Walking on Water by Excellent Development – A skewed perspective?
Dec 2nd, 2009 by Tina Hu
Summary:
This video introduces what Excellent Development aims to do. It’s still a newer organization that believes in aiding the people in Kenya with the knowledge not just helping them to ensure long term sustainability methods and growth.
Here is a short blurb from their website on what they do:
“Excellent Development supports farmers in Africa to gain access to clean water and grow enough food to eat and sell, enabling them to pay their children’s school fees and buy other necessities.
Farmers achieve this by organising themselves into self-help groups and improving soil and water conservation and farming techniques. Soil and water conservation is achieved through the terracing of land, planting of trees and building innovative sand dams that hold between 2-10 million litres of clean water available all year round.
In addition, Excellent Development works with development organisations at local, national and international level to apply the development model and technologies we use to enable our 2020 vision of 3 million farmers a year gaining access to clean water and growing enough food to eat and sell.”
It starts with a tourist perception of Kenya then switches to rural Kenya and what it really is for the people that live there. As the narrator, Allison Bell says, “basic needs are a daily struggle,” for the people of rural Kenya.
One of Excellent Development ways is featured in this video, where they create springs through sand dams which collects water from the river which is built by the members of the community. Joshua, a local explains where the water is coming from and how much of the sand dam is composed of water (60% sand, 40% water). The video then goes through various interviews with locals (Charles Muendo Mdambuki, , Charles Mwanzia Mutie, Professor Jesse Mugambj) and they compare the way of life before and after Excellent Development has come and how it has better their lives.
What this organization does is great because it really believes in not just giving the people help or money but giving the people skills they need to sustain for future generations. As Charles Mwanzia Mutie says in the video it is “better train a child to catch a fish than give him the fish.” However, when I watched this video I could see a very Western viewpoint of Kenya and the people. Throughout the whole video, I see images of how helpful the Westerners are for coming to this place and education the locals but at the same time the impression is very strong and almost a little forceful.
For example, the scene where Allison Bell is walking with the little girl and this gives the image of how (2:01) the Westerner is very caring and having this special connection with the little girl, but near the end of that scene, Allison asks the girl “this makes you very happy doesn’t it?” and says “yes” and nods. I can’t help but think that the little girl has no idea what is happening and was told to hold this foreigner’s hand and walk with her. In addition, throughout the whole clip whenever either Charles’ talked…although they were very educated in the processes of sand dams and how it is helping their town, the words seem very forced and put into their mouth to regurgitate back out.
For me, this video is an attempt at bridging a way to help the subaltern speak, however it is in a very forceful way. I feel it is very scripted to please our Western views – to feel like our ways are really helping them but in reality we may just be telling them what to do and although it is beneficial…do they really understand the processes and the goals behind them? So my question is: even with the attempt to bridge the gap between the subaltern and us, are we hearing from the right outlets?
Here is the link to the organization’s website and Youtube channel
http://www.excellentdevelopment.com/
https://www.youtube.com/user/thisisexcellent
Here is a news article covering the founder, Simon Maddrell’s life and how he started this organization.
9 Responses to “Walking on Water by Excellent Development – A skewed perspective?”
I agree with you, Tina, on the fact that the Excellent Development is being really thoughtful about the “Global South”/local people and looking to the future, by giving them skills rather than money or materialistic things. When I watched this video I’ve noticed that too, that the speakers are framed by the script.
Also I have noticed that when the Prof. Mugambi was speaking at the end of the video, he mentioned that the area is shifting from semi-arid climatic zone, 5, to zone 3; and then he said that this process is contributing to the reversal of global warming. I was surprised by that sentence, that, he has bigger view of environment, development and sustainability. Or, maybe, since I am reflecting that they are framed by the script than it will lead us to power and knowledge relationship? expanding on this idea, is that since Excellent Development is the ‘helper’, which seems that they are better off, thus have more power and influencing the knowledge and the way of thinking.
Tying this situation back to what we discussed today, whether NGOs are effective or not. Frankly, I cannot say this is the answer. I believe there are negative and positives, thus we have to balance them and see.
I apologize, there were too many thoughts going through my head, this the idea might turned out messy, jumping from one idea to another.
I think this project was an excellent one because of how it managed to actively engage the community in their own development. Instead of just throwing in money to dig the terraces (as it has been done in many projects), the community is made responsible for their development. This is very sustainable in a way that the community will value the project more because they “sweated” for it and simply because the involvement gives them a good participatory knowledge of how it works.
