Whew! I found this weeks’ reading a bit difficult to understand, but ultimately, important. I’m hoping we will get to discuss it more in the synchronous meeting on Tuesday.
What landed for me was how “agency,” a Keyword, connected to parts of the Hall reading, especially in the context of “development” and “post-development.”
Hall discussed how the idea of “post-development” excludes grassroots movements that could, in fact, be considered an alternative kind of “development” for those that initiate them. Because grassroots movements aren’t guided by the Western institutional definition of “development,” they are in turn often overlooked in both the development and post-development narrative. As a result, as Hall says, “the local agency of grassroots development actors is rendered invisible” and the idea of the “Third World” as a “recipient” and even a “victim” is perpetuated (45).
Alara, Gabriel, Geneviève, and Katerina provide us with a good lens through which to view this idea. They define “agency” as the capacity to act freely without supervision; and as it connects to Hall’s article, the “possibility of transforming/maintaining social relations.” This relates to the article because “the everyday community work” of ereba-making, an “alternative” to the conventional idea of development, transforms and maintains social relations, but with the agency of the Garinagu women that enact it – not within the confines of “development” that “dominates public discourse” (Hall 45-46).
In this same vein, the group’s keyword post importantly points out that “agency” doesn’t have to denote an “all-or-nothing” approach to absorbing/rejecting “outside” influence. Hall echoes this idea when she asserts that grassroots organizations can “benefit from [Western] “offerings” when it is possible to do so with minimal compromise to long-term visions, and simultaneously develop alternatives to development” (46). Part of “agency,” for the Garinagu, may be to enact their own sovereignty where they want (i.e. by using ereba-making as a grassroots movement and community-building tool) while also drawing on resources they deem appropriate (Hall 46). In other words, a group can choose to be influenced or assisted by external devices while simultaneously drawing on their own sovereignty, and this distinction is important.
Finally, I wanted to add that in addition to the community-building ereba-making that Hall discusses, Garinagu peoples are agents in other realms of activism, as discussed by Professor Mitchell in her lecture. She told us that not only have the the Garinagu supported the Pan-Africanism movement, but they have also “been active in labor movements, Indigenous rights movements, and climate activism. In short, the Garinagu have been full participants in solidarity and activist movements.” (lecture) This shows “alternative” forms of “development” being undertaken on their own terms. This defines “agency.” 🙂
