(8/27 pt 1)Notes on Development, Rationality, and Liberal Democracy

Opening line: defining it can open up or close off possibilities. If we define development as liberal democracy, it makes certain outcomes possible but also closes others.
The course aim: we should think about how we are telling the story of where we want to go; development articulates questions of power.

Before modernity, at least in the West, the question was: who would decide what happens to us as human beings?
Aristocrats: they “have a right to rule because they are appointed by God.”
Implication: there wasn’t much people could do; even if you did all you can, “God would decide” outcomes (e.g., floods).
Conclusion: there wasn’t a modern notion of human agency and potential.

This shift introduces the idea of human agency and potential.
Part of the modern idea is belief in rationality: the notion that progress comes because we are rational beings.
This feeds into development as a “civilized mission,” which becomes complicated by categories of civilization and rationality.

Notion that some people are civilized, rational; some are uncivilized, irrational.
Consequently, some should determine what development means for everyone else.
This framing has echoes today: many people think experts will make the rational decision and should not be denied input.
Implication: ongoing debates about who gets to decide what counts as rational and who is deemed capable of rational judgment.

We must pay attention to how we define rationality.
Questions to ask:
- What counts as rational?
- Are we denying rationality to some groups and privileging it for others?
The critique invites scrutiny of power relations embedded in the claim of rational decision-making.

Framed as an optimistic or utopian view of the world.
It believes in our rational capacities and in the human capacity to make things better.
Despite many global problems, this belief persists and is often defended as a guiding premise.
Interactive note: the speaker engages the audience with questions like “Raise your hands if you don’t hold on to this,” highlighting the embedded hope in human progress.
The speaker also gestures to a possible “greater plan” and acknowledges remaining questions about free will or guidance toward outcomes.

The idea that experts should make rational decisions can marginalize lay perspectives and raise democratic legitimacy concerns.
Power dynamics: who gets to decide what development means for whom?
Ethical tension: balancing expertise with inclusive deliberation to avoid excluding voices deemed irrational or non-racjonal.

Links to foundational debates about democracy, governance, and the legitimacy of expertise.
Relationship between rationality, progress, and social inclusion.
Tension between optimistic progress narratives and the recognition of persistent inequalities.

Development can open or close possibilities depending on how it’s defined (e.g., liberal democracy).
Historically, power was justified by divine right; modernity introduces human agency and rationality.
The “civilized mission” critique reveals how claims of rationality can exclude or marginalize certain groups.
Contemporary echoes persist: faith in experts and rational decision-making coexists with questions about who should participate in defining development.
Development is framed as an optimistic, utopian project that assumes humanity can improve the world, even as we confront significant problems.