I have to mention the “community spirit” that comes with this project. No one man could dig the terrace to their farm; it had to be done in a group. I have difficulties understanding why this spirit of socialism cannot be encouraged. In fact, I know and have seen some Tanzanian communities which still practice this “socialism” life but in farming. Up to four or more families may join together and work on one of the families’ farm for the entire day. This way they get much done. The family whose farm is being worked on, provides food for the day (often a goat is slaughtered) and the circle continues until the farms for families have been farmed. I can see how this type of participatory development could be a great success because it works within the familiar norms. Of course this might be a little difficult in urban communities but it is not impossible.
This is good.
After watching this video, I think the project is an excellent idea to educate the subaltern and tell them that they can themselves actually achieve something using their skills with rewards (in this case harvesting). Instead of giving aids to them in a never ending time frame, educating them and letting them know that their skills can be really rewarding. I am working on the NGO called Pathway to Peace and one of its goal is to educate the people in underdeveloped countries so that they can step up and reward themselves using the skills that they have obtained through education. In fact, I think that this is the only way how we can narrow the gap between the West and the “South”, which is by teaching the South with what we know and our knowledge so that they can sustain themselves in a proper way.
In regards to Tina’s comment on the women talking to the small girl. I find it really funny and yet disturbing. I find it funny because I think the girl has no idea what the woman was talking about and she was not even paying attention. However, I find it really disturbing is because I really hate how she hold the little girl’s hand and pretend she understands the girl so much in terms of what she wants. What she was trying to do is to show us that what they are doing is right to the people. (well in this case, I do think they are doing the right thing, but I hate the way how she just make us to believe that we are doing the right thing and show us the image how the people there are really appreciating what she did).
I think that Excellent Development does offer a very effective method to development. By sharing the power of knowledge, they are helping create a pro-active and sustainable community. I found that their system is very similar to that of microcredit loans. The fostering of community alliances and support systems within groups and the process of teaching the people how to use new farming techniques as opposed to just giving it to them and letting them fend for themselves very much resembles the system used in micro-credit loans.
What I found problematic was the video itself, as others have noticed before me. It was geared towards a tremendously western audience. The way in which the video was made makes it seem that rather than trying to create space for the subaltern to speak they are speaking for the subaltern. This is especially apparent in the scene where Allison Bell is walking with the little girl, she asks her if this work made her happy then followed by answering the question for her. Also, I feel that in the video they are over glorifying themselves and their work. The video is almost showing off the extent of their work to the west, in my opinion the video is like a pat on the shoulder to the organization. Even within the name “Excellent” development, an “excellent” film… the use of the word elevates their organization onto a pedestal. Overall I feel that the video exacerbates the differences between those who are helping develop and those receiving the aid.
Thanks for your comments! I agree, their method is very effective since as (Charles, I believe) says…they are giving them skills so in a month the money won’t just run out and they will be “reaching out their hands to ask for more.” I thought that was really good imagery, and even if it was scripted, as all you have mentioned as well…it’s still a great image!
Anu: Your comment on the professor who seems to have a bigger view of the environment. I don’t doubt that they are teaching the locals the skills they need to be sustainable for generations yet it would be great if they were able to broaden their views. I remember when I went to volunteer at an Ecuadorian village, we were teaching the children of the village how to be sustainable by throwing their trash at the correct places and recycling. But a lot of them did not know a world or will never get a chance to visit the world outside of the mountain range they lived….
Although I agree with all the above comments and see that this project has really helped this community, as usual, I am rather skeptical and critical.
As mentioned, the video was clearly made by Excellent Development, and in that way I find it extremely bias and question whether or not there is an attempt to brain wash me.
While the organization might ‘do good work,’ I found that I could not find the subaltern anywhere. Allison Bell is far from subaltern, and as Tina said many of her actions and even her tone of voice seemed insincere. I question whether the few farmers asked were the subaltern, and can believe they were, but the video was completely positive. There was nothing negative, not even mention of a problem they had at first and found a solution too, this idea seemed too perfect and this is why I felt even if these farmers are ‘subaltern’ they are given A voice (told what to say) and not THEIR voice.
I also thought that if the video director really wanted to hear the subaltern they should have spoken to a women, because in the video there seem to be just as many women if not more. The reasons that a women did not speak are numerous. There invisibility makes me question whether they believe in this new technique, they are silenced in village and their opinion is not counted, whether they were not comfortable speaking out to camera or their English and/or diction is low or, in fact, they speak another language.
