INTERCULTURALISM IN A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE · The case of IBIS in Guatemala serves as a point of departure, and the analysis will be based on interviews with representatives of

MASTER THESIS

Development & International Relations Latin American Specialisation

Supervisor: Óscar García Agustín 1st April 2014

Number of pages (total): 70 (80) STU count: 167.753

Attachment: 1 USB stick Jesper Søe Bergmann

INTERCULTURALISM IN A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

A Very Particular Universalism

AbstractThepurposeofthismasterthesisistoreflectoninterculturalisminadevelopment

perspectivefromthediscoursetheoreticalperspectiveofLaclauandMouffe.Thisareaof

developmentstudieshasescapedcriticalinvestigationofwhyinterculturalismisimportantto

development,andhowdifferentsocialcontextsinfluencethewayinterculturalismis

understoodindifferentsocieties.Fromthisdebate,theinherentincompatibilitybetween

universalismandparticularismemergesandchallengestheapplicabilityofinterculturalismin

adevelopmentperspective.

Thethesisseekstocontributetoamoreelaboratediscussionofthemeaningormultiple

meaningsofinterculturaldevelopment,tohighlightthecomplexnatureofinternational

development.Theobjectiveofthethesisistodiscuss:1)theimplicationsofintroducing

interculturalisminadevelopmentstrategythatisbasedonuniversalprinciples,and2)how

topositionthedividinglinebetweenculturalrelativismandliberaluniversalism.

IBISasaDanish‐baseddevelopmentNGO,cooperateswithlocalorganisationsfromdifferent

socialgroupingsandculturestopromoteequalaccesstoeducation,influenceandresources.

ThecaseofIBISinGuatemalaservesasapointofdeparture,andtheanalysiswillbebasedon

interviewswithrepresentativesoftheindigenouspeoplesofGuatemala,IBISinDenmark,and

IBISinGuatemala.

Throughtheuseofpost‐structuralistdiscoursetheoryitwillbearguedthatinterculturalism

isafloatingsignifiers,whichhasbeenarticulatedwithelementsandfloatingsignifiersfrom

thediscourseonuniversalhumanrights.Furthermore,Iwillbehighlightedthatpeople

constructtheirownrealitiesbasedontheirownhistorical,cultural,natural,social,etc.

context,andthattheserealitiesinfluencehowpeopleunderstandsociety.Finally,itwillbe

discussedhowtherelationbetweenhumans,natureandtheuniversehasanenormous

influenceonhowpeopleunderstandandarticulatetheexploitationofresourcesinrelationto

theeconomicsystemanddevelopment.

Fromanexaminationbasedonpost‐structuralistdiscoursetheory,thethesiswilldiscussthe

dilemmabetweenuniversalhumanrightsandtherighttoculturaldiversity,andhowIBIS

triestofindthisbalancethroughinterculturaldevelopment.Thereasonfortheemergenceof

interculturalismisasignificantshiftinthedevelopmentdiscourse,afterdecadesofimposing

JesperSøeBergmann

2

‘universal’and‘modern’valuestostartembracingdifferentsocialandculturalbeliefsand

values.This,however,hascreatednewconflictareasofwhattoacceptonthebasisofrespect

forculturaldiversity,andwhatnottoaccept.Basedonthefindingsthethesiswillarguethat

interculturaldevelopmentcanbeunderstoodasadepoliticisedstrategytoovercomeconflicts

inthenameof‘universal’values,ratherthantosolvetheunderlyingsourcesoftheproblems.

