Channelling Jonathan Swift…

When you write in the disingenuous style the author uses, you can make virtually anything sound ridiculous. It’s academia’s equivalent of saying something in a Homer Simpson voice—it doesn’t really prove anything, but it provokes people and gives satisfaction to those who also don’t like whatever it is you’re trying to criticize: “Look at me, I’m developing civil society in Central Asia, doo dee doo dee dooo…” is basically the gist.

The author brings up some serious points, but they’re not developed all that well (he says that he doesn’t want to insult well-meaning people, but he could get a lot more specific on, say, the conflict prevention industry, without stepping on any toes) and his points are further diluted by the very cheap stabs he takes at conceptual approaches used in the development industry, discipline, sphere or whatever you want to call it. Development policy in Central Asia can certainly be criticized intelligently, but trying to do so without analysis is pretty weak. I’m not sure the piece is poignant enough to be called satire (as the author repeatedly does—“don’t you know, if you don’t agree with me, then you’re just not sophisticated enough to understand satire—but that’s alright, you’re well-meaning and I don’t want to offend you, so I’ll stay up here on my high horse”)…

The article does indicate one big problem for Central Asia scholars—and that is the dominance of development literature in literature on Central Asia in general. But this is surely not the fault of development workers… If anything, academia has been slow and lazy in stepping up to the plate and producing a quality body of literature on the region; I think most development workers would agree that it’s sad that USAID contractors’ monthly reports and assessments are often the most authoritative sources of information on major trends in Central Asia. Nor has the marketplace of ideas culled out some “experts” who are obviously quacks, but get by because CA remains an obscure and little-known region. I heard one story of a Turkmen PCV coming back and being not only astonished at his CA studies professor’s lack of basic familiarity, but also at the latter’s obvious dread of someone that may be able to challenge him as a “CA expert”. This is a high school English teacher we’re talking about whose two years of cultural experience made him too much of a heavyweight for one of America’s more recognized CA experts. There are some great Central Asia scholars as well, but for some reason they exist side-by-side with equally-recognized “experts” who just haven’t bothered to do their homework.

Anyway, hopefully this is all growing pains, and the large number of aspiring Central Asia hands will discipline work on the region, and development literature (created primarily for organizational accountability, not for serious analysis) will no longer be so determinative of what is written of Central Asia in general.

If Megoran’s piece is intended as an attention-grabber to make people’s blood boil and spur discourse on some of the valid points he touches on, then great—it was certainly condescending enough to touch a nerve with me. If it’s intended as a coherent criticism of development approaches in Central Asia, then it falls way short.

Can’t say I agree with “Matt W”, nor am I as irritated as he is by Megoran’s piece.

I found the article’s intention pretty clear. I don’t think it could be interpreted as a comprehensive critique of Western development policy towards Central Asia. It aims, rather, to turn common discourse on its head and view a situation from a different perspective than that to which we are normally accustomed. I think the article makes this clear.

Surrounded by our own echo chamber of development-speak, this kick in the ass is something the development community needs once in a while. We often get so wrapped in our own construction of reality that we fail to acknowledge that other perceptions may exist and might also have equal validity to our own.

“Matt” is right that this is the equivalent of a Homer Simpson take on the development industry in Central Asia. But the Simpsons is an equally valid – not necessarily ‘true’, not necessarily ‘better’, but equal – critique of American society and culture – something that we need in order to help us question the norms that we take for granted.

Megoran here provokes his readers to question the power relations that lead to the majority discourse today. This doesn’t mean the discourse is entirely mistaken, but at the same time, the USAID reports to which “Matt” refers also capture only a single, self-interested, and limited representation of reality.

The article is a refreshing break from the continuous stream of AID-inspired consultant- vernacular, and brought a smile to my face.

Now, back to writing my monthly report…