Alessio Surian taught at Padua University (Italy). He trains and consults on education and participatory policies and is an expert for the Intercultural Cities Programme. He works with the Laboratory of Public Policies and with Urban Popular University of the International Alliance of Inhabitants. He was Programme coordinator for Global Education at the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe. He co-wrote the DEAR study (2010), https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/DEAR_Final_report. He has had numerous publications written in Castilian, including the article “A Comparative Study on the European Policies on Education for Development” in Papeles de Cuestiones Internacionales, “Urban Popular University” and “Compass. A Manual on Human Rights Education with Young People”.
Contact: Università degli Studi di Padova, via 8 Febbraio, 2 – 35122 Padova, Italia. alessio.surian@unipd.it
Versión para Imprimir - Printable Version
Alessio Surian COMMENT COMENTA.pdf
Written 40 years ago, De Clerck, Keune, and Koke’s approach to development education is consistent with more recent work on education for global citizenship when they imply – as Paulo Freire did – education as cultural policy and a necessary “critical and democratic perspective” (“Una mirada crítica y democrática”), which “implies becoming aware of the tensions, contradictions and injustice of the (‘glocal’) world we live in” (“hace referencia a la toma de conciencia de las tensiones, contradicciones e injusticias del mundo que habitamos (‘glocal’) (de Paz Abril, 2007, p.75).
From this cultural perspective they remind us that “all societies are developing” and therefore “the distinction between ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ countries is unsound”. Before addressing data and comparisons (the body of their study), De Clerck, Keune, and Koke question the heart of the “development ideology” (Sachs, 1992).
As Ivan Illich wrote in 1990: “The needs that the rain dance of development kindled not only justified the despoliation and poisoning of the earth; they also acted on an even deeper level. (…) They reshaped the mind and senses of homo sapiens into those of homo miserabilis. ‘Basic needs’ may be the most insidious legacy left behind by development”. This makes it relatively easy to simplify the understanding of the development type of agency that is supposed to be the responsibility of non state actors with “solidarity and sympathy” prevailing over “efforts to analyse problems” (p. 23). The very history and DNA of international solidarity non state actors often reflect this approach with information and education objectives only emerging after the mid Sixties (p. 24): Clerck, Keune, and Koke (p. 72) gather that the main development education focus “is given to the preparation of material for use in schools” although “other targets include young people, study and action groups, and sometimes even adult education”.
In 1975, the United Nations definition of development education stated that “Development education is concerned with issues of human rights, dignity, self-reliance, and social justice in both developed and developing countries. It is concerned with the causes of underdevelopment and the promotion of an understanding of what is involved in development, of how different countries go about undertaking development, and of the reasons for and ways of achieving a new International economic and social order”.(quoted in Osler, 1994, p.1). Partly in line with this definition, De Clerck, Keune, and Koke (p. 4) suggest that development education is “a body of activities aimed at stimulating a new awareness, in order to mobilise forces capable of helping to bring about social justice and equality of opportunity for all groups and all peoples” and they are critical of an organizational set up that generally makes it “difficult to draw a line between fundraising activities and public information and education” (p. 70).
Although the organizational and policy changes in the organisations concerned by the study and in likeminded organisations have affected them deeply over the past decades, this perspective enables Clerck, Keune, and Koke to highlight five dichotomies (p. 74) concerning the work of international solidarity non state actors that are still relevant today. The dichotomies concern: formal vs. material objectives, development education vs. fundraising, development education vs. development projects, development education vs. changes in the donor country. These dichotomies are easier to understand on the basis of four development education key aspects identified by Clerck, Keune, and Koke (pp. 4-5):
- development education involves the recognition and experience by the individual of his/her personal involvement in a given situation;
- development education encourages the forming of a value judgement on own lifestyle and comparison of distant local contexts;
- development education implies taking sides and promoting effective intervention in order to change “the situation on general and the situation of each of us in particular”;
- development education should be a “continuous and creative process” based on “continuing criticism” of “constantly new situations”.
This “critical pedagogy” perspective on development education brings Clerck, Keune, and Koke (p. 23) to reflect upon the effects of building international solidarity activities upon concepts of “underdevelopment” with “interpretations of the Third World situation” generating “different and even contradictory” reactions. While they don’t mention (and they probably underestimate) the impact (in terms of stereotyping and discrimination) of “compassion” messages upon the European migrant population, they highlight an “almost total absence of professionals and leaders from the Third World” (p. 24). Implicitly, Clerck, Keune, and Koke seem to question the “project” approach as a short-term strategy is contradictory with the idea of development education as a continuous critical thinking and creative process: “the influence of the practical short-term objectives is stronger and often hampers the achievement of long-term objectives such as development education” (p. 73). Lasting partnership and shared agency with Southern partners are vital to such long term perspective. The 2010 DEAR Study, available at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/DEAR_Final_report
shows that there are manifold ways in which quality DEAR projects involve voices, perspectives and experiences of Southern partners and countries.
Good practices include:
• Integrating a dimension of direct contacts between European and Southern actors into DEAR projects through mutual visits, partnership building and twinning projects. The need to invest resources into such activities which require a lot of time, attention, careful reflection and money for expensive journeys must be acknowledged.
• Involving (a) European migrant communities and (b) experts from the South into DEAR projects. These actors should be involved in key roles which enable them to take a real influence on shaping the project.
• Encouraging Southern organisations to participate fully as equal partners in DEAR .
The same study recommends moving “from a predominantly Eurocentric to a more inter-continental perspective for informing DEAR. In today’s globalised world a distinction between a ‘developed’, wealthy North and a ‘to be developed’ poor South makes little sense anymore”.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
- de Paz Abril D. (2007) Escuelas y educación para la ciudadanía global. Una mirada transformadora. Intermon Oxfam, Barcelona
- Osler A. (ed.) (1994) Development Education. Global Perspectives in the Curriculum, Council of Europe and Cassell, London
- Sachs, Wolfgang (ed.) (1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. – London: Zed Books
