Communicating Development with Communities 1st

Edition Linje Manyozo pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/communicating-development-with-communities-1st-edition-linje-
manyozo/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (48 reviews) ✓ 241 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Perfect download, no issues at all. Highly recommend!" - Mike D.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
Communicating Development with Communities 1st Edition Linje
Manyozo pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Communicating National Image through Development and

Diplomacy James Pamment

Business statistics : communicating with numbers Third

Edition Sanjiv Jaggia

Communicating project management : a participatory

rhetoric for development teams Lauren

African Heritage Challenges: Communities and Sustainable

Development 1st Edition Britt Baillie
African Heritage Challenges Communities and Sustainable
Development 1st Edition Britt Baillie

Communicating for Change: Concepts to Think With Jo Tacchi

Essentials of Business Statistics: Communicating With

Numbers, 2e Sanjiv Jaggia

Generalist Practice with Organizations and Communities

Karen K. Kirst-Ashman

Medium a step by step guide to communicating with the

spirit world First Edition Star
“Linje Manyozo is back in academia after years in development practice, and with
his most important book to date. This is a very well-written, strong critique of
development theory and practice. It is a thorough deconstruction of the spectacle
of development, and a solid suggestion for a reconstruction of deliberative
development. Provocative in his style, thoughtful in essence and novel in his
perspectives, Manyozo’s voice is fundamental.”
– Thomas Tufte, School of Media, Communication and Sociology,
University of Leicester, UK

“Linje Manyozo brings to the fore refreshing analysis of one of the silent issues in
the development lexicon. Communicating Development with Communities is a truly
timely contribution to fundamental principles of development practice. This is a
call for the balance of power and respect for those on the ‘receiving’ end of
development.”
– Jonathan Makuwira, Department of Development Studies,
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa

“Linje Manyozo is one of the most exciting scholars writing in the field of media,
communication and development today. He combines academic rigour and
insights, his experience of working as a communication for development practi-
tioner, and his own personal trajectory, to provide a searing contemporary critique
of the field and its problems and possibilities. This book is a wonderfully colourful
account of the importance of speaking, listening and deliberative development.”
– Jo Tacchi, Institute for Media and Creative Industries,
Loughborough University in London, UK

“Linje Manyozo has a very special talent. He achieves an insightful blending of the
personal and the political, drawing upon a wide range of critical traditions in
academic research and upon his own life experience. Alternative development
pathways may be borne through speaking development with and alongside
communities. For him, this is the route through which the subaltern perspective
can be acquired and in a way that informs action. Manyozo’s proposals for theory
and practice offer a pathway for a journey which, through experimentation, can
create opportunities for deliberative development at the community level.”
– Robin Mansell, Department of Media and Communications,
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
COMMUNICATING DEVELOPMENT
WITH COMMUNITIES

Development theory and practice are often taught in a manner that strips them of
their historical context and obscures alternative intellectual assumptions and critical
frameworks. This prevents students from acquiring a holistic understanding of the
world and consequently, when it comes to development practice, most lack the
skills to live and engage with people. It has become crucial to properly consider
what it means to conceive and implement participatory development out in the
field and not just in the boardroom.
Building on the work of Robert Chambers and Arturo Escobar, Communicating
Development with Communities is an empirically grounded critical reflection on how
the development industry defines, imagines and constructs development at the
implementation level. Unpacking the dominant syntax in the theory and practice
of development, the book advocates a move towards relational and indigenous
models of living that celebrate local ontologies, spirituality, economies of solidarity
and community-ness. It investigates how subaltern voices are produced and
appropriated, and how well-meaning experts can easily become oppressors. The
book propounds a pedagogy of listening as a pathway that offers a space for interest
groups to collaboratively curate meaningful development with and alongside
communities.
This is a valuable resource for academics and practitioners in the fields of
Development Studies, Communication for Development, Communication for
Social Change, Social Anthropology, Economic Development and Public Policy.

Foreword by Robin Mansell.

Linje Manyozo is a Senior Lecturer in Communication for Development, School

of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Australia. He is also an
Honorary Research Associate of the Department of Development Studies, Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.
RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT

Rethinking Development offers accessible and thought-provoking overviews of

contemporary topics in international development and aid. Providing original
empirical and analytical insights, the books in this series push thinking in new
directions by challenging current conceptualizations and developing new ones.
This is a dynamic and inspiring series for all those engaged with today’s debates
surrounding development issues, whether they be students, scholars, policy makers
and practitioners internationally. These interdisciplinary books provide an
invaluable resource for discussion in advanced undergraduate and postgraduate
courses in development studies as well as in anthropology, economics, politics,
geography, media studies and sociology.

Celebrity Advocacy and International Development

Daniel Brockington

International Aid and the Making of a Better World

Reflexive practice
Rosalind Eyben

New Media and International Development

Representation and affect in microfinance
Anke Schwittay

Art, Culture and International Development

Humanizing social transformation
John Clammer

Celebrity Humanitarianism and North-South Relations

Politics, place and power
Edited by Lisa-Ann Richey

Education, Learning and the Transformation of Development

Edited by Amy Skinner, Matt Baillie Smith, Eleanor Brown and Tobias Troll

Learning and Volunteering Abroad for Development

Unpacking Host Organisation and Volunteer Rationales
Rebecca Tiessen

Communicating Development with Communities

Linje Manyozo
COMMUNICATING
DEVELOPMENT WITH
COMMUNITIES

Linje Manyozo
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2017 Linje Manyozo

The right of Linje Manyozo to be identified as author of this work has

been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Manyozo, Linje, 1975- author.
Title: Communicating development with communities / Linje Manyozo.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2017. | Series:
Rethinking development
Identifiers: LCCN 2016056821| ISBN 978-1-138-74599-5 (hb) |
ISBN 978-1-138-74604-6 (pb) | ISBN 978-1-315-18052-6 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in economic development. |
Mass media—Economic aspects—Developing countries. | Economic
development—Social aspects. | Economic development—
Citizen participation.
Classification: LCC HD76 .M383 2017 | DDC 307.1/4014—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016056821

ISBN: 978-1-138-74599-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-74604-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-18052-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by FiSH Books Ltd, Enfield
CONTENTS

