Back Bay Review Number 3, Spring 2008 Back Bay Review a Journal of Undergraduate Criticism
the mani festo issue
Back Bay Review Number 3, Spring 2008 Back Bay Review a journal of undergraduate criticism
Boston University Boston, Massachusetts Editor Advising Editor Claudia Huang Zachary Bos
Staff Editors Faculty Advisor Amanda Cardenas Rosanna Warren Alexandrea Ellis Sandy SooHoo Founding Editors Maggie Howell Emily Nagle, Marcela Nishita Shastri Sapone, Emma Tosch Katherine Sheldon and Shan Wang Danielle Isaacs
The Back Bay Review is published annually by undergradu - ate members of the Boston University Editorial Society. All submissions and correspondence should be emailed to [email protected] or addressed to:
Editorial Society c/o Student Activities Office One University Road Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Visit our website at http://bu.edu/backbay/
Copyright © 2008 by Boston University Editorial Society and respective authors.
Printed by Offset Prep, Inc. 91 Newbury Avenue North Quincy, MA 02171
Cover Design: Claudia Huang and Sandy SooHoo Rear Cover Photo: © Jon Towle Back Bay Review
AN ISSUE DEVOTED TO THE HISTORY AND IDEA OF MANIFESTOS
Contents
3 Saving the Port Huron Statement From Itself Katie Sheldon
10 SciFaiku: Literary Movement of the Future Nishita Shastri
17 The Snails Strike Back Siv Lie
27 The Churning Tides of Blackwater Ankita Shastri
34 The Dogme Ate My Movie Danielle Isaacs
37 Development Jamie Clearfield
Editor’s Note
Rather than soliciting reviews and criticisms indiscriminately, we chose to experiment with a manifesto theme. We called for sub - missions in the forms of manifesto critiques, criticisms written in a manifesto style, and, for the truly adventurous, original manifestos. The following six essays were chosen for publication. We were pleas - antly surprised by – as I hope readers will be – the variety of ways that contributors interpreted the theme. Because the Review has a relatively small editorial staff, and because we focused on only six pieces, the editing experience was a very intimate one. The rapport that developed between contribu - tors and editors (in a few cases, editors were also contributors) is one that I hope can be sustained in coming years. I thank all of the editors and contributors for investing so much of their time and of themselves into this issue of the Back Bay Review ; your enthusiasm is infectious. To our sponsors and support - ers – including Ms. Edna Newmark, Ms. Susan Tomassetti, Prof. Rosanna Warren, and Sir Hans Kornberg at the University Professors Program; and Dean David Eckel and Prof. Chris Martin at the Core Curriculum – thank you for having confidence in us. Your support continues to be invaluable. Of course, an editorial note in an undergraduate publication at Boston University cannot be complete without a sincere thank you for Zachary Bos. I extend my greatest gratitude towards your knowledge, kindness, and unending patience. I hope you enjoy this issue of the Review, and, as we are always looking to improve, I welcome your feedback.
Claudia Huang May 2008
1 photo by Jon Towle
2 Saving The Port Huron Statement From Itself by Katie Sheldon
So, don’t explain that you’ve lost your way, That you’ve got no place to go. You’ve got a hand and a voice and you’re not alone— Brother, that’s all you need to know! –Phil Ochs, “That’s What I Want to Hear”
“If we appear to seek the unattainable, as it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the imaginable.” –Students for a Democratic Society, “The Port Huron Statement”
To be a student in wartime is a barely tenable position. It is to live in a fish bowl with only a vague awareness of something lurk - ing beyond the glass, to be simultaneously saved and marginalized from what is always the premier conflict of one’s generation. In later years, this isolation can either be a source of comfort or of pain; I remember my father’s admission one evening that he wished he’d gone to Vietnam instead of medical school, just as clearly as I remember hearing this sentiment countered years later by my high school health teacher who told our class, with pride and relief, about how his qualifying performance on a college entrance exam saved him from the draft and, likely, saved his life. Our position is not a novel one. The frustrations of having all the answers and no way of implementing them, of feeling our gen - eration robbed of its best resources our peers who are either recruit - ed into the military or recruited into the ranks of the wholeheart - edly disillusioned larger public, of feeling at odds with the dominant
3 American culture, even as we fight or prepare to fight a distant enemy, have all, in a sense, been “done before.” Enter Students for a Democratic Society and their revolutionary Port Huron Statement. Students for a Democratic Society was one of the more notori - ous collections of student activists to emerge from the turbulent six - ties. Their jurisdiction became “civil rights, voting rights and urban reform,” as US involvement in Vietnam increased. The organization originated in Ann Arbor, home of Michigan State University, under the leadership of radical local, UMich grad Alan Haber (Miller 26, 38). Haber presciently recruited into the SDS fold a young man who would be of great consequence to the history of American counter - cultural politics: …a student conspicuously lacking in a liberal political background. Their target was the incoming editor of The Michigan Daily and a man destined to become one of the most famous radicals of the sixties: Tom Hayden (Miller 40).
Hayden would play the premier role in shaping SDS policy when he served as the primary draftsman of The Port Huron Statement in the summer of 1962, at an SDS conference in Port Huron, Michigan. Photographs of the rustic (Hayden), expansive mess hall where it was painstakingly compiled by committee input, one feels, can hardly do justice to what must’ve been an electric atmosphere, infused with the momentousness of the task at hand. It is a room whose very sight, recalls the familiar din of impassioned argument competing with mealtime; it is a room one can imagine resounding with the simultaneous tedium and excitement of a small-scale model of the democratic process. The central idea of empowerment is emphasized time and again in The Port Huron Statement. Its architects came from the tradi - tions of labor and civil rights activism, and these galvanizing expe - riences no doubt informed their priorities of the idealistic vision of
4 America presented here: We would replace power rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance by power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason and creativity. As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation…
Unsurprisingly, Students for a Democratic Society sees the uni - versity and its constituents as the necessary catalysts in bringing about such a democracy, which should be doubly empowering for a disenfranchised generation of students, and for those whom they are supposed to help re-enfranchise. In expression within the Statement, however, this insistence gives an impression of well- intentioned oversight, but oversight nonetheless. First, to assume that the sheltered world of university life has anything in common with the real world, as in “That student life is more intellectual, and perhaps more comfortable, does not obscure the fact that the funda - mental qualities of life on the campus reflects the habits of society at large,” (Students for a Democratic Society 335) is utterly false, and disproves itself through the examples given: The fraternity president is seen at the junior manager levels; the sorority queen has gone to Grosse Pointe; the serious poet burns for a place, any place to work; the once-serious and never-serious poets work at the advertising agencies (Students for a Democratic Society 335).
