An Alternative Cultural Paradigm of Development

What is culture? I define culture as the sum of ideas, values, norms, goals, etc., which shapes the lives of the community. Human communities have and believe in a set of ideas, values, norms, etc. and a complex of these constitutes culture. This is also the usual anthropological definition of culture. I am trying to provide a new cultural paradigm of development, a new cultural way of looking at development. I am not accepting the prevailing concept of development and am very critical of it. Currently, development is defined quantitatively, in terms of Gross National Product, life expectancy at birth, literacy, health care, etc.. I find this general way of looking at development problematic and will attempt to provide an alternative definition. I define development as the ability a community has to humanly satisfy its diverse and spontaneous needs.

Let's look at this definition. Firstly, the diverse needs can be grouped into five categories : (1) Somatic needs (bodily needs); (2) Ecotic needs (needs having to do with nature as our home); (3) Poietic needs (the need to produce the useful and to create the beautiful); (4) Societal needs (needs related to society); and (5) Naetic needs (needs regarding knowledge). A developed community has the ability to humanly satisfy these five categories of needs. Secondly, these needs must be spontaneous, that is, they must be coming from within, are not imposed from outside, not engineered by advertisement, and not artificially created by capitalism. Thirdly, it is not enough to simply satisfy these needs but to satisfy them in a human way. For instance, if I throw some food here, although you are hungry, you will not eat. Supposedly, if I bring some food in a plate, beautifully and respectfully arranged, then you will take it. Therefore, my idea of development is the community's ability to satisfy its diverse and spontaneous needs in a human way.

SOMATIC NEEDS

Somatic or bodily needs refer to needs such as the need for food, clothings, medicine, housing and transportation. It is true, or at least probable, that in the present day, people eat more food in terms of calories. However, 20 to 30 years ago, we drank pure water, breathed fresh air and ate pure unadulterated vegetables. Today, we do not drink pure water because the water is full of chlorine and we do not eat pure vegetables because they are usually treated with pesticides. So although food seems to have increased quantitatively, qualitatively it has dimpered.

Similarly, we look at how clothing are becoming more homogeneous and uniform, assimilating to the West and reflecting less of our own culture; how medical care does not match up with medical advances to improve human lives; and how modem day transportation is polluting the environment we live in. Once again, the question of whether we have wrongly developed or 'dis-developed' becomes significant.

Another cultural critique is that our consumption is not spontaneous. It is imposed from outside. It is the consumerism of the West invading not just India but also Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, etc.. Consumerism is becoming a cultural phenomenon. What is consumerism? Consumerism, in the new culture, is the tendency to consume ever newer goods, the most fashionable goods and foreign goods.

Consumerism is also competitive. I compete with my neighbor and show that I enjoy a higher status than him/her. This involves a particular philosophy of happiness. Your happiness consists of having something I do not have and your unhappiness consists of not having something, which I have. This contradicts with our traditional culture.

I am not saying that everything in our culture is wonderful. There are negative elements in our culture that we have to criticize. But traditionally, we have a much more human way of consuming. Firstly, in traditional India, what is important is what one is and not what one has or what one consumes. Which is more important - 'What I am?' or 'What I eat?' Secondly, traditionally, we have a more ascetic approach to consumption. Limiting consumption is a sign of inner freedom. Thirdly, traditionally, consumption was a social business. Consumption in a capitalist society today is very individualistic.

Therefore, when we think of the somatic needs, can we say that we today are more developed than we were 20 to 30 years ago? So where do we stand in relation to the Americans or the Swedes who consume more? Are they more developed than us? Does not the whole idea of development in today's usage becomes problematic?

ECOTIC NEEDS

Ecotic needs refer to needs that have to do with nature. This need is two-fold. Firstly, the need for different gifts of nature such as water, fresh air and food; and secondly, the need for nature as a whole. Let me draw an analogy of a small infant sucking its mother's breast. It is not enough to simply give the child a nipple. The child has a relationship with the mother as a whole. The mother is treating and carrying the child and the child feels the mother's warmth. The child has the need for the whole mother. In the same way, God makes us whole. We have the needs not just for the gifts of nature but also for nature as a whole, because nature in its true sense is our mother. The earth is our mother.

But the kind of development we are pursuing today destroys not only the things of nature, but also nature as a whole. It also destroys our need for nature. Development destroys nature in three ways: 1) through depletion of resources due to our increased consumption; 2) through pollution of the air, water and land; and 3) through degradation of the quality of the earth. Here again the question of whether we are developing or dis-developing arises.

POIETIC NEEDS

All human beings feel the need not only to produce the useful but also to create the beautiful. There is a fundamental need for us to act, create and produce the useful and the beautiful. What we create or produce is both an expression as well as an extension of ourselves. To a certain extent, we can say 'I am what I produce and create'. However, to satisfy this need properly, certain conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, production must be free and not forced upon the person. Secondly, production must be wholistic. It is wholistic when I produce as a whole human being, applying my intelligence, my wit, my physical energy, my sense of duty, my sense of value and my whole personality. Production must be wholistic also in the sense that the product must be the whole thing. For instance, when a carpenter in the village makes a table, he/she makes the whole table.