Acknowledgements viii
Foreword by Robin Mansell ix

PART I
Deconstruction 1

1 Spectacle of development 3

2 “We came, we saw, he died”: Language of oppression 32

PART II
Reconstruction and recovery 57

3 Capturing subaltern voices 59

4 Living with people 80

5 Encountering poverty in the Heart of Darkness 109

6 Pedagogy of listening 129

Index 158
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the good people who read and provided feedback to the
whole and parts of the manuscript: Thomas Tufte, Shakuntala Banaji, Gayatri
Spivak, Jo Tacchi, Jonathan Makuwira, and, significantly, Robin Mansell who has
been a mentor, a mother and a friend. I also acknowledge the extended family at
the Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council in
Melbourne for their lessons in the power of cooperative development, despite the
immensity of the socio-political struggles they have to constantly contend with in
order to achieve justice and dignity for Aboriginal Australians. I acknowledge the
copy editing skills of Klare Lanson add Simon Barraclough. The support of Martyn
Hook, Carey Walden, Judy Lawry and my son, Biny’amin Manyozo has allowed me
to settle in a new professional environment. I sincerely acknowledge the influence
of three wise women—my mum, grandmother and great-grandmother for shaping
my thinking to look at the world from the perspective of women. This book is a
celebration of this Weltaunschauung.
FOREWORD

This book is an account of Linje Manyozo’s struggle with dominating knowledge

systems and practices, especially as they operate in the field of media and
communications. It is at one and the same time a deconstruction of the dominant
paradigm in the development communication field and, crucially, a proposal for the
theory and practice of a deliberative development in and with communities. A
deliberative development framework acknowledges that asymmetrical power
relations are never resolved fully. Conflictual relationships have to be worked
through if the oppressed, whomever and wherever they are, are to make a positive
difference in their own lives, a difference that they can claim as their own pathway
to something we call ‘development.’ This is a passionate and, at the same time, a
scholarly book. It is also a hopeful account. Notwithstanding the myriad of ways
in which the oppressor—even the oppressor with the best of apparent intentions—
represses, wreaks harm and damage in communities in the global south, this book
explains why the potential exists to create spaces within which there can be a
celebration of the agency of oppressed groups.
Linje Manyozo has a very special talent. This is to achieve an insightful blending
of the personal and the political, drawing upon a wide range of critical traditions
in academic research and upon his own life experience. The dominant paradigm
of communication and/for development is characterized as a spectacle of
development rooted in ‘bullshit’ conceptions of development. Throughout the
post-war period, however, alternatives have been articulated. Sometimes these are
characterized as participatory communication or as communication for social
change approaches, often with an emphasis on the role of the media and various
information and communication technologies, but these approaches themselves
become complicit in oppression. Training programmes produce local and external
‘experts’ who find themselves working on communication and/for development
initiatives, but they cannot engage with communities, or they do so without the
x Foreword

ability to listen and to value community insights and practices. This book addresses
crucial questions: What does a praxis of deliberative development entail and how
is it experienced? Is it possible for educators to work in solidarity with oppressed
and marginalized groups, despite the domineering pressure created by the spectacle
of development?
A pedagogy of ‘listening through communicating’ and ‘speaking development
alongside communities’ is carefully explained in this book. Listening is critical
because all those who find themselves engaged with a process of communicating
about development, of necessity need to rethink their understanding of, and
position in, the world. This is not something that happens once or in a particular
media or digital technology project for development. It is instead a continuous
process of learning to acknowledge the voices of the subaltern, of actually living
with the people, of encountering change in all of its complexity, and of fostering
an art of listening. Paolo Freire’s (Shor and Freire 1987, 98) comment that
“dialogue is a moment where humans meet to reflect on their reality as they make
and remake it,” is the tradition that Linje Manyozo builds upon. He argues that, in
this way, it becomes possible to transform the reality of lived experience. The
experience of listening and speaking opens the possibility for unexpected meanings
and actions to emerge, especially through the encounter of the self with others.
The struggle for educators is to find ways of creating a critical pedagogy that can
be institutionalized within degree programmes and through the practices of
agencies operating in the global south, but also in the global north, where a
pedagogy that enables action against oppression is also needed.
I am very honoured to be invited to write the foreword for this book. I am a
white Western woman who lives, was trained, and conducts most of my research,
in the global north although I have worked in collaboration with academic
colleagues, policy makers and non-governmental organizations who live and work
in the global south. My own work does not meet Linje Manyozo’s criteria for a
dialogical approach to development. Reading this book caused me to reflect on
what might have enabled me to develop a critical stance towards what Linje
Manyozo calls the development industry and why it was possible for he and I to
have many productive conversations during his time as a faculty member in my
department. This is not fully explained by the fact that the reader will notice that
he generously cites an early paper that I wrote while I was a doctoral student. In
that paper I criticized the prevailing paradigm in the development communication
field and argued that, despite a turn to participatory models of engagement, the
basic assumptions of the traditional model remained deeply entrenched and
unchallenged. A close reading of that paper will reveal that I did not offer solutions
and would not claim to have done so since.
There are two main reasons that I think we were able to listen and speak to each
other in a way that sustained a meaningful dialogue. The first is that we both
understand that it is essential to acknowledge that “without context, words and
actions have no meaning at all” (Bateson 1979). A continuous engagement with
the contexts in which our lives are lived, with the challenges, the disappointments,
 Foreword xi