InterculturalisminaDevelopmentPerspective

3

TableofContentABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................... 1TABLEOFCONTENT................................................................................................................................................. 31INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................... 51.1BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................................... 51.1.1Contextualisation,IBISinGuatemala................................................................................................................ 6

1.2MOTIVATION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 71.3PROBLEMFORMULATION....................................................................................................................................................... 81.4RELEVANCEANDCONTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................................... 81.5LITERATUREREVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................. 91.6DELIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 91.7STRUCTUREOFTHETHESIS.................................................................................................................................................10

2PHILOSOPHYOFSOCIALSCIENCE..................................................................................................................112.1ONTOLOGYANDEPISTEMOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................112.1.1Socialconstructivism–howconstructivistamI?......................................................................................122.1.2Structuralismandpoststructuralism.............................................................................................................13

2.1.2.1DiscourseinStructuralism&Post‐Structuralism ........................................................................................................................132.2METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................................................152.2.1TheHermeneuticalTraditionofQualitativeResearch............................................................................152.2.2Discourseasasociologicalanalysis.................................................................................................................15

2.3METHOD..................................................................................................................................................................................162.3.1Casestudy ...................................................................................................................................................................162.3.2Semi‐structuredinterviews ................................................................................................................................172.3.2FurtherCollectionofData....................................................................................................................................18

2.3.2.1Textanalysis .................................................................................................................................................................................................182.3.2.2ParticipantObservationandFieldNotes .........................................................................................................................................18

2.3.3Individuals,informants,connectionsandconfidentiality......................................................................183THEORY ..................................................................................................................................................................193.1DISCOURSETHEORY..............................................................................................................................................................193.1.1DiscourseTheoreticalConcept ..........................................................................................................................21

3.1.1.1Sign,signifierandsignified ....................................................................................................................................................................213.1.1.2Keysignifiers ................................................................................................................................................................................................21

3.1.1.2.1Elementsandmoments .................................................................................................................................................................213.1.1.2.2NodalPointsandfloatingsignifiers .........................................................................................................................................22

3.1.1.3AntagonismsandHegemony.................................................................................................................................................................223.1.1.3.1SocialChangeThroughConflict .................................................................................................................................................233.1.1.3.2TheStructureistheAgent............................................................................................................................................................23

3.1.2ThreeLevelsofDiscourseTheory....................................................................................................................243.1.3DiscourseTheory:ChallengingtheManyRealities...................................................................................253.1.4IsDiscourseTheoryMissingSomething?......................................................................................................25

3.2CULTUREANDIDENTITY–EHECONSTRUCTIONOFDIFFERENTREALITIES.............................................................263.2.1Multi‐andInterculturalism.................................................................................................................................273.2.2WhyDevelop–WhatisDevelopment? ..........................................................................................................29

3.2.2.1InterculturalismasaDevelopmentTheory ....................................................................................................................................303.2.3TheParticularUniversalism ...............................................................................................................................313.2.4TheRoleoftheNGOinSociety ..........................................................................................................................33

3.2.4.1NGOsasagentsofsocialprocesses.....................................................................................................................................................343.2.4.2HowcantheNGOaffectdiscourses ....................................................................................................................................................36

4INTERCULTURALISMANDTHETHREEARTICULATIONS ......................................................................374.1THEAPPLICATIONOFINTERCULTURALISM:IBISINGUATEMALA..............................................................................374.2IBISVS.THESTATE;ANTAGONISTICARTICULATIONSOFINTERCULTURALISM ......................................................424.3THEMULTICULTURALGUATEMALAANDINTERCULTURALISM....................................................................................44

JesperSøeBergmann

4

4.4DISCUSSINGINTERCULTURALISM.......................................................................................................................................465NATUREANDTHEARTICULATIONOFLIFEANDPROGRESS ................................................................475.1LACOSMOVISIÓNANDTHEBALANCEOFMANANDNATURE .......................................................................................485.2NEOLIBERALCAPITALISMANDTHENATUREASARESOURCE .....................................................................................535.3IBISANDNATURE.................................................................................................................................................................555.3.1FromanInterculturalPerspective ...................................................................................................................555.3.2FromaCapitalistPerspective.............................................................................................................................56

6DEVELOPMENT?...................................................................................................................................................596.1NEOLIBERALCAPITALISTDEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................596.2THEPEOPLES’PERSPECTIVEONDEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................626.3IBISASADEVELOPMENTNGO..........................................................................................................................................67

7CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................................................718BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................749APPENDIX1–DISCOURSETHEORY...............................................................................................................78


5

1IntroductionThismasterthesiswiththetitle“InterculturalisminaDevelopmentPerspective”roundsoff

thetwo‐yearmasterprogrammeinDevelopmentandInternationalRelationswithaLatin

AmericanSpecialisationatAalborgUniversity.Thethesisaimstoinvestigateandanalysethe

differentviewsandperspectivesondevelopment,andhowpeoples’socialcontextaffects

theirperceptionoftheconcept.