Here, we are treated to a survey of occupations that the afflu - ent class can afford to aspire to, but what of those who were kept from higher education by poverty, and can’t gain access to such work? Where does this myopic metaphor university for the real world leave the poor and uneducated, those whom SDS should ide - ally make every effort to re-enfranchise into the political arena? It is also somewhat ironic that a group including “‘trickle-down’
5 welfare programs” (Students for a Democratic Society 340) in a cri - tique of governmental economic policy, seems to espouse a sort of trickle-down democracy, by asserting that: First, the university is located in a permanent position of social influence. Its educational function makes it indispensable and automatically makes it a crucial institution in the formation of social attitudes. Second, in an unbelievably complicated world, it is the central institution for organizing, evaluating, and transmitting knowledge. Third, the extent to which academic resources presently are used to buttress immoral social practice is revealed, first, by the extent to which defense contracts make the universities engineers of the arms race. (Students for a Democratic Society 373).
Another notable discrepancy between doctrine and action is encapsulated in the centrally important lines: “We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love. In affirming these principles we are aware of countering perhaps the dominant conceptions of man in the twen - tieth century,” (Students for a Democratic Society 332) which are directly contradicted by the fact that the Weathermen, an American terrorist organization active in the late sixties and early seventies, evolved from and traces its roots to SDS (O’Hehir ). Though Tom Hayden, principal scribe of this fascinating and con - tradictory document, never became a Weatherman and he evident - ly struggled with their role (and his) in the movement he’d been so instrumental in shaping, politically choosing to remain unaffiliated as he stood trial for other activities pertaining to his revolutionary SDS efforts, the address he made to this armed faction on the eve of one of their “rampages,” is given: As the Weathermen huddled against the cold that October night in Lincoln Park, warming themselves before a bonfire built out of park benches, Hayden,
6 wearing tennis shoes, with his shirt tails out, as always, picked up the bullhorn. He had come, he said, to tell them that he and his colleagues who were standing trial for conspiracy supported them. He welcomed, he said, their effort to “intensify the struggle and end the war,” (Miller 313).
It amounts to something of a betrayal that the young man who penned all those words about loving people and valuing life would give the go-ahead to his contemporaries who turned to political murder. Either this can be chalked up to the immaturity of Hayden’s youth, or, if circumstances had changed so drastically since the writing of The Port Huron Statement that violence was, in fact, the solution in this bold new decade, the shortsightedness of his document. It must be said that The Port Huron Statement has its flaws, as SDS has its organizational inconsistencies and why shouldn’t they? We are, after all, dealing with a “living document, open to change,” (Students for a Democratic Society 329) when Hayden et al are good, they are brilliant. The same can be said of Hayden’s Statement, which does get a staggering amount of things right. SDS, as it was in the early days circa the composition of this manifesto, was an organization focused upon political empower - ment. Heroically, they refused to stoop to the level of fear monger - ing to accomplish this. Acknowledgments of the admittedly terrify - ing prospects the country faced during the Cold War, just prior to the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam (“Timeline of the Cold War” ) are presented alongside statements speaking to the capabili - ty of the American people to work against such prospects. The atti - tude is summed up by a statement towards the manifesto’s end: Infinite possibilities for both tragedy and progress lie before us. On the one hand, we can continue to be afraid, and out of fear commit suicide. On the other hand, we can develop a fresh and creative approach to
7 world problems which will help to create democracy at home and establish conditions for its growth elsewhere in the world (Students for a Democratic Society 352).
SDS is completely correct to offer a viable, empowering alterna - tive to the governmental and industrial organizations that have used power, and the fear borne of power imbalance, as a tool of dis - enfranchisement so often used against economic, racial and social minorities. An exciting current of do-it-yourself spirit runs through its pages, and urges readers to “not depend significantly on private enterprise to do the job,” (Students for a Democratic Society 359) of accomplishing the disarmament that is necessary to end the “permanent war economy,” (Students for a Democratic Society 340) which threatens democracy and from which so many of the social evils described in The Port Huron Statement can be derived. It is made explicitly clear that the time is now; the government can nei - ther be waited nor depended upon, and the job is up to… whom, exactly? SDS has done a great and momentous thing, the sentiments of which are to be admired, in laying out the guidelines for the American New Left; in drawing the course that disarmament must necessarily take, and calling for reformed political parties, opti - mized for maximum citizen involvement. It touches on issues that we as a nation still grapple with today, like universal health care and the “genuine social priorities” of “abolish[ing -- ] squalor, terminat[ing] neglect and establish[ing] an environment for people to live in with dignity and creativeness,” (Students for a Democratic Society 365) offering painstakingly detailed and well-informed pro - grams for reform in the above categories. The fleeting hope upon reading such a simultaneously idealistic and politically dead-on document is that it will catch on. In theory, something like The Port Huron Statement should win, should be taken into serious consideration by the powers that be, but this is ultimately impossible. After all, the manifesto of Students for a
8 Democratic Society is primarily aimed at an audience of students. Not just any students: the ones who care enough to sit down, read, and take to heart a manifesto of moderate length and difficulty. Despite Hayden’s occasional witty asides, this is not the sort of reading that keeps you awake at night, nor is it something you’d leave on the common room coffee table for others to flip through. SDS acknowledges that students essentially live in a “crust of apa - thy,” (Students for a Democratic Society 334) and though they see a certain progress being made against this crust, this is because they are a collective of extraordinary students, who by their nature attract and are concerned with other extraordinary students, simi - larly moved to do something about the state of society. As students railing against the Ivory Tower, SDS is never going to get out of it not unless they fundamentally reconceive the organization as not one that specifically targets students but one that encompasses and involves humanity from all demographics, as is consistent with their gospel of empowerment. Only then will SDS and their ingenious, though slightly flawed Port Huron Statement, achieve their goal of a more equal and democratic society. ______Works Consulted “Students for a Democratic Society.”
9 SciFaiku: Literary Movement of the Future by Nishita Shastri
The movement of SciFaiku is based upon the Japanese haiku that is known to focus on nature . But SciFaiku takes this tradition to a new level by focusing on science fiction instead. A valid analy - sis must not ignore the popular belief that science fiction is to nature as science is to religion. In fact, this movement may very well have begun to defy this conviction; science fiction does not have to be the bane of nature. Those who promote SciFaiku imply that science fiction can be expressed as beautifully and simply in 3 lines and 17 syllables as nature can. Why confine ourselves to the green trees, the shimmering reflective blue oceans, or the fall of a leaf in autumn when we can go much further…as far as the next galaxy? In comparison to the more conventional haiku, this SciFaiku mani - festo can be taken as a joke, a satire, or even an arrogant belief that one can do anything with 3 simple lines. Or it can be taken as a rev - olution whose members are determined to elevate the status of sci - ence fiction in the eyes of skeptics and in its small way, to help tran - sition from one literary era to the next. Probably the most intrigu - ing aspect of this manifesto is that to convince the audience of the power and influence of science fiction, it uses the haiku’s traditions as its most fundamental foundation. The SciFaiku movement started in July 1995 by Tom Brinck and describes itself through this manifesto: SciFaiku is a distinctive and powerful form of expres - sion for science fiction. It packs all the human insight, technology, and vision of the future into a few poignant lines. SciFaiku is haiku and it is not haiku.