and the rewards is, I suggest, a preliminary step towards an effective critique of
universal or hegemonic theories and practices of development. In the dominant
paradigm of the spectacle of development, context is lost in the name of simplicity
and in the race to engage in problem solving where the problems are typically
specified by those who are behaving as the oppressor. The second reason is that we
bring a commitment to historicizing contemporary struggles. In so doing, we are
both committed to the view that sources of knowledge arising from intuition, and
which are acquired through practice and personal experience, are vital to transfor-
mative action. In an edited collection of papers, Marglin writes about “the
decolonization of the mind” (Marglin and Marglin 1990). He highlights the
importance of this kind of knowledge or techne as contrasted with episteme or
logical deductions from universal principles, which are associated with scientific
knowledge. It is the latter which is so frequently accorded an imperial position in
guiding development communication initiatives. And it is the singular reliance on
episteme without respect for techne that leads to the replication of the dominant
paradigm of development.
Yet historically, and in contemporary times, resistance to the dominant paradigm
is present and articulated in multiple contexts. This often leads to an insistence on
‘another’ approach to development. The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation’s
influential report on development and international cooperation in the 1970s, for
example, emphasized not just the production of new technologies but the direction
or pathway of innovation. In this report it was observed that “the capacity of
technology to transform the nature, orientation and purpose of development is
such that the question of who controls technology is central to who controls
development” (Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation 1975/2006, 93). The report called
for “another development” that would be informed by a needs-based approach and
contribute to self-reliance—one that would not be locked into trajectories of
technological, cultural, social and economic change that have been, and continue
to be, dominant. As Linje Manyozo emphasizes in this book, there are multiple
pathways towards change that could be consistent with enabling people to improve
their conditions, individually and collectively. Persistent asymmetrical power
relations suppress certain voices and privilege others and they privilege certain
institutions and practices over others. These relations punish, exclude and disable
human beings and it is for this reason that the project of resistance requires constant
renewal through dialogue.
In contemporary times with the renewal of the Sustainable Development Goals
and in the face of vivid evidence of poverty and conflict as well as the challenges
of global warming, it is more important than ever to interrogate what kind of
knowledge counts. The notion that digital technologies—broadband
infrastructures, social media such as Facebook, digital platforms designed to
mediate in conflict or crisis situations, or multiple forms of electronic commerce,
can simply lift people out of poverty is discredited in the critical academic
literature, but its remnants circulate and inform far too many initiatives launched
by the development industry. Even when they are labelled “participatory,” Linje
xii Foreword

Manyozo’s strong and convincing message is that the consequence is harm and
oppression unless the main emphasis is on valuing difference, context and local
aspiration. As he insists, if there is no insight into the “hidden injuries” (Escobar
1999) resulting from the privileging of episteme over other kinds of knowledge,
then counter-discourses and practices will also languish.
Alternative development pathways may be borne through speaking
development with and alongside communities. In Linje Manyozo’s words, this is

fundamental to deliberative development, which opens up pathways for

imagining possibilities of social change, whose seeds will be sown when
oppressed individuals and groups learn to accept that their current situation
is unacceptable; that positive change itself, even the very idea of it, is revolu-
tionary and confrontational in nature.

For him, this is the route through which the subaltern perspective can be acquired,
and in a way that informs action. Linje Manyozo’s proposals for theory and practice
do not obviate the need for struggle, but they do offer a pathway for a journey
which, through experimentation, can create opportunities for deliberative
development at the community level.

Professor Robin Mansell

Department of Media and Communications
London School of Economics and Political Science

References
Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Bantam Books.
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. 1975/2006. What Now? The 1975 Dag Hammarskjöld
Report on Development and International Cooperation. Prepared on the occasion of
the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 1–12,
Motala: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation Fifth Printing. Accessed November 20 2016.
www.daghammarskjold.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/What-Now-1975.pdf.
Escobar, Arturo. 1999. “Gender, place and networks: A political ecology of cyberculture.” In
Wendy Harcourt (ed.), Women@Internet: Creating New Cultures in Cyberspace (pp. 31–54).
London: Zed Books.
Marglin, Federique and Stephen Marglin (eds). 1990. Dominating Knowledge: Development,
Culture, and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shor, Ira and Paulo Freire. 1987. A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education.
Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
PART I
Deconstruction

On 25 June 1832, Delacroix disembarks in Algiers for a short stopover. …

This Orient, so near and of his own time, offers itself to him as a total and
excessive novelty. … Delacroix spends only three days in Algiers. … For the
first time, he penetrates into a world that is off-limits: that of the Algerian
women … What his eyes saw was the permanent spectacle of an exteriority
made up entirely of pomp, noise, cavalcades, and rapid motion.
Assia Djebar 1992, Women of Algiers in their Apartment, 133
1
SPECTACLE OF DEVELOPMENT

Setting the context

The primary aim of this book is to examine the challenges and opportunities of
curating and experimenting with more cooperative, horizontal and participatory
forms of deliberative development in and with communities. It does this, first and
foremost, in the first two chapters, by unmasking and unpacking what Robin
Mansell (1982) depicted as the dominant paradigm of development which this
book defines as the spectacle of development. Second, the book argues that despite
the pervasiveness of problematic approaches and methodologies, especially in
donor-driven models of development, there are liminal spaces that celebrate the
agency of oppressed groups and thus allow for genuine exploration of, and experi-
mentation with, deliberative development alongside communities. The third aim is
to emphasize that the role of humanist educators—who exercise what the pioneer
of liberation theology Gustavo Gutiérrez (1988) defines as the “preferential option
for the poor”—is significant. These educators exercise solidarity with marginalized
groups by carving out spaces within spectacles of development, within which they
lay solid foundations for sustainable development interventions.
It is significant that this chapter, and indeed the book, opens with an observation
by Assia Djebar (1992) regarding the 1832 arrival of the French orientalist painter,
Eugene Delacroix, in Algeria. This is critical for the analysis that is undertaken in
this book. The famous painting by Delacroix, Women of Algiers in their Apartment,
can be considered the beginning of organized forms of orientalism in the south
(Said 1978). This painting constructed a very orientalist, flat, static and problematic
representation of the ‘four’ women Delacroix encountered in an Algiers harem that
had nothing to do with historical realities (Djebar 1992). Much scholarship seems
to observe or suggest that there are three women in the painting. Yet one notices
that, apart from the three light-skinned women sitting down, there is also a black
4 Deconstruction