InthischapterIwillexplainthebackgroundandmymotivationforthechoiceofthistopicas

wellasacontextualisationfromwhichtheresearchquestionwillbeformulatedandspecified.

1.1BackgroundItseemsthatmanyabstractconcepts,notjustwithindevelopment,haveturnedinto

buzzwordsthatneedtobepresentsimplytomakesomethingsoundappealing,andtomake

theworldmoresimpleandstraightforward.Butthiscreatesthedangerofconceptsbecoming

emptyandalmostwithoutmeaning,becauseofitsnumerousdifferentarticulations.Forthat

reasonIwouldliketoinvestigatehowsomeofthosebuzzwordsareunderstoodindifferent

groupsofsocietyandwhytheyareimportant.Tobeabletodiscussandanalysethe

importanceofworkingwith,forexamplehuman,rightsbaseddevelopment,intercultural

development,democracy,freedom,equality.Iseveryonereallyinterestedinthesamethings?

Douniversalvaluesexist?Isdeveloped‘better’thandeveloping–andcanwe‘measure’

development?Whyisthisso?Andwhyandhowdoweconstructadifferencebetweenthem

andusthroughdiscourse?

Developmentisusedasaconcepteverydayinmanydifferentcontextswithoutfurther

discussionofthemeaningoftheword–ifthereisany.We,asscholarsandpractitioners,need

tothinkaboutwhatistaughtatuniversitiesandhowthisisperceivedinotherpartsofthe

world;andthedevelopmentNGOsneedtobecriticallyexaminedsomisunderstandingscan

beavoided.Sincemanymisunderstandingsarisebecauseofdifferentworldviews,realities

andunderstandingsoftheworld,andbecauseinterculturalismisanimportantpartofIBIS’

work,Ibelievethatitiscrucialtolookintowhatinterculturalismmeansinadevelopment

perspective,andhowitaffectstheworkofIBISasanNGO.

JesperSøeBergmann

6

1.1.1Contextualisation,IBISinGuatemalaIBISisaDanishdevelopmentNGOthatemergedoutofWorldUniversityService(WUS)in

1991,andhasworkedwithdevelopmentprojectssincethe1960’s(IBISA).IBISisan

independentmembershipbaseddevelopmentorganisationwiththeobjectiveofcreatinga

worldwhereeveryonehasequalaccesstoeducation,influenceandresources.Membersare

encouragedtoparticipateinshapingIBIS’areasofinterestandthereisalargedegreeof

transparencywithopenaccesstoannualreports.IBIS’projectsinAfricaandLatinAmerica

aimtoeradicateinequalityandpovertythrougheducationandsupportofthecivilsociety.

IBISisafirmbelieverinthetheorythatdevelopmentprojectsshouldbecarriedoutinclose

cooperationwiththelocalcultures(IBISB).

InDenmark,IBIShasvariouscampaignsareprograms.Atthemomenttwofocusareasstand

out:1)theDanishbranchof“TheGlobalCampaignforEducation”(HeleVerdeniSkole)which

focusesoncreatingattentionaboutchildren’srighttoeducation,and2)acampaignagainst

taxevasionandcapitalflightfocusingonchangingtaxlegislationsoprofitsfromtransfer

mispricingcannotbetransferredtotaxhavens.Additionally,IBIShasanongoingfocuson

promotinganddiscussingdevelopmentinthepublicsphere.