10 It is driven by the inspiration and many of the princi - ples of haiku, but it takes its own direction. It devi - ates, expands, and frees itself of haiku. (http://sci - faiku.com)
It is its own entity, yet every line and description, every syllable and expression is reminiscent of an older and more widely accepted form of poetry. And, like haiku, the main requirements of its style are immediacy, minimalism, and human insight (“Scifaiku.com”). The difference is that the originality and beauty of nature is supple - mented with the simulated technology of science. There are still allusions to nature, but the effect of the poem is to provoke thought of science and technology and the future it can create. The ques - tion then becomes- can this movement survive in the face of a com - petitor that allowed it to start in the first place? In SciFaiku, immediacy is a significant factor in describing the moment of interest. Concrete subjects and a definitive message are preferable to abstraction and vague philosophy. Human insight is one of the most defining aspects of Scifaiku because it connects the growth of science fiction to the human condition (“Scifaiku.com”). The goal of science fiction is therefore to understand ourselves by discovering countless futuristic situations and imagined worlds (“Scifaiku.com”). Consider a SciFaiku poem written by the Tom Brinck, creator of the movement himself: Carrion birds scatter with each twitch of reanimated flesh
The relevance to science fiction or technology in this poem is not realized until the last two words. By then, the readers comprehend that the subject is nonexistent, that the birds are not really birds, and that the aspect of nature that is described is a hoax. What pre - dominates is the farce, the absence of what we expect. What drives
11 the poem is the fact that what we believed to be a simple creature of nature is no more than a computer-generated creation, a man- made simulation of what is genuine, but what essentially is so very far from real. The shock of this revelation is what makes this poem the epitome of SciFaiku. In its ability to generate such a distinctive response, the poem is representative of the SciFaiku movement and purpose. As discussed before, nature is hardly the ideal complement of science fiction, yet in many of these poems nature fuses with science fiction to create a whole new effect. But by doing so the difference between nature and science fiction becomes as distinct as water and oil mixed in a precariously placed jar. An example of this disparate mix is “Solar Sail” by Dave Niedens: Void mariners riding the solar zephyr. Dandelion seed
The effect here is completely opposite to the first poem, yet it manages to have the same impact. Rather than coming first, the reference to nature comes in the last line while the first two describe a science fictional moment. The sudden transition from man-made machines to earth-dependent creatures prevails in both poems. Yet this linkage of the two opposites by a drastic shift from one to the other inevitably leads to questions: what exactly is the purpose for connecting the two and then separating them by their incongruity? What does the author mean to compare a dandelion seed with “void mariners”? And what is the purpose of writing about carrion birds? The feeling that lingers after reading such poems is not one of hope or belief in the future’s outcome. Consider the first: the use of such words as “carrion”, “scatter”, “twitch”, and “flesh” all bring to mind an image of utter carnage. The picture is hardly one of optimism. The second poem appears wistful in the comparison it makes between the “void” machines of the future and the innocent - ly-seeming dandelion seeds left on the ground. The longing for any -
12 thing but the inevitable hollowness of the future is apparent in the subtle usage and placement of the words in these poems. Poems like these abound in the movement and there is hardly any escape from its implications of an inevitable, forbidding future. The following anonymous poem is one such example: Blast the evil planet Death to the alien race Watch them die
This poem portrays a more definitive sense of doom than the others. Although the words portray the death of an alien race and not ours, the cruelty that punctuates every word predicts a differ - ent kind of end. The reader senses that although it is not our human race that is dying, it is our compassion that is crumbling behind such provocative words as “blast”, “evil”, “death”, and “watch them die”. The poem subtly speaks of the future in which the human race may survive, but at the cost of losing our humani - ty and civility, the essence of who we are. In killing the alien race, in pursuit of domination, we ourselves become alien. In this light, it becomes hard to say whether the Scifaiku move - ment’s purpose is to promote a sci-fi future or to make it appear dis - mal and undesirable.While some poems do send across a message of doom and destruction, it is still valid to say that the Scifaiku is sending a significant message through the creation of such vivid poetry. SciFaiku doesn’t only promote poetry of encrypted hopeless - ness; there are others, although fewer in number, that depict other - wise. In some cases, as in this poem by Graham Huesmann, such a future can be a good thing: The stars look lovely through these borrowed eyes.
While the last inclusion of the phrase “these borrowed eyes”
13 diminishes the aura of beauty that this poem seeks to describe, its presence is successful in making it a SciFaiku poem. The reference to stars makes it seem that science fiction in general is of little sig - nificance and meaning if it cannot be compared to aspects of nature in turn. Thus, although the SciFaiku movement seeks to transcend the ordinary world by going beyond it into a sci-fi future, it cannot do so without the allusion to the simple and the ordinary. The life and environment of the world is its foundation, and the manifesto, regardless of its attachment to science fiction, cannot escape the life and character of nature that allowed it to begin. This incongruity defines the SciFaiku movement. SciFaiku is still a relatively unknown and independent mani - festo. The purpose of this critique is to say that such a movement, though not extremely popular, is valid and still working to make its presence known in the literary and artistic world. Its success depends largely on reader perceptions and responses, as well as its ability to reveal a profound yet subtle message. It is hard to say what that particular message is, but whether the movement will one day find itself as the next huge style in literary art, only the future can tell.
All poems taken from http://scifaiku.com/index.html
14 photo by Sarah Beth Glicksteen
15 The Slow Food Manifesto Ratified by fifteen countries on 9 November 1989, Paris, France.
ur century, which began and has developed under the insignia of industrial civilization, first invented the Omachine and then took it as its life model. We are enslaved by speed and have all succumbed to the same insidious virus: Fast Life, which disrupts our habits, pervades the privacy of our homes and forces us to eat Fast Foods. To be worthy of the name, Homo Sapiens should rid himself of speed before it reduces him to a species in danger of extinction. A firm defense of quiet material pleasure is the only way to oppose the universal folly of Fast Life. May suitable doses of guaranteed sensual pleasure and slow, long-lasting enjoyment preserve us from the contagion of the multitude who mistake frenzy for efficiency. Our defense should begin at the table with Slow Food. Let us rediscover the flavors and savors of regional cook - ing and banish the degrading effects of Fast Food. In the name of productivity, Fast Life has changed our way of being and threatens our environment and our land - scapes. So Slow Food is now the only truly progressive answer. That is what real culture is all about: developing taste rather than demeaning it. And what better way to set about this than an international exchange of expe - riences, knowledge, projects? Slow Food guarantees a better future. Slow Food is an idea that needs plenty of qualified supporters who can help turn this (slow) motion into an international movement, with the little snail as its symbol.