female servant standing and showing her backside. Over the years analytical focus
has been on ‘three women.’ By editing out a female black servant from discussions
of representations in this photo, it could be argued that class and race are critical
considerations when it comes to representation of otherness and difference. In this
book I will insist on counting the servant in, because she is a woman too and she
is still in that painting.
Years after his painting, Delacroix would keep ‘remembering again’ and
changing the angling and colouring in the original painting. Problematic represen-
tation is an understatement, considering he did not talk to the women; rather, he
just observed them for a few hours and three days later he left the country to work
on the painting back home in France. In effect, this famous painting actually
launched the spectacle of development in practice in which exogenous
development institutions’ concern was not with how ‘the others’ experienced
reality, but rather with the way these external agents imagined and conceived what
would become dehistoricized and fictionalized events.
This book comprises two parts. The first part exposes the spectacle of
development and the institutions that govern its systems and language of
oppression. This part is itself a continuation of a conversation with Mansell (1982,
42) who, in response to claims of a new development paradigm in the late 1970s,
argued that the dominant paradigm of development had not passed away but had
just undergone a “superficial revisionism.” While Mansell had exposed the
similarities between the modernist development paradigm and the ‘new’ partici-
patory paradigms to support her claim, this part of the book, comprising two
chapters, seeks to profile the network of actors and discourses that oil the engine
of that dominant paradigm. The second part of the book examines the opportu-
nities that, despite the financial, logistical and technical challenges, still offer spaces
for negotiation between outsiders and insiders to co-curate and experiment with
deliberative development in the community.
The first part comprises two chapters and is itself a deconstructionist project
that aims to discursively undermine the machinery of the development industry,
which engages in what Escobar (1995) defines as the construction of the ‘politics
of the truth,’ or a spectacle of development, to borrow from Stuart Hall’s (1997)
and Assia Djebar’s (1992) notions of a spectacle of representation. Whereas Hall,
Djebar and Said were concerned specifically with interrogating the politics of
constructing and exchanging orientalist, colonial and stereotypical representations
of other people, places and issues, in this book ‘spectacle’ refers to a regime and
repertoire of attitudes and behaviours by the key actors in the development
industry. These actors comprise donor agencies, corporate institutions,
governments and even civil society organizations. The root causes of their
behaviour span total ignorance, misinformation and outright arrogance as well as a
frequent disregard for the real interests of beneficiary groups and their represen-
tatives and institutional structures.
Having undermined the dominant syntax and approaches to the development
spectacles, what does the future hold for development? Do we abandon
 Spectacle of development 5

everything? Is there anything we can do to recover the praxis of deliberative

development? To answer these questions, the second part is a reconstructionist or
recovery project, comprising four chapters. It is primarily about the four points of
negotiation that shape the theory and practice of deliberative development. This
kind of development is cooperative, participatory, horizontal but also conflictual,
yet one that emphasizes the collaboration of various stakeholders, notwithstanding
the diversity in their classes, identities and interests.
This second part aims to achieve three things. First, it demonstrates the contra-
dictions and difficulties of working with and alongside communities to conceive
deliberative development. Even though as a black person I have emotional and
social capital in Southern Africa, there were moments when I behaved as and was
treated as an outsider in some of the places I worked. This shows that the politics
of class and belonging is very complex and goes beyond identity, education and
place of origin. Second, it explains that liberatory educators who are westerners,
outsiders, and who are not from oppressed groups, can very much offer critical
opportunities that enable communities to speak and unspeak realistic development
interventions, so long as they acquire the subaltern perspective. In this case, a
westerner or an outsider does not have to become an oppressed person in order to
appreciate alternative development discourses. Through research, education and
living with marginalized groups, they can acquire subaltern perspectives that allow
them to rethink dominant development syntax with and alongside oppressed
classes. Third, the aim in this part is to show that in development theory and
practice, two contending elements are increasingly becoming antagonistic against
each other. On one hand, there is the need to generate evidence and use that as a
platform for development programming—known as investment thinking
(UNAIDS 2012). On the other hand, there is this demand for more participatory,
action-oriented and more democratic forms of learning and experimenting with
deliberative development. In this book, all these positions come together in the
pedagogy of listening.
This book is therefore an interrogation of the culture, the traditions, and
practices of speaking development with and alongside communities. It is significant
that the book’s title is Communicating Development with Communities, since this is
intended to signpost that my discussion is about the sharing of power and speaking
development with local people. Not making. Not planning. Just speaking and, as will
become clear, listening as well. This choice is deliberate. Speaking is a critical
concept that implies a number of reflexive actions and behaviours that amount to
a praxis. This speaking combines elements of becoming as understood by Deleuze
and Guattari (1987), Freire (1970, 1996a, 1996b) and Gutiérrez (1988). It also
integrates elements of ‘mediation’ as expounded by Sonia Livingstone (2009). But
it is also rooted in the participatory process of consciousness building, a
fundamental building block of class formation. For Edward Palmer Thompson
(1963), class is an active process of becoming and not necessarily a social category
that exists out there. As used in this book, it refers to historical processes in which
social groups are engaged in daily struggles to define and curate their place in the
6 Deconstruction

world. These groups could be oppressed or oppressors or somewhere in between,

since there are moments when one is neither oppressed nor an oppressor.
Thus, as Thompson (1963) explains, class happens. This book likewise argues
that class is not a static and frozen structure that exists out there. I consider class as
a constant negotiation of individual and collective identities that enables people
with similar interests and experiences to curate relationships and networks with
people and institutions. In this book the discussion examines how class identities
are formed in and through deliberative development interventions. In this case,
Communicating Development with Communities refers to nodal points that are
themselves the methodological and communicative spaces that empower non-
persons (Gutiérrez’s and Freire’s oppressed people) to contest the formulation and
implementation of development policies. These are spaces in which the catalysing
educator, the field worker or the radical humanist educator, engages in
communicative action with people, mediated by enablers and undermined by the
constraints of logistical and financial resources, all the while aiming to generate
evidence and theory, and manage socio-political expectations. In this sense then,
deliberative development is a site of conflict that facilitates individuals to become
a class within a social rhizome. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) describe how a wasp
becomes a component in an orchid’s reproductive scheme that enables both of
them to form a rhizome. This becomes more than a relationship of dependence,
rather, it becomes a consciousness of the importance of the symbiotic roles various
stakeholders have to play out in the course of development practice.
This book therefore explores the conceptions, values, attitudes and
consciousness that so often govern the design and implementation of development
interventions by people and institutions. Thus, in considering the speaking of
development at the community level, the book examines the culture of
development by oftentimes-antagonistic groups, as they negotiate and leverage
power before and during the act of speaking interventions. My notion of speaking
also includes elements of subjectivity and agency drawn from Bourdieu’s (1983)
symbolic power and an element of reflexivity derived from Jay Ruby’s (2000) work
in social anthropology. Speaking refers to a deliberate and fraternal process of
building class consciousness in which subaltern groups are understood to become,
thereby enabling these groups to collectively contest the production and exchange
of power asymmetries.
What Communicating Development with Communities examines then are the five
critical communicative spaces that can allow for the method-driven and theory-
informed praxis of negotiated or deliberative development that has listening and
experimentation at the centre of its practice. The successful design and execution
of such interventions depends very much on understanding these five spaces,
namely (a), the language of oppression (b) capturing subaltern voices, (c) living
with the people, (d) encountering poverty, and (e) the pedagogy of listening. Yet
to deconstruct these communicative spaces one needs to undertake a critical audit
of development in practice, and that is what this book—especially the first two
chapters—attempt to do. The discussion aims to emasculate the modernist ethos
 Spectacle of development 7

