Discourse Ks – Gonzaga Debate Institute 14

Answers

Development

No Link – Not about Ocean

Evidence assumes land-based, anti-poverty development, not ocean

Richard, Professor, Earlham College, Peace and Global Justice Studies, ‘95

[Howard, September 1995, Howard Richards, “The Nehru Lectures,” http://www.howardri.org/Lec1.html, accessed: July 5, 2014, KEC]

I use the word "development" in spite of its drawbacks because it is the word commonly and officially used worldwide to describe efforts to end poverty. I use the term because I want to stay in touch with the mainstream while trying to change its direction. I use it, too, because whatever else development may be about, it is about economics. Today social and educational issues are economic issues, and vice-versa. Although there may have been a time when religious and cultural values determined educational and social philosophy, I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that today the practical and effective educational and social philosophies are increasingly driven by what is taken to be economic reality; and inspired by economic theories that prescribe what is to be done about that reality. The term "development," which in turn is associated with the idea of a "development model," helps us to remember that wherever we go in our contemporary world we are never far from the pervasive influence of economics. I will support the view that, because of the basic structure of modern society, economics must be dealt with in order to deal successfully with literacy, child care, gender, race, caste, ethnic conflict, environment or other issues.

No Link

Development lacks a single definition

Naz, Research Associate, Centre for Development Governance, Dhaka Bangaldesh, ‘06

[Farzana, July-September, CDRB Publication, “ARTURO ESCOBAR AND THE DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE: AN OVERVIEW,” http://www.cdrb.org/journal/2006/3/4.pdf, accessed: July 5, 2014, KEC]

Since the Second World War, development has been synonymous with economic, social and political change in the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. These countries have been variously labelled as underdeveloped, less-development, developing, the Third World and the South. They are a diverse group but united in their commonly declared commitment to development. But, there is no consensus about the meaning of development. It is a contested concept and there have been a number of battles to capture its meaning. Turner and Hulme (I997) reviewed the ideological engagements of development as follows

Link Turn

Term necessary for coherent policy discussion

Richards, Professor of Peace and Global Justice Studies @ Earlham College, 95 (Howard,. “Education for Constructive Development” http://www.howardri.org/Lec1.html)
I use the word "development" in spite of its drawbacks because it is the word commonly and officially used worldwide to describe efforts to end poverty. I use the term because I want to stay in touch with the mainstream while trying to change its direction. I use it, too, because whatever else development may be about, it is about economics. Today social and educational issues are economic issues, and vice-versa. Although there may have been a time when religious and cultural values determined educational and social philosophy, I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that today the practical and effective educational and social philosophies are increasingly driven by what is taken to be economic reality; and inspired by economic theories that prescribe what is to be done about that reality. The term "development," which in turn is associated with the idea of a "development model," helps us to remember that wherever we go in our contemporary world we are never far from the pervasive influence of economics. I will support the view that, because of the basic structure of modern society, economics must be dealt with in order to deal successfully with literacy, child care, gender, race, caste, ethnic conflict, environment or other issues.

Development Discourse Good

“Development” is a valuable term, it should be used in debate

Story, Kutztown University, 1995

[Victor O., 1 May 1995, University of Waterloo, “NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, Debate, VIII/1,” https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/politics/NAFTAmail/msg00023.html, accessed 7-5-14, J.J.]

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/politics/NAFTAmail/msg00023.html

I disagree. The normative term is "modernization" and that term is wrought with ethnocentric implications when it is applied to anything more than technological change. Development however is a valuable term, it carries weight and it is what people of all cultures do when they build civilization.

Human Rights Turn

Development is a human right through which all fundamental freedoms can be fully realized

United Nations, ‘86

[12-4-86, “General Assembly,” http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm, accessed: July 5, 2014, KEC]

Proclaims the following Declaration on the Right to Development:

Article 1

1. The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of

which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in,

contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development,

in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.

2. The human right to development also implies the full realization of

the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the

relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the

exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural

wealth and resources.

Only use of the term development is able to present new strategies for resistance.

Naz, M.Phil in Gender and Development (Norway), ‘06

[Farzana, July-September, CDRB Publication, “ARTURO ESCOBAR AND THE DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE: AN OVERVIEW,” http://www.cdrb.org/journal/2006/3/4.pdf, accessed: July 5, 2014, KEC]

On the other hand, the identities of development have instilled a degree of inferiority, a longing to escape the underdeveloped state of affairs, a hierarchy where underdeveloped countries and peoples are the perpetual losers, to be endlessly reformed, reshaped and improved. This is not to suggest that the production of subjectivities and identities by hegemonic discourse such as development is unmediated by or passively accepted by people in the South. Development, for all its power to control the manner in which the third world is spoken about and acted upon, is not immune to challenges and resistance. The objects of development are not passive receivers, wholly oppressed by power; they are active agents who may and frequently do contest, resist, divert and manipulate the activities carried out in the name of development. In this way, development can be seen as a contested field. Its constitution of subjects as underdeveloped, poor and illiterate enables the continuation of Western domination in the third world, while simultaneously opening up new avenues and strategies of resistance.

Critique of Development Discourse Fails

Development kritik isn’t substantive—fails inevitably

Pieterse, Professor of Sociology, 2000

[Jan, After Post-Development, 180, J.J.]

Escobar’s perspective provides a broad and uneven melange, with exaggerated claims sustained by weak examples. It is broad in combining vocabularies— poststructuralism, social movement theory and development—but uneven in that the argument centres on anti-development without giving any clear delineation between anti-development and alternative development. It is exaggerated in that his position hinges on a discursive trick, a rhetorical ploy of equating development with ‘Development’. This in itself militates against discourse analysis, caricatures and homogenises development, and conceals divergencies within development. Escobar’s perspective on actual development is flimsy and based on confused examples, with more rhetoric than logic. For instance, the claim that the World Bank stories are ‘all the same’ ignores the tremendous discontinuities in the Bank’s discourse over time (e.g. redistribution with growth in the 1970s, structural adjustment in the 1980s, and poverty alleviation and social liberalism in the 1990s). And while Escobar and Esteva associate ‘Development’ with urban bias, World Bank and structural adjustment policies in the 1980s have been precisely aimed at correcting ‘urban parasitism’, which for some time had been a standard criticism of nationalist development policies (a classic source is Lipton, 1977).