16 The Snails Strike Back by Siv Lie
With these compelling words, the Slow Food organization was officially born. According to Albert Sonnenfeld, editor of Slow Food: The Case for Taste , “the very name, Slow Food, originated in protest against the Golden Arches, that portal to the temple of fast food and to the caloric altar of its high priest, Ronald McDonald” (Petrini 2001: xi-xii). Yet Slow Food is much more than a foil to the fast food industry. Fundamental to the Slow Food philosophy is the defense of pleasure, something that can be achieved through a responsible yet celebratory approach to food. Slow Food has con - structed a detailed ideology, gained a global following, and embarked on ambitious projects and campaigns in the name of “good, clean and fair” food. However, what makes Slow Food so intriguing may not be the things it does, but the way it talks. A rad - ical, revolutionary rhetoric is the catalyst for inspiring change, and Slow Food brings this language of hope and dissent to the otherwise stagnant world of gastronomy. Slow Food, founded in Bra, Italy, is the brainchild of one par - ticularly visionary gastronome and leftist political activist, Carlo Petrini. It was originally a cultural association supported by the Italian Communist Party (PCI). Once its founders realized that the Italian Left lacked a sense of appreciation for food (a mainstay of Italian identity), they decided to make the convivial enjoyment of traditional foods their mission. Slow Food now boasts over 80,000 members worldwide in about 1000 local chapters, or “convivia,” as Slow Food terms them. Slow Food, according to its international website, is a non-profit, eco-gastronomic member-supported organization that was founded in 1989 to counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people’s dwindling interest in the food
17 they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food choices affect the rest of the world (Slow Food International).
To achieve these aims, Slow Food engages in programs to edu - cate people about food systems and taste; to protect biodiversity in agriculture; to support the “little guys” of the farming world; and to build local and international networks of “food communities.” “Good, clean, and fair” is its motto: food should taste “good,” so eating should be an enjoyable experience; food should be “clean,” produced in an environmentally sustainable way; and food should be “fair,” so that those who produce it are fairly compensated for their work and receive the dignity and respect they deserve. Its logo is the embodiment of slowness: an outlined snail, which, as a gold or silver pin, adorns the lapels of the movement’s most ardent sup - porters. Using both grassroots and mainstream channels, Slow Food is a communications powerhouse that churns out books, articles, newsletters and web-based media. Since the original Manifesto made its debut, Slow Food has released other manifestos, including the Slow Food Manifesto in Defense of Raw Milk Cheese in 2001, and the Manifesto on the Future of Food in 2004. Some of its major publications, including Slow Food Nation (2007) and Slow Food Revolution (2005), can be read as extensive manifestos of Slow Food’s missions as they evolve over time. The strategy is to depict the state of the global food production system and to offer better, more sustainable alternatives. These publications serve as a call to arms, as means to spread the idea that what we eat can change the world we live in. In Slow Food Nation, Petrini opens the book by addressing pre - conceptions of what gastronomes are, asserting that they are not “a bunch of selfish gluttons who couldn’t care less about the world around them” (Petrini 2007a: 1). He portrays the gastronome as someone who is truly “a co-producer of food, a participant in a
18 shared destiny,” and that in order to fully understand the vital role of gastronomy in creating a “better global system,” a “new gastron - omy” must be thoroughly defined (ibid.). He then paints “A Worrying Picture” of “this age of globalization, the postindustrial age,” which “the world system seems unlikely to tolerate for much longer” (ibid.: 17). The result has been “collateral damage” to the earth that includes “pollution, soil death, the scarring of land - scapes, the reduction of energy sources, and the loss of diversity, both biological (biodiversity) and cultural” (ibid.: 19). These are the main issues, all interrelated byproducts of a food system that focus - es too much on quantity instead of quality, which humans need to be most concerned about if our planet is to survive. Industrial agri - culture has resulted in a “wholesale loss of gastronomic and culi - nary knowledge that was once the basis of a correct -- as well as enjoyable -- use of agricultural resources. We are witnessing a form of cultural annihilation that has affected the countryside of every part of the world, on a scale that is unprecedented in human histo - ry” (ibid.: 26). Petrini then introduces “new gastronomy” as the solution to this appalling situation. Rejecting the notion that gastronomy is an elitist occupation, he says that it is a science that “enables us to experience educated pleasure and to eat pleasurably” (ibid.: 55). Gastronomy must be considered not just a hobby, but an impera - tive; it is a subject everyone must study. It is understanding every aspect of food, from the way it is produced to the experience of eat - ing to the symbolic meaning it carries. The worldwide diffusion of gastronomic principles will lead to an increased demand for quality, which is necessary if the corrupt food system and all the problems it entails are going to be solved. This is, Petrini insists, the only way out of the world crisis. Defining quality, or what constitutes “good” food, is a delicate matter. Petrini, though recognizing that “goodness” is subjective, emphasizes that the cultivation of the sense of taste is the key to freedom and pleasure. He argues that
19 the coarsening of our senses is a surrender to the rul - ing model, which does not want us to be pleasure-lov - ing, satisfied people but unfeeling cogs in the jugger - naut propelled toward profit (and the grave).... To reappropriate one’s senses is to reappropriate one’s own life and to cooperate with others in creating a better world, where everyone has the right to pleasure and to knowledge (ibid.: 98-99).
