Thursday, 10 May 2012

I come from the future

Since the poll returned joint winners for what the next blog should be (1 vote each), I'm writing about something totally different. But rather like Series 2 of The Wire, it may not be the best, but if you want to understand everything that follows than you have to read it.

Before departing, I was explaining to a friend, Liane, what I was going to do - assist an educational charity with campaigning and advocacy. Then she asked a basic but rather meaningful question - why do they need you to do that? I scratched my head and hummed a little. Now I have an answer - it's to do with breaking the space-time continuum and travelling faster than the speed of light.

A while ago, I attended a seminar given by a guy called Matt Ridley (Zoe, I've still got your book!) who has written brilliant books about genetics, was the Chairman of Northern Rock when it went bust (kind of the UK's Lehman Brothers) and then wrote a book advising that all countries will become wealthy given time and avoidance of North Korea like policies. As countries join the development conveyor belt, a series of good things happen that lead to more good things happening that leads to us all having a good time. Woo hoo!

It's just a matter of time before we're all rich



We've made it!

Ridley is really saying that the explanation for different countries having different levels of wealth is because they are at different stages in their political development. The UK has had political stability, democracy and commerce for centuries. Cambodia would count this in years, months and days. Einstein may have thought that time and space cannot be separated but actually some countries sharing the same space are in different time periods.

For Cambodia, which has had about 15 years of peace after decades of war and centuries of colonisation, is it just like being in the US after their War of Independence in 1783, or more like 1865 and their civil war? Maybe Cambodia is like the UK in 1745, when the Jacobite rebels were finally defeated and the UK found political stability.

When we wonder why some countries cannot just sort themselves out and stop being poor, we should think about what our countries were like when they were at the same stage as Cambodia is now. A few men ruled, corruption was common, power came from wealth and force, rule of law was absent, the streets were dirty, the masses were uneducated and irrational beliefs were common.

But this does not mean that Cambodia has to wait 200 years to become a functioning, developed society. Although Cambodia may be at a different time to the developed world, they do share the same space, which means that people of the future (from the developed world) can travel to Cambodia and share with them the learning and skills that are common in the future. In this way, Cambodia can travel faster through time and catch up with the developed world quicker than they otherwise would.

Don't worry, it's Claire that is driving
Cambodia and Cambodians have not had the chance to reap the knowledge or learn the skills that we have accumulated over centuries. That is why I'm here. I come from the future to share what has taken us centuries to learn.

Gordon

PS, because this blog is maybe stretching credibility a little and a bit 'off-beat' I've added a couple of random videos to entertain you. The first is us out for a cycle through tobacco fields near Kompong Cham.




And the second is a tribute to the start of the rainy season which was this week. But since Claire has the camera away with her in Mondulkiri, we're making do with a rain storm when we were walking through the national park in Kep.



5 comments:

  1. Hello there. I used to work for VSO and am now based at the department of international development at Oxford University, and I must say that this is a shockingly out of date conception of development - are you on some kind of civilizing mission? The idea that you are 'from the future', teaching people how to 'catch up with us' is so patronising, and is certainly not VSO's approach to development.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tom, I'm glad you commented on the post especially since you disagreed with it. I understand ideas of different cultures developing in different ways and towards non-identical ends and that each culture should have the power to decide how it develops and towards what end. But I think what can't be ignored is that the vast majority of cultures would say that there are certain common things that define development - increased literacy rates, lower infant mortality, increased life expectancy and growing incomes. When measured in these terms, countries like Cambodia compare badly (are behind if we keep with the idea of time) with countries like the UK and the people here do indeed want to attain the same levels ("catch up"). Proof of this is the fact that many organisations and people here want VSO and VSO volunteers from the "developed" world to help them do this.

    It is not a "civilising" mission, a pejorative word loaded with historical meaning that you deliberately used to misrepresent what I wrote, but is simply about helping people have the lives that they are working so hard to attain.

    I also did not use the word "teach" as you did when describing what I wrote because I know this word can be perceived to contain concepts of a power hierarchy in terms of development. But let's be honest I think the people I work with here would be pretty disappointed if after two years they felt that I had not taught them anything. And of course I will learn from them too.

    Before this gets longer than the blog itself, I should clarify a couple of things. To write an attractive blog, I probably did write some tongue in cheek things alongside more serious things so it is my fault if these were confused. The "from the future" thing was not meant to illustrate our superiority but to illustrate why it is unrealistic to apply our expectations of development onto Cambodia (surely, a cultural relativist must like this idea!!!). Since this is a blog, I was attempting to confer complex issues in a fun and interesting way that people could relate to.

    And lastly, I don't actually agree with Ridley's idea (basically modernisation theory if anybody cares) that all countries become equally rich if there is free trade and sensible policies. But his ideas can still be useful to explain things.

    Do reply Tom as you obviously have a lot more experience in this area than me and it would be good to get your thoughts.
    Thanks Tom and I hope the (new?) job is going well.
    Gordon

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Gordon,

    I'm glad you replied, I feel much reassured. I understand the need to make development issues more accessible in a blog like this, but I really do worry how prevalent the modernization view still is. Too many people see development as a linear path to a glorious future, with the West as the pinnacle of achievement - a view we all need to challenge. Anyway, thanks for the clarification and I'm glad this isn't your perspective after all.

    Many best wishes and good luck with the placement.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gordon

    Thanks for this blog. It was thought provoking- and that was just the comments section. I miss working with you every day.

    Danni

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaagh Dan. My Khmer boss doesn't quite have the same capacity for understanding my humour. I'm not quite sure how much of my swearing he understands either. I actually really enjoyed the comments section too. Tom, sorry I've not replies to your reply. I wish more people left comments like you did. And please do so more in future!

    ReplyDelete