The video clip also seemed to re enforce old binaries, the villagers and farmers were not referred to as ‘people in the village’ but rather as ‘them,’ the way ‘they’ work and live which, I believe, to be a form of orientalism where the object (subaltern) does not speak but is represented and staged by those viewing him.
I also thought that by bringing Professor Mugambi, an ‘expert’ on film at the end Excellent Development was trying to give their video validity. When ‘we'(Global North) see an educated professor praising the program, we suddenly believe in it a whole lot more. Once again furthering that divide in dialogue needed in order for the subaltern to speak. It is not enough for a farmer to explains the benefits of the system?
Excellent Development appears to by applying a very old technology, underground water collection in a new way. Their work in developing skills and knowledge is progressive, rather than showing up with lots of money and a backhoe the community is invested in the project and has an intimate understanding of how it work (from having to build it).
However Excellent Development, like many NGOs does not do communicate it well. The very name of the NGO is presumptuous and that seems to fit some of the communication strategy, the NGO showing up in the land rover, saving the day “you like that don’t you.” I was surprised to see that these videos were from this year, the way they were shot and the script seems to come from the 1980s.
But its easy to be a cynic and the very good work they do assisting these communities overshadows their Eurocentric discourse. They would do well to incorporate some self examination and think critically about their position as Northerners coming to the south to ‘do’ “excellent development”.
No development program is without flaws but by being willing to continually improve and change while thinking about whose voice is speaking and if it is effectively listened to.
I was stuck by the title of this video “Walking on Water.” For me, the idea of walking on water is associated with some incredibly strong ideas. In the Christian tradition, Jesus is believed to have performed the miracle of walking on water, thereby doing something that seems impossible. In the story, one of Jesus’ followers tries to walk on water as well, but fails and begins to drown. Jesus offers a hand and lifts the man out of the water and together they finish the journey. For Christian believers, there is a distinct power differential: Jesus is “the son of God”, he can walk on water and miraculously, saves those who follow him, while the other man is an average man, unable to play an instrumental in his own salvation.
Taking a fairly skeptical viewpoint, my question would be, what are the implications of referencing this particular story in the title this video? My fear is that the reference has the potential to bestow the NGO with “god-like” qualities, with the ability to perform “impossible” miracles and to “save” people, as long as the people are willing to believe in and to follow the teachings of the NGO. Using a biblical metaphor to describe the work of an NGO seems to re-inscribe a power differential -“we, the NGO with omnipotent power, will perform miracles that save you, the average man. In order to be saved you must accept what we teach you.”
As has been previously mentioned, even if the work that is done by Excellent Development is completely sustainable and totally positive (both of which, i doubt), the language used re-enforces colonial power differences.
Dear Tina and others,
Many thanks for your interest in and comments on our work. I want to assure you, as someone who worked with Excellent Development during the time in which this film was made, that no scripts were used in the interviews.
I find it surprising that you emphasise your desire to hear the ‘subaltern’ speak genuinely, yet when we have genuine interviews here you presume that they must be scripted, since they come across as being knowledgeable about the work they have done.
You are correct that the film is made by Excellent Development as a film about our work. It is not an independent assessment of our work, that would need to be made by someone else.
Our complete set of films is linked to above and, in particular in the Philosophy film, you will see interviews with female leaders within the community groups who have inspired us and many of their peers.
The work of Excellent Development is inspired by and led by Joshua Mukusya who started out by setting up a self-help group with 5 neighbouring families in his village in 1978, who came together to solve the problem of lack of water in their day to day lives. They succeeeded in doing this by building sand dams, and went on to help other communities nearby who had approached them for help. Excellent Development provides funds for this work to continue.
Our rapid growth in Kenya is a result of word of mouth. Farmers see the benefits that others are achieving and approach Excellent Development for support in their own communities. Our development approach is strictly based on people approaching us for help, rather than us looking for groups to fund. This ensures that beneficiaries are not ‘passive’ receviers of ‘aid’, but active agents and owners of their own development. We assist by helping farmers identify their own priorities and solutions and not imposing pre-conceived ideas. We seek to empower rather than dictate.
The title of the film ‘walking on water’ is a phrase borrowed from Joshua’s own comments within the film. Therefore I fail to see how we re-enforce colonial power differences by using it as the title, except of course in the eyes of the perceiver. If we had intended it to proclaim the ‘greatness’ of our work then yes of course that would have been incredibly patronising.
I thank you for your comments and hope this helps your understanding of the background of this film.
best wishes
Sophie Bown
Communications Manager
Excellent Development