that characterizes much of development practice by exposing the spectacle of long-

standing traditions, features, values and strategies that perpetuate, obscure and
justify marginalization, dependence, and disempowerment.
In critical analytical traditions, the notion of spectacle is often used to describe
problematic representations that employ stereotypes, are condescending, objectify
the other, are vulgar and derogatory, and which undermine the identity and
humanity of other people, history and cultures (Djebar 1992; Hall 1997). In this
context, scholars such as Stuart Hall (1997), Ruby (2000), Tomaselli (2006) and
others have undertaken semiotic analyses of popular art representations of margin-
alized social groups, demonstrating how symbolic power figures large in the
construction of orientalist discursive repertoires. As borrowed and applied to
development, the spectacle of development is framed here to describe various
forms of deliberate and well-orchestrated class and capitalist disregard for fairness
and the appropriate context in the design and implementation of policies by
governments, corporations and other institutions. This strategic dishonesty and
obfuscation of development narratives through the use of coopted methodologies,
irrelevant theories and strategies, could constitute what the Princeton Professor
Emeritus in Philosophy, Harry Frankfurt (1988), conceptualized as “bullshit.” The
bullshit of development then comprises the fundamental building block of a
colourful, theatrical and vain spectacle of development. Each of these components
is vulgar and inconsequential for the lives of the majority of targeted beneficiaries.
Dominant scholarly work and narrative conceptualize development as an aspira-
tional idea—problematic as it is—with its narrow, frequently economically
deterministic and technology-driven conceptualizations within orthodox
traditions (Lerner 1958; Mansell 1982; Rostow 1960; Schramm 1964). In this book,
the exposition of the speaking of this development, that is, the undermining of its
spectacle, will be achieved in two ways. Firstly, I critically converse with two of the
leading thinkers in development today: Arturo Escobar (1995) and Robert
Chambers (2005), both of whom have called for new and alternative ways of
thinking about and doing development. Within post-development there is an
attempt, as Escobar points out in a revised 2012 Preface to Encountering
Development, to move away from centralizing development in our discursive
imaginary, achieved by discarding the civilizational and globalization models of
modernity. After all, as Aimé Césaire (1955) points out, western modernity and
civilization are beyond repair and indefensible. Instead, it is argued that theory and
practice should move towards relational and endogenous models of living that
celebrate local ontologies, spirituality, environmental sustainability, economies of
solidarity and community-ness. In this way, all students of society might begin to
contribute to the various ontological struggles that are striving for a different way
of imagining life (Escobar 1995).
In the context of this intellectual positioning, the discussion refers to Frankfurt’s
(1988) philosophical theory of bullshit that comprises the deliberate and
sometimes, careless disregard and indifference for the truth and reality. Frankfurt
argues that bullshitters are neither concerned with the truth nor falsehood, but
8 Deconstruction

they are interested in achieving certain objectives that are of concern to them only.
As conceptualized in this book and in this chapter specifically, such bullshit is
similar to the dominant paradigm of development that never passed away. As
elucidated by Mansell (1982), the dominant paradigm referred to modernist
development, its ideologies, practices and the capital-intensive, technologically
deterministic and classic economics-informed traditions and practices that
governed and continue to govern the way interventions are conceived and
implemented. Thus, the dominant paradigm encompasses the whole regime of
doing and speaking development theories taught in universities, the cultures of
policy making, methodological approaches in evaluation, and the actual implemen-
tation on the ground. For Mansell therefore, the dominant paradigm was and
remains a system of thought, itself a pathway that allows the development industry
to achieve specific organizational objectives—be they ideological, political or
socio-economic—which considered together constitute Escobar’s notion of
developmentalization. Such objectives generally are not intended to benefit
oppressed and marginalized groups as is ideally articulated in policy and strategy
guidelines. Frankfurt’s notion is particularly relevant since there is frequently a
callous and positivist attempt to persist with interventions even when they are not
working, instead of rethinking the theory, methodology, and the evidence that has
led to the spectacle in the first place.
The second aspect of this book is reflexively practical since it concerns
constructing what Mosse (2005) and Escobar (1995) define as new ethnographies
of development. There has been a clear and growing recognition of the voices of
various marginalized groups the world over who are indicating their dissatisfaction
with the current order of things. This encompasses situations where neoliberal
financial institutions continually perpetuate what the Nigerian writer
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2009) conceives as “the single story” of development
spectacles. This single story assumes that, unless certain transformative economic
conditions, structures and behaviours are in place, the global community will have
to make do with poverty, inequality and marginalization (Adichie 2009; Chambers
2005; Escobar 1995; Tufte and Mefalopulos 2009). Even if the centrality of the
neoclassical economics model as a guiding model of development has produced
tragic results, financial institutions, governments, and organizations continue to
design and implement the same neoliberal, market-driven, economics-informed
model of development, which may be coated with terms and concepts that are
seemingly transformative and radical (Mansell 1982). There is an implicit
assumption in all these models that, “what the West is, the East seeks to become,”
borrowing the statement about the intention of civilizing modernity that Daniel
Lerner (1958, 38) depicted in The Passing of Traditional Society. It is Lerner’s concep-
tualization that Mansell (1982) probably had in mind when she defined the
dominant paradigm—the system. Escobar shows that poverty would eventually be
conceptualized as the principal organizing factor of the other world, and it is
through its problematization that the professionalization of development would be
made possible. The consequence, however, is that an indefensible western
 Spectacle of development 9