The cultivation of taste thus has a moral and ethical impera - tive. It is a weapon against the homogenization of taste spread by the globalized fast food industry. In the context of Slow Food’s motto, “clean” and “fair” become auxiliary to a concept of “good,” because a food cannot be good if it does not already embody these traits. Taken together, the concepts of “good, clean and fair” repre - sent the standards to which all people should aspire in the food pro - duction system. Petrini considers it necessary to depict this “worrying picture” to prove just what is wrong with the Fast Life, how it will lead to the ultimate destruction of the entire world. An apocalyptic vision like this is common to many social movements, however Petrini’s prophecy is especially totalizing. He sees everything as intercon - nected -- culture, politics, environment, economics -- and logically traces the greatest intersection of these areas to the food system. He describes all the problems caused primarily by a misguided transfor - mation of this system in recent years, shocking the reader into demonizing a looming yet definable enemy. Agroindustry becomes the unequivocal dictator and devil, in one. Its effects are real and measurable, its reach pervasive. It is interesting that Petrini opens with such a negative account, considering that Slow Food was supposedly founded on the basis of valorizing pleasure. So which came first, the recognition of the problems associated with agroindustry, or the defense of pleasure? Slow Food’s history would imply that pleasure came first, then the
20 attack on agroindustry, since the movement grew out of a call to the Left to lighten up and enjoy food. In its earliest days, Slow Food was about praising the enjoyment of good food and wine without the pretentious attitude. Then the realization slowly took shape: that the denial of pleasure was not just a precept of the Catholic dogma and Communist doctrine embedded in the Italian consciousness. It corresponded with the efficiency-obsessed mentality that propelled the global diffusion of McDonald’s, agroindustry, and the commod - ification of culture. Once these threats to pleasure were firmly established, it acquired a whole new level of legitimacy. By framing the defense of pleasure in terms of the solution to a global crisis, Petrini begins to justify his call for a “new gastronomy.” It is a nec - essary approach to converting those under the spell of Fast Life, a wake-up call not just to the problems that exist, but to the overar - ching mentality that caused them in the first place. Petrini’s “worrying picture” typifies the political, often militant tone that runs through much of Slow Food’s rhetoric. It seems iron - ic that Slow Food would adopt such a style, considering its rejection of the Catholic and Communist ideologies that deny pleasure and valorize asceticism, yet employ a similarly dogmatic tone. Maybe this language is a parody on these attitudes which Slow Food oppos - es. Or perhaps it is intended to convey the seriousness of the issues at stake. Political economist Ronaldo Munck notes that “the post-1968 movements borrowed much of their language and organizational forms from the traditional socialist and Marxist movements even as they were criticizing them” (2007: 29). This language is indicative of Petrini’s upbringing and the political climate from which Slow Food emerged. It has been employed in Slow Food literature since the ori - gins, as demonstrated in its earliest publications: Rereading the early issues of In Campo Rosso (a name which leaves little doubt as to the journal’s political credo), one is struck by how typical the lan - guage is of its time: an uncompromising and tough
21 language that stakes out its opposition to business - men, bureaucrats, and the local Church in a single J’accuse. The tone is witty, satirical, and ironic. Dominated by conformism, Bra perceived very little of the turmoil in the world, and the members of the Circolo Cocito tried desperately to find a way out— anything in order to engage in a discussion and to pro - voke the reader (Petrini and Padovani 2005: 28-29).
The politically-charged language of In Campo Rosso is carried through to the Manifesto and into Slow Food’s most recent litera - ture. This language is often emblematically apocalyptic, consider Petrini’s description of how the Ark of Taste was initially con - ceived: Since the flood was imminent, as I said at the meeting, our ark could be the only salvation. The incoming storms threatened to inflict genocide. Neither market - ing, nor community politics, nor sharp intuitions would have been sufficient. We had to build an ark, I said, based on information and knowing that anybody who worked in this sector was a cultural actor (ibid.: 93).
The “worrying picture” is thus not just a rallying cry for political reasons; it is prophetic, with religious undertones, implying that the fate of the universe is truly at stake. Alison Leitch attributes much of Slow Food’s success to “its promotional politics, with its imagi - native use of the media and discursive strategies intended to reeval - uate specific foods, not simply as economic commodities, but as cul - tural artifacts linked to culturally salient notions of the past” (2005: 6). In this era, it is Petrini, not Noah, who must round up all God’s creatures before the “flood” washes away the world’s cultural and biological diversity. Slow Food is not the first movement to use this language in regards to food. Warren Belasco observes that the initiators of the
22 “countercuisine” movement, which began in the late 1960s “when young cultural rebels began to turn against mainstream foodways” (1993: 4), used a similar style in promoting their ideals: ...paramilitary, survivalist language had broad appeal.... If Americans were ‘junk food junkies,’ it would take quite a fight to break the habit, to ‘revolu - tionize our digestive tracts’... the food underground used the language of struggle not just for hype or para - noia, but also because it was a struggle to to change and the stakes seemed large ( 33).
Given the politically tumultuous context of this period, it made sense that a countercuisine movement would co-opt this language in its battle against the food establishment. Yet Slow Food takes this language out of context, employing it on its own terms, seeming almost anarchic in this era. What’s more, it can appear excessive when speaking of the right to pleasure and of safeguarding a species of turkey. Walking the line between parody and seriousness in this way can trivialize the organization’s objectives. The fanatic convic - tion with which Slow Food presents its argument has prompted crit - ics to view the organization as utopian, misguided, and above all, elitist. Though this foreboding and combative style may be neces - sary to “provoke the reader,” it can often seem excessive considering the content. In his opening speech at the 2007 International Congress of Slow Food, Petrini reminded the audience of Slow Food’s original founding vision: The centrality of food calls for respect. It must be the main interpretation through which we understand the world. So that’s why we reconfirm the importance of our founding Manifesto. When it was written in 1989, it included some issues that are still very modern and important nowadays. After 18 years, that Manifesto is still valid. We don’t want to change it, because it
23 includes everything. Even if we were not aware of it at the time, it included the evolution we have seen in the past 18 years (Petrini 2007b).
The Manifesto, with its militant overtones and anarchistic pre - scriptions, is indeed still pertinent today. It names the enemy of Fast Life, which only a defense of pleasure can combat. Yet for all its conviction, it does not “include everything,” as Petrini insists. The development of a “new gastronomy” and the ideals summed up in “good, clean, and fair” came years later, and these have now been adopted as central tenets to the Slow Food ideology. What has not changed since 1989 is the revolutionary, combative tone with which it communicates its visions. This language has endured from Slow Food’s beginnings through the present. How much it corresponds to Slow Food’s international success is unclear, but these foodie revolu - tionaries must be saying something right. ______Works Consulted Belasco, Warren James (1993). Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took On the Food Industry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Leitch, Alison (2005). “Why Food Matters: New Perspectives on the Politics of Food.” TASA Conference 2005 at the University of Tasmania, 6-8 Dec