AsaresultofIBIS’policyofclosecooperationwithcounterpartsonlyoneDanishperson

worksattheofficeofIBISinGuatemala–thecommunicationadvisor,Claudia.Therestofthe

staffismostlyfromdifferentindigenousbackgroundsandthedirectorAnaMaríaisfrom

CostaRica.ThisispartofIBIS’interculturalapproachtocooperationindevelopment.In

Guatemala,IBIShasworkedsince1990tosecureapeacefultransitionanddevelopmentofa

countrythathassufferedfromnumerousdictatorshipsandcivilwars.Whatinterestsme

aboutthisspecificcountryisthateventhoughthecountryhasalonghistoryofoppression

andsufferingthereisstilltodayaright‐wingconservativegovernmentinacountrywherethe

majorityofthepopulationdescentsfromindigenouspeoples1.Theelectionsaregenerally

seentobefairandfree,alsofrominternationalobservers,sowhatisitthatmakesoppressed

peoplevotetheiroppressorstopower?Thecountryranksasoneofthemosteconomically

unequalnations,andalargemajorityofthepeoplelivinginpovertyisofruralindigenous

descent.

1Thecurrentpresidentwasahighrankedofficerduringthearmedconflict.


7

1.2MotivationIhavelivedinLatinAmericaforseveralyearsandhaveworkedwithpeoplesfromthemiddle

oftheAmazonianjungletryingtoprotecttheirforestfromforeignoilcompanies’exploitation

ofnaturalresources;IworkedandlivedonthepampaswithArgentine‘gauchos’whoafter

havinggonethroughagoodeducationalsystemandhavinglivedandworkedinthecitythey

foundsatisfactionbyescapingfromlifeinthefastlaneofmodernity;andthroughan

internshipIworkedwithpeoplewhoonedaysuddenlyhadfoundthemselveswithoutajob

becausetheirfactorywentbankruptortheownersimplydisappeared,andtodaythese

peoplearerunningthefactoriesascooperativeswheretheytakethedecisions.Thesepeople

wereallquestioningthe‘normal’insociety.Inmanyplacesitissimplytakenforgrantedthat

youfollowthedevelopmentofthesociety,andifyoudonot,thenyouarealittlebitstrange.

SoIstartedtowonderwhatthenormalisandhowdoesitbecomethenorm.Surelyitisa

contextualthing.Butwhatifthenormalisassociatedwithmanythingsdependingonthe

context?Whatifpeople’sarticulationofthenormalreinforcesit?Orwhatifthewaywetalk

aboutconceptschangedependingonthecontextwearein?Ifthenormalisonethinginone

socialcontext,whatisthennormalinanother?HowdoesIBISknowwhatisnormalinthe

societieswheretheywork?Onethingistoclaimthatyouworkinterculturally,butwhatis

interculturalismandwhatisculture?Onabroaderlevel,onecouldalsoaskwhatis

interculturaldevelopment,orevendevelopment?Topointouthowimportant

interculturalismistoIBIS’workinGuatemala,itcanbementionedthattheactualword

‘interculturalism’appearsmorethat50timesinthe35‐pagecountrystrategyforGuatemala,

andthisclearlycaughtmyattentionandsparkedmyinterestforresearchonthistopic.

DuringmyacademiccareerIhavealwayswonderedhowlanguageanddiscoursesconstruct

andmaintainourlifeandsociety,andhowconceptsanddiscoursesareconstructed,

maintainedandchanged.Soifforinstanceinterculturalismmeanssomethinginonesocial

contextandsomethingdifferentinanother(maybethereareevendifferentunderstandingsof

interculturalismwithinthesameorganisation),howcanpeoplethencommunicate?Howdo

‘we’strikeabalancebetweenbeingabletocommunicatethroughlanguageandatthesame

timehavingtodefinewhat‘we’‘mean’witheverysingle‘word’?Paradoxically,ineveryday

languagenooneisreallyabletoexplainwhatmanyoftheymeanwiththespecificwordsused

ineverydaydiscourse;andeveniftheyareabletoexplainwhattheymean,itmightmean

somethingdifferenttoanotherperson.Ifinditpuzzlingthatafterdecadesof‘development’,

JesperSøeBergmann

8

therearesomanyunderstandingsofwhatdevelopmentconstitutesandhowitisachieved

thatthewordinitselfalmostseemstohavelostitsmeaning.