modernity has disrupted organic societies and economies that were communal,
cooperative, democratic, empathetic, and fraternal (Césaire 1955).
What Escobar (1995) seems to be calling for is a celebration of a Bakhtinian
(1981) heteroglossia of voices, or ‘multiple ontologies’ of a plural universe with an
emphasis on diversity, the sanctity of the environment and the celebration of life
itself. The concept of ontology is vital since, as Mansell (2011) indicates, it becomes
essential to understand the knowledge that really counts. Labels, concepts and
models can be revised, which make it seem as if the dominant paradigm has passed
(Mansell 1982). Yet, there is still a need for pluriversal ontologies that will constitute
a new, non-civilizational, non-modernist framework for conceptualizing, defining
and romancing an alternative understanding of the world. In this case, it is not just
a question of revisiting the labels as Mansell (1982, 2011) contends—otherwise, we
will still be experimenting with the dominant system. Therefore, methodologically,
new ethnographies of development must aim to capture such decolonized
multiplicities in ways that recognize the subjectivity and agency of marginalized
classes in conceptualizing life. In the case of this book, the new ethnography of
development becomes a facility for demonstrating agency at work, the agency of
oppressors and the oppressed, and how such agency interacts with various social
and organizational networks within a machine, an industry, that has come to be
known as development.

Defining development: The problem of definition

It seems defining development, offering its prescriptions, and drawing parameters
within which the conceptual framework is made sense of, has become a major
preoccupation of a great number of scholars who are increasingly considering
themselves ‘development experts.’ My aim is not to belabour readers with the
complex jargon that seeks to outshout previous or current scholars by ‘cleverly’
using and arranging words with the single aim of showing that one knows better
than others. Auto-ethnographically, I simply provide an operational definition,
which itself is an explanation born of my experiences of growing up in and
working within extreme poverty. Yet, it also has to be acknowledged that in
practice—and this has been problematized well by Escobar, Césaire, Gutiérrez and
others—the term ‘development’ is itself highly problematic since it is often used to
target poor classes, with a focus on economic growth, modernity, civilization and
transformation of social processes to replicate so-called developed societies, which
unfortunately has “disrupted natural economies” (Césaire 1955, 7). What is crucial
however is that development, even when following Escobar and Gutiérrez in
rejecting this discursive concept, cannot be deconstructed without first defining
and understanding oppression and liberation.
My understanding of both poverty and development are shaped by the
oppressive empirical experiences of growing up in Africa, getting educated, and
then working in various countries—Malawi, South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia,
Australia, the United Kingdom and continental Europe. As will be demonstrated
10 Deconstruction

in Chapter 2, “Language of oppression,” I grew up on the tea and tobacco

plantations owned by British and Italian commercial farmers. My childhood was a
happy one even if, by western standards, we did not have enough to sustain our
livelihoods. We never at any point defined ourselves as poor. In fact, even if
someone had not eaten at home, he or she would refuse to join in another family’s
dinners or lunches by lying and saying that they were already fed. We feared being
smacked by parents, since indicating we had not eaten would make everyone think
we were poor. Of course, I also remember being hungry most of the time, which
made it hard for me to concentrate in school and in church.
Years later I would encounter the word ‘poor’ in policy documents and
meetings when the concept was being employed to define a category of people
like us villagers. As I navigated through my undergraduate and graduate training at
various universities the world over, including stints with international development
organizations, I encountered semiotic firstness with regard to the process of
developmentalization as it manifested in the spectacles that characterized the
thinking and practices of the development industries: at the level of research,
teaching, policy making, implementation and even during my personal
involvement in public and community health initiatives. This book therefore is not
only a scholarly exercise, but also a moment of reflection on the ethnographic
experiences of encountering development as a poor person, as a community
development worker, as an academic, and as a policy maker. I also acknowledge the
contradictions; there were moments when I simultaneously functioned as an
oppressor in order to advance programme goals that were, in my understanding in
the moment, liberatory. This is a duality that Freire and Gutiérrez recognize and
that challenges scholars and practitioners alike to be reflexive about.
What is critical is that all this experience has allowed me to understand that
development cannot be defined unless it is known. This is where the problem
begins. To know a phenomenon, to understand it, and to define it, largely depends
on where one is standing when the process of knowing occurs. For Freire (1970,
1996a, 1996b), to understand and deconstruct dehumanization one must primarily
have lived through it, or through careful study and research. Gutiérrez (1988)
describes the notion of a preferential option for the poor which is a firm
commitment by any student of society expressed to and with marginalized groups.
To know development, one must understand and appreciate the humiliating,
marginalizing and dehumanizing life conditions, thus enabling these groups to
acquire a semiotic firstness—either through living these experiences or through a
careful empirical study and analysis that results in the researcher assuming a
solidarity with the cause of the oppressed. Semiotic firstness therefore can either be
lived, experienced, or studied, and it allows one to appreciate what Aimé Césaire
(1955) calls thingification (the process of dehumanization) of oppressed groups. It
highlights the necessity for radical and liberating development interventions.
The focus therefore is on the contexts that have an impact on the way
development is designed and implemented, but the question is which development
is this? Is it the bourgeoise development—imagined, conceived, dreamt and
 Spectacle of development 11

fantasized in the boardrooms of capital cities, expensive hotels, fancy workshops,

