An orthodoxy of ‘the local’: post‐colonialism, participation and professionalism in northern Thailand

Abstract

Post‐colonial critiques of development reveal the neo‐colonial potential of the development project, embedded in the imbalances of power in relations between West and East, First World and Third World. One of the core responses to the challenge of such a critique has been to turn to new participatory approaches that privilege local knowledges, locally defined needs and priorities, above the vagaries of aid agencies or the ‘expertise’ of development professionals. In this paper I argue that such a shift in development discourse and method has had a significant impact on the discursive practices of professionalism and professional responsibility. Drawing on ethnographic research with development professionals in northern Thailand, I argue that participation has emerged as a new orthodoxy among development professionals who seek to identify themselves as ethical and moral agents of an emancipatory development project. The rise of such orthodoxy has had clear impacts in terms of fostering the emergence of local organization and advocacy groups. At the same time, however, this paper considers how a ‘pro‐local’ orthodoxy may also be having dis‐enabling effects for the very project of emancipation that professionals wish to carry out.

Drugs, sex, and the geographies of sexual health in Thailand, Southeast Asia

“…This is particularly true for younger peoples and children, particularly from ethnic minorities in the region, who often do not have legal citizenship in Thailand (McKinnon 2005(McKinnon , 2006(McKinnon , 2007. Indeed, increased risk of sexual violence and drug use among street youth is of growing concern in Thailand as is the rampant spread of HIV among prison populations, who remain able to access drugs, such as heroin and methamphetamines in prisons, while also engaging in higher risk sex with other inmates.…”

Local Knowledge in Development (Geography)

“…These more participatory approaches advocated for the direct involvement of the recipients of development, which necessitated accessing their knowledge of local issues in order not just to better understand development problems, but also to reach more appropriate ‘local’ solutions (Chambers 1994a,b,c). Local people participating in development therefore prioritises their knowledges (McKinnon 2006), participation is itself about accessing and using these knowledges, making participatory approaches to development and local knowledges intrinsically linked (Mosse 2001). The presumption is that local people have a very detailed understanding of local conditions, which is invaluable in making development interventions appropriate and effective (Brett 2003).…”

“…Although many agencies of development now include ‘local knowledges’ in their policies and plans, in practice the institutional conditions of states, NGOs and academic researchers often prevent the incorporation of multiple voices. As McKinnon (2006) illustrates in a case study of Northern Thailand, and Twyman (2000) with participatory conservation initiatives in Botswana, it is all too easy to adopt the rhetoric, yet in practice this often hides the ‘standard’ development approach, sometimes even hiding discourses of subordination and manipulation.…”

New Possibilities? Shifts in Post‐Development Theory and Practice

“…The post‐development contribution derives from its critical focus on language and power within pro‐local development strategies. McKinnon (2006), for example, has explored how the subject position of ‘the local’ can be claimed by diverse stakeholders ranging from marginal groups to the state, creating awkward positionalities for outsiders and potentially detracting from the emancipatory contribution such outsiders can make. Walker et al.…”