| INTRODUCTORY NOTE |
| GOING GLOBAL, GLOCAL OR LOCAL: A HUMANICS OF ALTERNATIVE SOCIAL VISION |
Edward K. Kirumira
Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences, Makerere University |
De Beer and Swanepoel (2000: 31) observe that "with the recent and
growing emphasis on globalization of economic and social life, and the
collapse of many state socialist societies especially in Eastern Europe,
the notion of what constitutes a developing society has in effect widened".
Development theory discourse runs between theory and ideology, on the one
hand, and policy and practice on the other. In both instances, the actor?
be it the individual or the state? must of necessity take into consideration
the problem of politics of representation as well as the risk of blind
belief in a given ideal world.
We observe that African countries are in the midst of the continent's turbulence
of modernization and globalization. Reductive explanation of those changes
in terms of modernization or dependency theory, however, fails in understanding
of the fertile and vivid dynamism of reality; the inner tension within
the society and social mobility and plasticity.
The hiatus between development theory as a national project and as an international
or global dynamic is not only characteristic of the political domain but
also of the African scholarly project. This is coupled with the paucity
of knowledge production on the African continent. Scholars like Rosser
(2006) in Achieving Turnaround in Fragile States, and Adesina, Graham and
Olukoshi (2006) on the NEPAD debate on Africa's development challenges
in the new millennium speak to these sentiments at greater length. The
history, critique, and practice of African anthropologies in Ntarangwi,
Mills and Babiker (2006) present an interesting anthropological point of
view.
Through these expose a need to re-read modernisation and dependency becomes not only apparent but critical. This calls on Africanist scholars, be they African or otherwise, to examine humans in their "actual historical situation" and to seek to transcend the debates between modernization (or developmentalist) and dependency frameworks. We should inherit a critical attitude toward dominant (Western-biased) ideology without setting ourselves on the alter of judgment of what then is the alternative and correct way.
The symposium is intended to be one such effort that seek to bring together scholars and engage in constructive reconstruction of knowledge production through discussion on its potential as a 'Humanics of alternative social vision' that takes into consideration the problem of politics of representation as well as the risk of blind belief in a given ideal world. The symposium presenters seek to demonstrate the possibility of an alternative world or worldview and provide a key to make the concept for imaging the ideal society as a bundle of the world of possibilities.
References
1. Adesina, J.O, Y. Graham and A. Olukoshi (eds.). 2006. Africa and Development Challenges in the New Millennium: The NEPAD Debate. London, Zed Books.
2. De Beer, F and H. Swanepoel. 2000. Introduction to Development Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3. Ntarangwi , M, D. Mills and M. Babiker (eds.). 2006. African Anthropologies: History, Critique and Practice. London, Zed Books.
4. Rosser, A. 2006. Escaping the Resource Curse: A Review Essay. New Political Economy 11(4): 557-570.
|
|