148
Connor F.J. Leckey
has materialised in institutions like the World Bank, where the idea that
indigenous knowledge should complement rather than compete with
global knowledge systems has been endorsed (World Bank 1998). Postcolonialists would argue that disregarding indigenous knowledge in the
manner that western development not only alienates native populations,
but also undermines development strategies. A greater emphasis on allowing indigenous knowledge to challenge traditional western development would not only allow for a re-conceptualisation of development
theory, but would allow for indigenous populations to take ownership of
the development process (Sharp and Briggs 2004).
So far this article has presented the argument that, due to its Eurocentric
teleology, development scholarship is an inadequate model on which to
base global development strategies. As has been discussed, development
discourse promotes an intellectually and culturally superior Eurocentric
understanding of enlightenment, disregarding the knowledge and experiences of the Global South and fabricating the very construct of the ‘third
world’ (Biccum 2002; Escobar 1995). Furthermore, development professionals rarely take into account indigenous knowledge, due to development practice being situated in the language of western science; indeed,
any attempt to convert indigenous knowledge into the realm of western
scientific language is often in an attempt to complement development
practices instead of posing a challenge to them. (Sharp and Briggs 2004;
Spivak 1988; Richards 1985). With reference to the aforementioned evidence, this article argues that the implementation of postcolonial understanding into the realm of global development would break down the
Eurocentric monopoly on development and thus deliver more successful
development strategies.
Development’s critique of postcolonial theory
Development theorists have been at best hesitant and at worst unwilling
to incorporate postcolonial ideas into the realm of western development.