Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism. 

The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even more oppressed in development practices. While Sen does argue that we should help the neediest in society and that we cannot violate the fundamental freedoms of people, this is not enough. There needs to be a promise of equality, because without it, people will always be exploited, and systems of oppression will inevitably be reified at one point or another.  

This idea is already problematic when you think of a community deciding which of its members should get less freedom than the rest, but it becomes even more troublesome when thinking of the very common situation where the one doing the developing (and therefore the allocating and expansion of freedoms) is not a part of the community that is being developed. Someone external to a community should not be the one deciding who gets less freedom in the community or even facilitating conversations about it. In those cases, it seems like development cannot occur by external actors, they have to be internal to the people in the community.

When thinking about these scenarios of development occurring externally many more issues arise. Due to historical circumstances, in most prominent instances where development is occurring in the world today, it is usually a situation like this:

Community X exploits community Y. Country Y resists Country X’s exploitation. Community Y, however, is permanently destabilized and is struggling to function with the damage done by Community X. Years later, Community X starts feeling bad and starts development efforts in Community Y.

It is in situations like this that I believe the inadequacies of the account become prominent. In many instances of development, it is usually colonial powers “developing” formerly colonized territories or white people “developing” whatever population they formerly exploited (usually Black people). Development, in this case, necessitates some sort of reparations – compensation for the harm done and resources and labor stolen. Without reparations, development can never properly occur. It is difficult to regain your freedoms if the material losses that took them away are not rectified. Of course, Sen argues that the causal link between income and freedom is not absolute, but it is undeniable that there is a link and that the forcible removal of income is a loss of economic freedom that ought to be rectified with reparations. Redistribution is also necessitated in development, especially in situations of formerly enslaved or colonized populations. Sen, once again, does not obligate the redistribution of wealth if redistribution does not prove to expand freedoms, which can result in the material harms done to a community never being rectified.

Sen’s account once again seems insufficient in these cases. Sen would probably argue that if people are denied fundamental economic freedom (i.e slavery) they are entitled to reparations. However, he does not have any clarification on when we are obligated to provide reparations due to our role in cultivating the circumstances that necessitate development in a community. That is arguably one of the largest deficiencies within his account. He cannot just provide a metric for what development in a country ought to look like. For Sen’s theory to be complete, he needs to discuss by whom should the development be done and what communities’ positionalities play in deciding if a community should develop another community or not.

When an external body develops a community, that body is facilitating conversations on the distribution of freedoms and the traditions to sacrifice in that pursuit. However, the external body that is facilitating these efforts is the reason why these efforts are needed in the first place, and a question arises as to whether they hold the epistemic standpoint to be the person in that position. How can an exploiter become a developer? Does an exploiter know the conversations that need to be facilitated in a developing community? Do they know what traditions and freedoms should be put into contention and the people that need to be centered in those conversations?

I’m not saying communities that formerly exploited other communities have no role to play in development, but I am saying whatever role they do play needs to be clearly defined in terms of the obligations they have and what roles they are allowed to take (providing reparations and redistributing wealth) versus what roles they are not (i.e facilitating a conversation on distributing freedom). Without these extra clarifications, Sen’s theory seems to be development as saviorism as opposed to freedom.