24 Culture for Eating and Living . Trans. Francesca Santovetti. New York: Rizzoli. Slow Food International.
25 photo by Rob Eckman
26 The Churning Tides of Blackwater by Ankita Shastri
When offered security, hardly anyone in today’s world will deny it; after all, terrorism, poverty, crime and corruption remain the most pervasive problems in societies around the world. President Musharraf recently imposed an emergency rule allegedly due to imminent threats from terrorism; the US-Iraq war on terrorism continues to involve other UN nations; Iran and North Korea still pose a nuclear threat; human rights violations result in genocide and the degradation of countless generations; ambitious govern - ments like the U.S. exploit third world countries at the hand of oil companies; poverty and political corruption pervade many nations around the world including Africa, Nepal, China, Burma, etc. Enter Blackwater Worldwide, formerly known as Blackwater USA, a private American company headquartered in North Carolina and founded by Erik Prince in 1997 in order to provide security services and a training facility to the US government as well as other clients. Yet in promoting security, Blackwater finds itself accused of violat - ing human rights and taking advantage of dangerous situations. The question that many people find themselves asking in light of the September 16th shootings of seventeen Iraq civilians by Blackwater contractors is whether private security firms should continue to manifest themselves over the world in their secretive operations. In the highly controversial situation, Blackwater killed seventeen Iraqi civilians in Nisour square and maintained that they were protecting U.S. diplomats who came under attack; meanwhile, Iraqi investigators uphold that the shootings were not provoked. “We are guided by integrity, innovation, and a desire for a safer world,” states blackwaterusa.com, informing the world about the company’s goals and actions. A private company contracted by the
27 U.S. government to provide security for American diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater offers “state-of-the-art training facil - ities” that even the US Navy utilizes. Blackwater boasts of a pro - fessional “family” of trained persons ready to solve their defenseless customers’ problems and meet their needs. Blackwater also pro - vides training for law enforcement and the military, advises govern - ment agencies and private organizations on how to approach calamities, and commands sufficient presence in various parts around the world, ready to set out anywhere in a moment’s notice. Is this a reassuring presence or a hanging threat to the world? Many liken private military companies like Blackwater to mer - cenaries, hiring soldiers and veterans from around the world to carry out various missions with the ultimate goal of making money. Although the Geneva Convention explicitly bans the use of merce - naries, private companies get around this particular classification by stressing their experience and professional credentials through websites and profiles. Private military companies profit from war, as evidenced by Blackwater’s boom after the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. Currently, there are about 160,000-180,000 private contractors in Iraq, 1000 of which belong to Blackwater. For a profiting company like Blackwater, one of the questions that remain is what more would they gain from peace? Although the contractors themselves may have explicit goals to provide security in Iraq, the contractors themselves are rigorously trained in mili - tary combat in the use of various weapons and war equipment. Furthermore, as a private company, many of the contractors might have motivation beyond patriotism: as Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a principal critic of privatized war, stated, “Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country,” (Barry Yeoman). What’s more, the U.S. government has come to deeply rely on these private military firms in their operations in Iraq. With more than 1,000 Blackwater contractors in Iraq, many of whom escort and protect U.S. officials of the State Department, Ryan Crocker,
28 the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, reported to the Senate that the State Department depends very heavily on the security that these con - tractors provide. Armed contractors have escorted Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator in Iraq to safety through the nation’s dangerous zones. Yet behind this government dependence on Blackwater and Blackwater’s profit-driven motives stands the relationship between the founder of Blackwater, former Navy SEAL Erik Prince, and the Bush administration. Prince is an extremely wealthy Republican with close ties to the Bush administration: Prince interned with the former President Bush and along with his family, donated more than two million dollars to the Republican Party and its candidates. With this political connection, Prince was able to succeed in running Blackwater through no-bid contracts awarded to him and his com - pany by the Bush administration to work in areas like Afghanistan, Iraq, and New Orleans. Blackwater works conveniently for the Bush administration as well, since the privatization of the military in Iraq and other war zones suitably allows for the reported death toll to appear lower since it excludes the death of hired contractors. Much of Blackwater operations remain shrouded in secrecy by the Bush administration. While many Blackwater contractors escort U.S. officials, other contractors carry out more “sensitive work in the country,” (Brian Bennet and Adam Zagorin). Journalists remain mystified by the workings of Blackwater and thus can report nothing of verified significance to the American public about such private military companies and their actions (Jeremy Scahill). Furthermore, the company’s position as a private firm allows it and the government to dodge public scrutiny. As Blackwater president Gary Jackson admits, some contracts are so well-guarded that he can’t tell one federal agency what he does with another agency (Barry Yeoman). One of the most controversial issues surrounding Blackwater is the impunity with which the contractors work. Lack of tangible consequences for what they do allows the armed soldiers to carry
29 out military missions without having to worry about punishment. This impunity allows for the contractors to work more recklessly, giving the Iraqi citizens a worse image of Americans (Brave New Films). On September 16th, 2007, Blackwater, while protecting a U.S. convoy, shot and killed eight Iraqis, wounding others as well. This caused the Iraqi Prime Minister and cabinet to reinforce their deci - sion to suspend Blackwater’s license, restricting Blackwater pres - ence to the Green Zone, which encompasses the US embassy and Iraqi government offices (Brian Bennet and Adam Zagorin). However, Blackwater’s status as a private entity makes Iraqi control over Blackwater unclear. A student asked President Bush during a forum at Johns Hopkins University how much law applies to the contractors in Iraq since the American administration and Congress grant the company oversight that allows the private com - pany to surpass certain regulations. Bush jokingly evaded the ques - tion, stating he didn’t know and would have to ask the Secretary of Defense himself. As a private company Blackwater can circumvent many ques - tionable situations. For one, they can just attribute their actions to the government who funds them. This was the situation in the infa - mous March 31st 2004 event in which the aggressive citizens of Falluja attacked and hung the mutilated bodies of four Blackwater contractors on display from a bridge. The family of the four victims filed a suit against Blackwater for inadequate preparation and the omission of the word “armored” in front of the word “vehicle” in the contract that allowed Blackwater to save $1.5 million dollars at the expense of the four dead contractors. The mother of Scott Helvenston, one of the victims, reported the inequitable conditions in which her son ended up in the mission that killed him: the pro - gram manager, Justin McQuown, threatened Helvenston and, just days before Scott’s assignment was to be carried out, McQuown changed Scott’s task, which was originally to escort Paul Bremer, and instead ordered Scott to deliver kitchen equipment.
30 Furthermore, Blackwater neglected to conduct a protocol “risk assessment” of the operation in order to conduct the mission more efficiently and quickly to garner more contracts. Profit-driven, the negligence of Blackwater employees killed four contractors. Yet since the company is not a concrete entity, only the individuals involved in the incident were charged. Further, Blackwater hid behind the Defense Base Act which allows such corporations to avoid being sued by granting government insurance to the inflicted families. So should private military companies continue to expand and assert their presence around the world? Many citizens of America do not think they should (Brave New Films). Blackwater attempts to expand its base in North Carolina, and build new ones in south - ern California and the Phillipines, but the residents of these areas resent Blackwater’s encroachment into their backyard since they fear for the future when such companies will garner enough power and political backing to threaten more countries and people with the presence of an army granted impunity. Resident Richard Bell of Moyock, North Carolina divulges, “To have a private army, that’s a frightening concept and one that really, I hope, you know, doesn’t take fold in this country.” Carol Bell corroborates, “Such a possibil - ity of being so out of control…there’s just no limit to what could happen with that kind of organization and with that kind of train - ing that they have,” (Brave New Films). At this rate, rather than offering the safe assurance of credible security, the concept of Blackwater Worldwide and other private military firms threaten the rest of the world with their undefined and secretive presence. ______Works Consulted Bennett, Brian and Adam Zagorin. “Iraq Limits Blackwater’s Operations.” Time. September 17th, 2007. December 26th, 2007.
