qpr-1-2013-foreword.pdf | Page 144

144 Connor F.J. Leckey of understanding, the overwhelming consensus amongst postcolonial scholars is a universal critique of development studies. Accounting for development theories inability to understand development in the context of the Global South, postcolonial theorists argue that development professionals are ill equipped to deliver viable development strategies. The remainder of this article will examine the epistemological divide between postcolonialism and development, presenting the case for the inclusion of postcolonial understanding into global development. Postcolonial critique of development Having presented an overview of some of the key themes concerning postcolonial scholarship, this article will turn its attention to the main arguments surrounding the postcolonial critique of development studies. Postcolonial critique of global development can be deconstructed into two main areas: postcolonial critique of development discourse and postcolonial critique of development practices. Although both are arguably inseparable, development practices are often a result of development discourse or vice versa; this article will therefore study these independently, due to each area’s unique points of contention. The overriding criticism from postcolonial scholars concerning discourse associated with development studies deals with the characterisation of ‘development’ as simply spreading a ‘culturally superior’ Eurocentric understanding of enlightenment. After World War II post-war institutions speculated on development as being universal and inevitable, naturally springing from enlightenment principles. On the other hand, development of ‘poor’ countries was seen as something that must be actively sought after. This paradox, that development should naturally occur yet must be sought after in ‘poor’ countries, both emphasises the perceived disposition in western understanding of a Eurocentric supremacy over the Global South and a privileged position of the European/ West as the centre of human progress (Biccum 2002). Thus, such a spec-