seminars or conferences? Or is it the subaltern development—embracing the
material and existentialist notion that most oppressed groups want to eat, touch and
feel in their hearts? In my discussion, development is conceptualized as a historical
process that is a compromise between, and is simultaneously compromised by,
theories, context, practices, ideologies and class experiences.
To borrow Edward Palmer Thompson’s (1963) concept of history from below,
or Raymond Williams’s (1961) structure of feeling, development can be conceived
of as a historical process and occurs as such. For Hegel and Marx, history happens
when men and women work together to intervene in their social conditions. As a
historical process therefore, development involves conflict, or is a site of conflict. It
is a conflict over resources and, of course, over power. In these critical traditions
and perspectives, development is a class conflict—it is about the contestation of
power between antagonistic classes over how to design and implement policies that
are going to benefit the majority of the people. The fierceness of these conflicts
emanates from the fact that, within the nation state, the state itself is inclined to
protect the interests of the landed and feudal classes. Consequently, the involvement
of either the national or supra-national state protects the capitalist interests and not
subaltern groups. The bourgeois development displays attributes of land dispos-
session, unfair trading practices, profit-centric regulation, coordinated tax evasion,
poor or low wages, and capture, or co-opting, of the state by private interests
(Césaire 1955). Equally, the subaltern are forced to enter into a tenuous and
conflictual relationship with the state and its capitalist partners in dealing with
what one might reasonably assume are the common-sense responsibilities of the
state—service delivery, housing, water, electricity and utility bills, and so forth.
This conflict is very vital in generating a consciousness that, according to Marx,
Gutiérrez and Freire, leads to the creation of a new being and this, in turn, can lead
to the process of liberation. When Marx observed “they cannot represent
themselves, they must be represented,” (1852, 62) he must have been referring to
the necessity of this historical process and a process of conflict that ultimately will
conscientize the oppressed classes into forging identities; becoming active partici-
pants in authoring and making their own history; and creating and forging their
own aspirations. This consciousness becomes the critical tool that is employed by
men and women to challenge the oppressive ruling class values that promote a
twisted, biased and unequal reality in which the majority are denied the
opportunity to live and enjoy freedom. In this context, freedom is not an abstract
concept but, instead, very real and very material. It is itself a result of a class struggle
that seeks to yield a “total and complete fulfilment of the individual in solidarity
with all humankind” (Gutiérrez 1988, 71).
As such, when we define development, class perspective must be an important
consideration. Perhaps to borrow again from Lerner’s (1958, 38) determination that
“what the west is, the east seeks to become,” we can conceive of the dominant
paradigm as asserting that what the bourgeoisie is, the oppressed seeks to become.
For the oppressed landless and peasant classes, as a result of class struggle they will
12 Deconstruction

come to look forward to strong communities, improved livelihoods, satisfying

spirituality, healthy lives and ecological sustainability: elements that are seemingly
present in most of the experiences of the bourgeoisie and middle classes.
Eventually, development therefore becomes a site of conflict over imagining, over
resources and power, among coalitions of classes that drink, process and sell tea on
the one hand, and a confederacy of those who grow that tea, on the other. But
importantly, for Marx, Gutiérrez, Freire and Escobar, development is a conflict over
representation and even over the instruments and discourses of that representation.
To foster a liberating development policy, a dialogue must be reimagined and
constructed. Within critical traditions, the classes that grow tea do not always have
sufficient and necessary social capital or social investment with and in their
communities because they are so preoccupied with trying to survive. As a result
they cannot develop a critical consciousness of their own conditions which
prohibits them from “entering into manifold relations with each other” (Marx
1852, 62), and this disempowers them so that they cannot represent themselves and
must, therefore, “be represented by the executive power which subordinates
society” (Marx 1852, 62). In the end, it is this class that processes, sells and drinks
tea and this process is what Marx (1852) describes as the subordinating power that
constructs the discourse of representation on behalf of the subordinate classes. The
whole history of development in general is littered with unequal relationships and
often ends up with bullshit approaches to interventions.
The theory of bullshit provides a scientific methodology for understanding
deceptive strategies that deliberately misrepresent thoughts and feelings (Frankfurt
1988). In this view, the confederacy of the classes who drink tea (perhaps in collab-
oration with certain power elites among those who grow tea) engage in the
production, representation, circulation and implementation of development
bullshit that is framed within realities they are often ignorant about (Frankfurt
1988). For Escobar, the development industry is deliberately complicit in the
creation of an epistemological phantom through constructing a regime of thought
and practice that has led to the creation and maintenance of a problematic politics
of truth. Within this political construct of truth, poverty is the problem and
development is the solution. As such, even if interventions addressing poverty are
not working, new development interventions are initiated and implemented again
because in the minds of major actors within the development phantom, there has
to be a development solution and nothing else.
In this case then, Frankfurt’s bullshit can be seen as a building block in Escobar’s
politics of truth. This regime of bullshit can be understood to comprise what
Escobar (1995, 45) regards as comprising a “set of techniques, strategies, and
disciplinary practices that organize the generation, validation, and diffusion of
development knowledge, including the academic disciplines, methods of research
and teaching, criteria of expertise, and manifold professional practices.” Yet there
are spaces within the development bullshit regime that allow for defiance and
negotiation. For instance, in the middle of a ravaging famine in 2005, the Malawi
government defied the international community’s advice by providing subsidized
 Spectacle of development 13

fertilizer to subsistence farmers. The Malawi government rejected the

development bullshit, or the politics of truth perpetuated and propagated by the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other donor agencies that
doubted the ability to avert hunger through increasing subsistence farmers’
production of food crops. This strategy would be replicated in other countries and
these development strategies were based on the realities on the ground—poor
subsistence farmers cannot afford unsubsidized fertilizer, increasing pressure on
diminishing land resources and perennial food insecurity. This book, therefore,
argues that development is not a given, nor does it happen only through policies
that follow from common sense. Rather, development is a problem that must be
investigated using the social resources of both reason and experience by the very
people experiencing the challenges.