31 Sale: The War Profiteers”) Dir. Brave New Films. 2006. YouTube.
32 photo by Rob Eckman
33 The Dogme Ate My Movie by Danielle Isaacs
My first encounter with the Dogme 95 movement was at the screening of the Danish film Italian for Beginners. Directed by Lone Sherfig, the story concerns a “lonely hearts club” group of characters in a small town coming together through an Italian class held at a community center. While watching the film I couldn’t help but notice the lack of music, set design, or steady camera angles. Could this unknown Danish director have the audacity to produce a seemingly bare film in today’s cinematic society? Was there some - thing going on in foreign film I wasn’t privy to? For an answer I turned to my father, a teacher and lecturer on foreign film, and he told me about Dogme 95. Danish directors Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg grew weary of what had become of the film industry from the 1960s to the mid 1990s. They believed contemporary cinema was more con - cerned with fooling audiences through special effects and high-cost productions than with revealing truth. This is not to say they felt all film should have a documentary-like quality; their belief was that the camera should draw the truth out of the actors and their sur - roundings. Then on March 13, 1995, on the 100th anniversary of formal cinema, the two visionaries released their manifesto for what would be known as Dogme 95. Unfortunately this was not as momentous an event as it sounds, so dispose of the visions of film - makers as soldiers wielding weapons of cameras and dollies. This manifesto addressed the fact that films were becoming cookie-cut - ter, high gloss representations of superficiality. Trier and Vinterberg stated that new wave and independent film had become too main - stream to be considered deviant art forms. Their mission was to strip film down to the bare essentials; only the actors and script
34 should carry the production. Essentially film was to no longer to be art. Along with this manifesto came a “Vow of Chastity.” This was a set of rules conceived by Trier and Vinterbeg that all “pure” Dogme 95 films had to follow: 1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). 2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot). 3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobili - ty attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place). *This means filming cannot be done in a studio; it must be shot in the location specified in the script. 4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not accept - able. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera). 5. Optical work and filters are forbidden. 6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) 7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.) 8. Genre movies are not acceptable. 9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm. 10. The director must not be credited.
These rules defined Dogme 95 as a kind of militaristic cinemat - ic movement. The idea was not to create individual expressions of art but to completely do away with genres and style in order to pres - ent realism on the screen. Aside from directors who were not able to put their names on their work, films were referred to by numbers rather than by their titles. Was this manifesto the beginning of a socialist film revolution or just a way for a handful of foreign direc -
35 tors to gain attention? It seemed to me to be a bit of both; the founders of Dogme 95 created a community where ‘true’ artists could produce their films and generate publicity by rejecting the norms of contemporary production. Trier and Vinterberg stood behind their “Vow of Chastity,” but as what usually happens when you impose rules in art, they are sought to be broken. Sadly, in 2002 Dogme 95 met its demise. It was as if Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg filmed a revolution and no one showed up to watch. There are many reasons as to why this manifesto did not have a strong hold on the international film community. Dogme 95 became a genre unto itself, something that its creators tried to shy away from. The manifesto also stressed that not everyone should be able to make a Dogme 95 film, but that too failed as any - one could fill out paperwork on the movement’s website and declare their film pure. Directors unlocked their chastity belts and began to work loosely within the rules of Dogme 95. Vinterberg admitted to using a curtain to block out a light in a scene, essentially defying his own conventions. It appears that those rules were more like guide - lines anyway. Lastly, the films did gain international attention, crit - ical success, and gained major film festival awards. Once money came into the picture there was no need for a reason to defy conven - tion. Unfortunately without money there is no film. Trier and Vinterberg were artists (although they denied it) and when artists want to make a statement, they create, and in this case their cre - ation was the Dogme 95 manifesto. Yes, it was a way for them to gain fame and international attention, and although they did, it failed; yet the ideals of Dogme 95 have continued to trickle down into mainstream cinema, with over 252 films bearing a Dogme cer - tificate.
[The editors recommend Dogme 95 films such as Dogme #1 The Celebration, Dogme #2 The Idiots, Dogme #3 Mifune, and Dogme #12 Italian for Beginners. For more information see Dogme 95’s website at http://dogme95.dk.]
36 “Development” by Jamie Clearfield
Introduction The manifesto which follows was born out of many conversa - tions (and cups of tea!) with friends and colleagues in the develop - ment field who, like me, are growing increasingly dissatisfied and frustrated by the present condition of the international develop - ment field and the world it serves. We are tired of a world where the few control and manipulate the rest whether through prestige, power, money, or indifference, where the omnipresent dollar is what is really at stake, and where it is all too easy to allow the status quo to become the vision of the future.The development industry has existed for sixty-odd years too long (not to mention its parents, colonialism and imperialism); what does the world have to show for it? For every success story there exists an equal number, if not more, of tragedy; poverty is being passed as the only inheritance for too many generations and inequality continues to grow. I do not have solutions, but I do offer my experience from the field, my ears to listen, my voice to offer suggestions, and my hands to work. I offer my visceral understanding of development and of my role as a change agent in this world. To all those (and there are many!) who have grown tired too young – tired of the unending piles of articles and books never reflecting the souls and faces of people, of the ever increasing confusion surrounding our roles, of damning the past and the apathy of the present, of the ever con - stant terror of forgetting the purpose of the work and losing our way in the jungle of theory, bureaucracy, and corruption - but who, regardless, remain unafraid to hope, believe, trust, and act for a dis - tinctly different and brighter future. Let us take these ideas to those who disagree through their actions, if not their words, to the apa - thetic, disillusioned and corrupt, and let us begin.
