Article Reviewed: Abdulla Al Mamun (2008).

Cultural Anthropological Perspective of

Development Re-Examined. Canadian Social science.Vol4, No 2, pp .5-17

Reviewer: Duguma Mosisa (MA student in Social Anthropology) .dkeyeron@gmail.com

1. Introduction
This article is about reconsideration of development perspectives and theories from classical to
contemporary in the eyes of Cultural anthropologist. It summarizes the main extreme views
about development and the places of culture in development theory over the past. Its main
objective was to address the major biases in development theories and mainstream development
thinkers in the views of anthropological perspectives. It is written by Abdulla Al Mamun who is
an Assistant Professor in Department of Anthropology at University of Chittagong in
Bangladesh. He got his bachelor and masters degree in History from University of Dhaka.
Hence, the reviewer thinks the author has rich knowledge to write this article.

2. Summary of the Research

The author tried to re examine the arguments about the nature and philosophy of development in
economic, political, cultural studies and academic spheres over the past years. From his re-
examinations, Mamun claimed that the ‘mainstream economic thinkers’ failed to achieve what
they had promised to do. They were to elevate the economy of poor; nevertheless, economic gap
between poor and rich nations but it was rather widened. On ground of this, the author criticized
the models and theories of development as danger rather than worth for non western.

Secondly, Mamun strongly argued that the western have been exploiting and exerting
dominance over the other countries by the skin of their development process, like “colonization,
modernization and globalization”(p5-6).He also indicated that developmental theorists have
dislocated cultural aspects in the past and in most of their contemporary models (P-7). However,
they gave dominant place to industrialization, economy growth, technology and politics instead.
Thus, the underlying debate in this article was about marginalization of cultural and indigenous
knowledge as well as exclusion of anthropologists in developmental planning processes.

Thirdly, Mamun criticized the western centered views of development theories holistically by
intermingling economic and non-economic features of development concurrently. Similarly, he
opposed the narrations that pretend to remove the irreducible differences of human experiences.

1|Page
On this ground, he boldly narrated that anthropological view can provide alternative outlooks
which help to reconstruct balanced view better than western developmental philosophy. To this
end, the author criticized developmental theories as foreign directed, top down, culture at
periphery, marginalization of anthropologists’, capital accumulation rather than human
development affairs. Thus, he recommended mixing different views of developmental theories to
restructure development with multidimensional components (P15).

3. Methodology and Methods of the Research

The author employed qualitative research design using historical analysis method of data
collection regarding development theories over past time from different secondary sources and
documents. The purpose was to examine the concepts of development over the past years from
1850 to 1990 and reach conclusions about past views. Moreover, he used this research method to
discover events of the past and to relate it to the contemporary perspectives of theories and views
of scholars. The contents were analyzed by comparing theoretical models and theories of
development in different disciplines with cultural anthropological perspectives.

4. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of the article

The author tried to re examine views and concepts of development in different theories by using
cultural anthropological perspectives as frameworks. First, he reviewed different concepts of
development from past to contemporary theories (1850-1990s). Then, theories of development
from main stream views to modern alternative views were analyzed in themes and in
chronological orders. On top of this, Mamun re-examined that the central meanings of
development in most theories and models are almost inclined to economic growth.

On contrary, human development model viewed development as people’s choices. Similarly,

modernization theory and dependency theory focuses on political and issues of accumulation
respectively in addition to economic growth (p.8). The author criticized dependency theory as
“dictatorial development” and Neoliberals views as only income centeredness’. He also argued
that in modern development view, development is coined as technological progress rather than
human development (p-10). On the ground of this, the author seems in favor of post
developmental theory, which views a practice of development as western hegemony over the non
western, destruction of indigenous knowledge and cultural parameters from development

2|Page
theories (Miller 2011:260).Consequently, Mamun has positive judgment to human development
model as it focuses on richness of human life rather than richness of economy.

5. Critiques
5.1. Strengths of the Research

The author’s effort to organize different developmental theories, thoughts and models over the
past time chronologically and his attempt to analyze them holistically can be valued as strong
side. The Second quality is the methodology he used to bring and group different developmental
theories over time from different angles based on their themes and then debate against them
using cultural anthropological perspectives. In addition to his systematical selection of theories,
his ability to condense and criticizes such complex issues of developmental perspectives from
different angles using contemporary examples is another core point that should be appreciated.
Moreover, the article tried to address and make clarity about concepts and definition of
development which were being used over past history and still in debate by academicians.

5.2. Weaknesses of the Research

On contrary to the above strong sides, it also has some weakness. It needs subject matter
knowledge and critical reading to understand the concepts of each theory because they were
taken from different disciplines especially economics. Hence, knowledge of economic theories is
much more needed for easy comprehension and reviewing of this article. Secondly, under
cultural anthropological analysis only one country (i.e. Bangladesh) was given as contemporary
example to argue against the position of culture in developmental theories. Finally, how the
author selected developmental theories for re-examination was not clearly explained and
questionable.

6. Conclusions

In light of this article, one can conclude and draw the lesson that there is no one kind of
developmental theory which holds the absolute analysis of all economic, political, social and
cultural perspectives. Similarly, there is no pure and homogenous thinking regarding
developmental theories over past time as well as the current ones. Hence, in light of this article
review, it can be concluded that concepts of development is ambiguous and confusing as

3|Page
different scholar define it in connection to their own scope of discipline. They defined it over the
past and still defining it in accordance to its suitability to their countries context and field of
study. The author of this article also considered and criticized the western views and other
economic development thinkers taking his discipline as framework. To this end, I also
recommend that the issue about development should be seen from angle of economic and non-
economic dimensions rather than mere solitary factor.

References
Asad, T.(1990). Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, Humanities (5th edition).NJ:
Atlantic Highlands Press.

Crewe, E. & Harrison.(1988). Whose Development? London: Zed.

Miller, B. (2011). Cultural Anthropology 6th edition: Boston: Prentice Hall

Hobart, M.(1993). An Anthropological Critique of Development: London: Rout ledge.

Pieterse, J. N. (2001). Development Theory: Deconstruction/Reconstruction. New Delhi:

Vaster Publications.

Martin, K.(1991).Modern development theory. In Idem (Ed.): Strategies of Economic

Development (27-74) London: Macmillan.

4|Page