Production of the useful must coincide with the production of the beautiful. If you go to any village communities, the traditional artisans produce not just the useful but also the beautiful things. In traditional society, production of the useful coincides with production of the beautiful.

In capitalist society, production is not free. The working class is producing to satisfy other people's needs and to meet other people's goals. For example, the conversion of cultivating food crops to cash crops is to satisfy international markets. We are forced by these markets to produce rubber, coffee, etc.. We are producing for alien goals and needs. The production at assembly lines in factories is also far from wholistic. You neither involve the whole being nor produce the whole thing. If production is not free or whole, you cannot produce the beautiful. Production of the beautiful is banished to the outskirts of society. Today the artists, musicians, artisans, etc. are the third class citizens. If you want to see a painting, you have to go to a museum. If you want to buy a painting, you have to pay 10,000 or 20,000 rupees for one painting. So the beautiful has become the monopoly of the artists and the artists are monopolized by business people. Does the kind of development we are pursuing today satisfy our poietic needs? Again are we developing or dis-developing?

SOCIETAL NEEDS

Marx has said the greatest need of human beings in the communist society is the need for fellow human. To become human, you need to be recognized by the other. It is the other's recognition that makes you what you are. That is why Marx says that it is in the community that you achieve freedom. It is only in a community where human beings recognize you that you feel free. You must recognize me as the same, as belonging to the same kind, as another human being, who like you, can love, hate, work, despair, etc.. At the same time, you must recognize me as other. I am different because I may have other ideas, other conceptions and other ways of looking at the world. So you must recognize me as the same and as other. You must affirm me in my otherness and my fundamental rights to my otherness. We need the other in various ways such as the opposite sex, the other kin, other acquaintance, other friends and other community. So human being is a social being.

In the kind of development we are pursuing, are our societal needs being met? I doubt because one of the commonest tools of capitalism is individualism based on private property and private interest. In a capitalist society, an individual detaches herself/himself from the community. He/she floats on the surface of society, and then at one stage, is sucked into a world of competition. Individualism causes one to isolate oneself. This is why one of the major problems of western society or capitalist society is loneliness.

Capitalist society is also based on very strong competition. It is based on private interest. When my interest is negated by your interest, you become a threat to my interest. Therefore, I can promote my interest only by eliminating or subjugating you. There is a certain violence built into capitalistic development.

Capitalism will end up in imperialism because the former can only maintain itself by expanding its market or opening/entering new ones. Here in India, the doors have not been battled down. The Indian intellectuals and middle classes open the doors and welcome industrialists to come into the country.

NAETIC NEEDS

Naetic needs refer to the needs for knowledge. There are two kinds of knowledge. Practical knowledge is knowledge we need in order to attend to daily routine and necessities of life such as cooking, growing vegetables, marketing, etc. This can be unsystematic as in the case of ordinary people or systematic as in the case of scientific knowledge. The second type is called sophic knowledge. The word philosophy means love of wisdom. If you remove the part 'philo', sophic means concerning wisdom. Sophie knowledge means knowledge in the form of wisdom. It is the knowledge regarding the ultimate meaning of life. How is that I am? That I exist? I could have not existed - the whole question of non-being. Where do I come from? What is the meaning of life? We derive answers to these questions from sophic knowledge or wisdom. These we get from folklores, folk songs, faith, even Marxism, Christianity, or Buddhism, etc.. These are various ways to reveal to us the ultimate meaning in life and we need that knowledge for it is the ultimate ground on which we stand. However, our knowledge is often fragmented. While we gain in quantitative knowledge, we lost our wisdom. We have lost the knowledge regarding the ultimate meaning of life.

Conclusion

A society which satisfies the above mentioned needs will be a culture specific society. Culture specific means a society that is not homogenous. The development in India should be an Indian development. Similarly, Burmese development must have a Burmese face, and likewise for other countries. Development should not be something imported from the West. Each country has to develop in its own way, hence a development that is culturally-conditioned.

What is happening today however, is that the homogeneous Western culture is invading our country and we are losing our cultural identity. Our right to cultural identity must be recognized as a fundamental right. You might ask, 'Is not a homogeneous universal culture better?' 'Is it not good that we become one homogeneous nation, all speaking the same language?' No, because as someone once said 'it is diversity that unifies us'. A group that is diverse has more to give and take. Such a group can be much more united than a homogeneous group. We are for unifying the world and for international law and order. But it must be unity where we Indians as Indians have something to give — our sense of values, our sense of beauty, our sense of harmony. So we have to maintain our diversity, cultural diversity and identity, for the sake of unity. This does not mean that we should reject Western science and technology or culture. However, we should be selective and be able to say no.

Finally, our alternative cultural paradigm of development demands a semantic revolution. Semantic is a science of the meaning of words. Semantic revolution means revolution in the meaning of words. The UN, Western countries, etc. have developed a language, the language of development which has labeled us "underdeveloped" or "developing" while they are the "developed" ones. We should refuse such labeling. We must banish that language. We Indians are neither underdeveloped nor developing. We must be able to say that we are different. If we take certain criteria of development, we may be able to say that some Indian villages may be even more developed than other countries.