37 “A Development Manifesto” The foundation of development is social justice, and its focus should always be on people. Not economics, not GDP or whether a country is a high, medium, or low-income state. Human life, in terms of both quality and expectation (in all meanings of the word), should be the ultimate priority. Since human life is depend - ent on the environment for survival, preserving this planet is implied when I declare people and human life to be the most impor - tant things in development. When I write social justice, I mean the right for every person, to quote the economist Amartya Sen, to “pursue the life they deem valuable;” for every person to have the freedom to choose their own destiny, and for everyone to understand and respect this right. In the society mankind has created today, this translates into every person having access to quality healthcare, adequate and quality education (I mean education here, not schooling); access to ade - quate and sufficient food and water to live healthfully; recognizing and receiving their basic human rights and dignities (including being able to pursue a viable livelihood; being treated with respect and equality by society; having an adequate and quality shelter; the ability to send your children to school; the ability to clothe yourself and your children, etc); living in a clean and secure environment with proper sanitation; having a sense of security in your village, town, neighborhood, city without fear of physical or sexual vio - lence. I could go on, but you get the idea. The careful reader will have noticed that the previous para - graph repeats two words – adequate and quality. While you may assume I do not have much of a vocabulary, I repeat these two words purposefully to ingrain them in your mind. I am not naïve enough to write that everyone should have the best of everything – the best food, clothes, shelter, the cleanest water, the finest educa - tion, and the best healthcare, though perhaps in the darkest, most naïve part of myself, I wish that it was so. The nature of the glob - al economy and the compounding damnation of history makes that
38 desire foolish, though only so if I believed it were realistic. One must never be thought foolish (even by oneself) for believing in the best of mankind and desiring the best for them. And so I use the words “adequate” and “quality,” not because they are poor word choices (though they do seem, ironically, inadequate at times for what should be used to describe the fundamentals of social justice and much of human desire), but for lack of anything better. I have no words to offer in place of these two in the context of development, as they have been similarly entrenched into my own mind by many books and well-meaning teachers; I’m merely passing on the favor. The term social justice has become a “buzz” word among the “development set.” It is a pity the term has never really been employed in the field, as least not by its major players. My father, a family physician, always liked to joke when I was young that if he cured all of his patients, he would be out of work. A good joke though if one thought carefully on it, they would come to the same realization that I had - it simply would not be. If he cured all of his patients, there would still be more as people continually become ill or injured. However if he and the rest of his field and the support - ing infrastructure practiced preventative medicine, the number of those who came to see him would be reduced as well, and he might be able to retire early and travel the world as he wished. Unfortunately the medical profession, at least in America, does not consider preventative medicine prudent; neither, despite their many declarations claiming so, does the development field. The ultimate goal for every multi- and bilateral organization, civil society group, nongovernmental, philanthropic committee, etc should be to put themselves out of business. That is, the work that those organizations and we development workers do, should result in our services no longer being needed, case closed, problem solved. If a community needs help in developing a clean water program, the development/aid agency involved should be able to step in, help the community where needed (perhaps with resources, brainstorming, logistics, etc), and then leave in as short a time as possible as the
39 photo by Claudia Huang
40 community is able to function independently. The external organi - zation’s help was understood from the beginning by everyone involved to be temporary. The project is completed– the communi - ty now has a sustainable source of clean water and the skills need - ed to tackle any further project in the future. Some would call what I’m describing here as “sustainable” development – something that has the resources to sustain itself without negatively impacting further generations financially, social - ly, or environmentally (Brundtland Commission). Others would say that this scene is too simplistic, that there are generally too many other factors going on to for the outside agency simply to disappear. The scene, others would say, is unrealistic and naïve. More would say that this is not how things are done. Again, I must ask the reader’s indulgence, and allow me to say that the scene above is how I understand “development.” My role as a development worker is temporary and fleeting; like my father, I prefer to practice preventative medicine. The more one reads of development, the more confused one becomes. The more confused one gets, the more disillusioned she or he often becomes; frustration mounts and the world can look like a very bleak place indeed. There are too many words humans use to define development. Many highly schooled people (some are even educated!) have written on the “business” of development. Countless books have been written on the senselessness with which development has been conducted throughout the world (i.e. sending donated dieting aids to famine victims and heating blankets to the tropics), and many more have been written on the dualities of nations as they give aid. As I have plowed through these documents over the past few years, disagreeing with and also enlightened by many to some nuances in the development field, I came to realize I have very lit - tle to add to the academic field of development. Instead, I offer what is not often discussed in the literature – I offer the emotional and visceral side of development. These few pages here are not
41 meant to be added to the libraries of development workers; instead read these words and react to them. Challenge me, reader! Through this challenge we can learn from each other and move forward; the challenging of each other and our known ideas is also development. The field of development as it exists today was born out of the seeds of colonialism – a system that prided itself and thrived on racism, egocentrism, and many more negative –isms. I have tried and failed to understand a system that developed on the sweat of colonial labor; instead I offer my own vision above. I realize my own theory has many faults and large gaps, and truthfully is not a the - ory at all but merely a desire, vision, goal for how to pursue my own work in the future. Among the many faults is the fact that virtual - ly every donor and recipient nation, and many large nongovernmen - tal and philanthropic organizations, at heart, do not believe (though they may espouse) as I do. How can they when the basic world structure has barely altered since colonial days? The major coloniz - ers have merely become the donor nations, the colonized the “Less Developed Countries.” What I write is not new. Many before me have voiced this sentiment long before, yet little has changed. Then to add insult to injury, couple this basic world structure with the fact that the models and organization of many of these large organ - izations are based on business principles. The business model is not inherently bad – supply and demand, profit, etc – especially not if you are intent on running a business. However when you are deal - ing with people and their basic human and democratic rights - peo - ple who are fallible, who feel, suffer, who may live or die, prosper or fail, “develop” or not based on your plan –the business model is very frightening indeed. And so I must repeat (pun intended): The goal of development should be to put ourselves out of business. As an American, I was spoon-fed ideals of justice and democra - cy, raised to believe in myself, in my potential, and in the potential inherent in all mankind. I was blessed that my parents taught me to love and respect my fellow man, and to always always look for the good in the other. Because of these early lessons, I am able today to
42 write and speak out on social justice. Psychologists may analyze this and perhaps remark that I carry some inherent guilt for my privileges – the access to quality education, fine shelter, clothes, healthcare, and food I have simply because of luck. Call it guilt (or socialism or communism or an other –ism) if I wish to see the priv - ileges I had, the privileges that the international community has agreed are basic human rights, equalized. Call it guilt if you want to; I prefer to think of this drive as justice. The development world talks of top down, bottom-up, inside out, outside in, sideways, backward, economic, social, moral, community, community-based, community-driven, participatory, rural, urban, peri-urban, agricul - tural, infrastructural, industrial, governmental, and many other types of development. Whichever kind you want to implement, always the bottom line should be about the people who are sup - posed to benefit from whatever it is you are doing. I could go on and on with my personal beliefs regarding the best methods to imple - ment development or the evils of centrally-driven, top-down devel - opment that continues to be widely practiced under so many differ - ent guises, but these are inconsequential. The confusion we have about what we are doing in the development field is evident in the number of different methods and theories that exist. Slowly and painfully (more so for the supposed “beneficiaries”) the field is dis - covering what actually works best for communities and individuals (though not necessarily for the development field), though many (who unfortunately happen to be in very influential and powerful positions in aid and development organizations, and academic insti - tutions) still cling to the old ways. I continue to wonder if these powerful people realize the damage and suffering they cause for the sake of their own prestige, or if they honestly believe that the old ways are best. I fear either answer may be correct. The time has come to bring these issues out into the open, and decide how to move forward. The development field should not exist in another sixty years and the field cannot exist as it presently does if we are serious about reducing poverty, equalizing human rights,
43 and social justice. As I stated before, I have no answers, but then no one does. If we did the development field would no longer exist. And so, I leave this manifesto unfinished here where I am unsure of where to continue. Let this end be only the beginning – the begin - ning of a new dialogue, a new belief, and purpose towards that brighter tomorrow in which my job is obsolete.
44 photo by Rob Eckman
45 Back Bay Review
The editors of Boston University’s journal of undergraduate criticism are now accepting submissions for the Spring 2009 issue. We welcome submissions in the form of critical essays, explications, reviews, reviews of reviews and articles which address the philosophical and scholarly aspects of criticism. All works should be addressed to: Editorial Society c/o Student Activities Office One University Road Boston, Massachusetts 02215 or [email protected] The deadline for the Spring 2009 issue is January 1st, 2009. http://bu.edu/backbay