not some vague and subjective happiness, but the real Buddhist Happiness and Peace, which are the goals of GNH: the Happiness and Peace which are in our hearts, if we can only unwrap all the garbage that somehow piles up on top of them if we are not careful, all the material wants and cravings that society convinces us we need, but which end up drowning out the voice that wants to remind us what development is really for, if only we can listen.

Shakyamuni spent a good deal of time seeking the answer to what development was for.  All he needed for support was his alms bowl.