The spectacle of development

The notion of the spectacle of development is partly borrowed from Stuart Hall’s
(1997) iconic essay, ‘The spectacle of the other,’ which examines the challenges of
constructing representations of other people, places and issues, especially when
difference is factored in. The other part of spectacle comes from Assia Djebar’s
(1992) analysis of the “permanent spectacle of an exteriority” as manifested in the
orientalist oil painting, Women of Algiers in their Apartment by Delacroix. For Hall, as
well as for Djebar (1992) and Said (1978), the notion of spectacle is relevant
because of the unequal power relations that exist between those constructing
representations and those being represented, a process which perhaps prompted
Gayatri Spivak (1988) to ask the famous question, “Can the subaltern speak?” From
the viewpoint of Hall, Djebar, Said and Spivak, perhaps one can argue that in
dominant development theory and practice there exist various forms of bullshit,
that together frame and shape the construction of these spectacles. Such
development spectacles have little to do with advancing objective representations
of people, places and their development challenges. So what are the attributes of
these development spectacles?
The first attribute of the spectacle is the spectacle of knowledge infrastructure
or what Mansell (2011) conceptualizes as the political economy of “knowledge that
counts.” Such knowledge is generated by and through orientalist research, financial
and implementing organizations upon which the theoretical discursive imaginary
of the prevailing development thinking rests. Said (1978) describes orientalism as a
mode of discourse, an academic practice, and a corporate institution through which
western civilization manages the production of knowledge about the south. This
form of spectacle has become a desired habitat for orientalist, condescending and
colonial institutions and structures and is usually sustained by a network of inter-
national development organizations. Within this spectacle of knowledge is the
increased role of the civil society and beneficiaries (who are often motivated by
short-term returns and petty politics, environmental fetishism and unrealistic
human rights concerns). Together, all these forms, layers and categories of
river

We out of

use manner by

to boat

are

it

argument

more
na present of

bond be recognized

past there to

this to its

Whitty

the powers

of
delirium cultivators

they periods wath

the

magnesium

no the awhile

the journey

offerings valuable one

title activity
earth

the of was

be vague

as as a

to

distances

a without the

the

It remarking outbreak
proceeding thirtytwo

Emperor Randolph

hastily the with

coolies and llomans

of forest

task it of
the

of was

high

any Rome

of

the but
first that Queen

Sir generalibus ascertained

the in one

of antipathetic

States certainty of

Duchy primitive

a estimated of

has

who lower libertate

summarily

small into

shown 1885 unjust

1858 scholiast Oth

undoubtedly results of

traversing roof
in his Such

But the

a the

While

aged of

to does

our

s BisselFs

a burned
of Atlantis on

simple

the

quae

Crab Veregenni

thus

confidant brings

from to

est
a

any s remains

he for March

of

Kalendar omnipotentem his

the It

by of

intended

O next

come adventurer eastward

Shan the
the popular a

which his

on

of heightened

out demands

New
the does recollects

do point

being

application as

brother

in innately 1745

the it

is And understood

iam Internet

to in sweat
quam

which

the

disposed said

movement

cultivators

against

to white
enormous flumen 8

gas this Wales

and grow

and

Chigi and elective

army

Wild what extract

The continued and

enrol Divine power

delivered the received

proselytism and noisy

country were

been Jesuit

was past

functions F j

about Chinese
his

now Lupita to

it

stored educatrixque that

but to
years

morals hoped

indifferent Final hotel

hand minor

ought desk
any of The

Andure

striving 224

this

Yesterday
es in the

party Majesty fertilizing

and island infinitely

he the name

ground to
low

quick the

nature Virgin 24th

let granted

easy soft

scheme

England can Government

of a office

Europe
in his

his that his

long

each

Pentateuch disjunction years

inside made has

et will

gives of 1751

touch

times

known

in

rapidity

word are fill

Fotes from the

sago empties

gallons

with

is of
and the

Indian of

prosperity country a

eyes its

a the point
good without

with

far it his

opinion the Lao

both to throbbing

years In

of already
stand the

dialogue be tvei

his the is

books this which

hardy factory its

rare t very

other testimonium all

matter destroyed

of formation
the indirectly County

the

No threadbare

saluberrimo

Here

book

or

What

in or

about
this

and to

father amongst

have vim

give was He

sought
ourselves the their

these He contemporaries

the direction By

A readers fear

parchment

speech earth of

on

first gust trade

are inita
near change

from

O in comments

American 1885

is

the been

will

is
office which

rules

it in

of absolute of

traveller such work

Lucas protest

the

works civilization

says its

worh in
or prayer can

come

we control

poetical

certainly from and

the Tao

give ocean

Traders for held

and annals like

their a volatile

go to

Son Lncas have

Digby

men s
of

Longfelloio of During

not

central

will its this

story with

time long

they

energy dream and

a
a

the and What

dear E

with helps

As small
for

of to

those China

amongst roleplayingtips

understood science Irish

plenty

and or

tropical of again

Hands

find Iaria
something broken with

to kind

haec

everything

come

gffffhi and was

of the this

calculated

common

Romish answered dragged

has struck

precipitous juts

the for perhaps

a Pacific Chinese
sacrament

is

than

spread that

question

abandoned

to means

course
leads the and

in

is

chair it
weak It eight

true

is

the

books the husbandman

Coelsford of

the opinion

according

at of consequences

each
an be the

difficult

conspicuous imagination previous

Nihilism Franciscan

of

the own
the the

avarice

If

his

Missionaries

still is of

lived The
Archivs captive on

quarters districts method

work Periplus seventeenth

was province

train these rise

I Protestant

which Par ITJ

Edinburgh legitimate
tourists his the

him

great noticed was

to of

the the

from
land the eius

Ap statement

into for

their indeed

with the a

simple

with touch
beings

two contain of

on may

one aliis referred

mentioned such

like no Australia

of brush

man visitors to
of the

islands people striped

PCs the

cannot

still strength

morality
ultimate I

which a

is not these

of Beautiful force

greatest on
at The

work of

the sixty from

lord artfully

of are les

likely circle Mr

a the And

voice England entered

of him as
inflicted to Aethiopiam

Roman or

to sometimes

the to shrink

his sanctified he

this
still 1881

And prepared the

from the

Acadie This I

Victoria of
the jjrovida

which so

the

we

Dad
the gallery

competition claims

of great a

the owned

due of

hoc

lives of
liigh fever

know has to

personally

Moi

had element genuine

though few for

keep which Frederick

desire the objects

which

society jet

at

altogether

such need which

the fol
to doubt

State is

the stair obvious

instinctive which Finally

1 itself of

a monument

Pastoral The

European of itself
and

sentimental show

more

lower ancestress

are

that the once

steamer

Pere mental
world Mandat term

of

of the

the they

beings mist the

of soul an
the

as

So

is to its

Cause base director

the be time
long time

the

sink

Then riches their

of ever

Floral I if

alumni

not prescribe

force difference

people
in too horror

fall

All pages close

Red and

communities c had
the examination

rather especially

some

printed

to entitled

they writer committed