1.3ProblemFormulationBasedonthepreviousmyproblemformulationis:

HowandwhydoesIBISapplyinterculturalismasadevelopmentstrategyinGuatemala?Howisitpossibletoworkinterculturallywhileatthesametimepromoting

universalvaluesindevelopment?

Thisproblemformulationconsistsoftwoparts.

• Thefirstpartconcernsthewordinterculturalisminitselfandhowitisunderstoodand

howitchangesarticulationindifferentsocialcontexts.Toanswerthis,Iwillbyuseof

discoursetheoryseehowthearticulationsofinterculturalismasasignifierchanges

betweendifferentactors,dependingontheirsocialcontext.Itismyhypothesisthat

interculturalismisafloatingsignifier,i.e.anelementthathasnotyetbecomeanodal

pointwithatemporaryfixedmeaning,andthateachactorthroughinterventioninthe

antagonisticrelationshiptrytoarticulatetheirdefinitionintohegemony.

• Thesecondpartoftheresearchquestiontreatsthetheoreticalcombinationof

developmentandinterculturalism.FromthefindingsofthefirstquestionIwillanalyse

anddiscusshowitispossibletoworkinterculturallywhileatthesametimepromoting

‘universal’valuesindevelopment.HeremyhypothesisisthatIBIS’intentionsareto

promoteinterculturalism,butindoingsointerculturalismendsupbeingadiscursive

developmentstrategythatpromotesthe‘universal’valuesofdevelopment.

1.4RelevanceandcontributionThisthesisaimstocontributetotheliteratureoninternationaldevelopment,whereI,during

myresearch,havefoundthatthereiswrittenverylittlewithinthediscoursetheoretical

approaches.Forthatreason,itcanbesaidthatthefieldisinneedofexaminationandIhope

thatthisthesiscancreatemoreinterestwithintheacademiccircles.Ontheacademiclevel,

theanalysiscanbebeneficialtodevelopmentstudents,since,inmyopinion,many

developmentprogramslackacriticalexaminationofthelanguageused.

IBIScanbenefitfromaninvestigationoftheircommunicationsstrategytoseehowitis

alignedwiththeirpractice,andfurthermoreitcanbebeneficialforIBIStounderstandhow

theirdiscourseondevelopmentisunderstoodinothercontexts.


9

1.5LiteratureReviewDuringtheresearchforthisthesis,Ihavegonethroughalargeselectionofprimaryresources

fromthedifferentorganisationscombinedwitharangeofinterviewsofactorsfromsomeof

theorganisationsinvolved.RegardingIBIS,Ihaveinterviewedrepresentativesfromthe

headquartersinDenmarkandIBISinGuatemala,andIhaveusedthedevelopment

programmesandstrategiesthatareaccessibleasdownloadsontheIBISwebsiteregarding

Guatemala.Allthiscanbetreatedasprimarysourcesandisgoodforanalysisofthediscursive

strategyofIBIS,anditisespeciallyinterestingtoanalyseiftheofficialdocumentsareinline

withwhattheintervieweessay.

RegardingtheindigenousorganisationsinGuatemala,Ihaveconductedarangeofinterviews

withrepresentativesofdifferentgroupsintheareaofHuehuetenango.Thesepeopledonot

necessarilycooperatewithIBISorbetweenthem,noraretheyfromthesameethnicor

culturalgroup;theyevenhavedifferentnativelanguages.NonethelessIbelieveitispossible

tointerprethowtheyviewthesocietyandhowtheyunderstandthewordsthatareusedin

theinterculturaldevelopmentdiscourse.

Unfortunately,Ididnothavethepossibilityofcarryingoutinterviewswithrepresentatives

fromtheGuatemalanState,soIhaveusedspeechesanddocumentsthatareavailableonthe

State’swebsite,aswellasstatementsbroughtbybothnationalandinternationalmedia.

Mostofthedatabeingusedinthisthesisisfromprimarysources,andhenceperfectlysuited

fordiscoursetheoreticalanalyses,becauseitcomesdirectlyfromthepeopleororganisations.

Inthecaseswheresecondaryliteratureisbeingused,itwillmostlybeforbackground

information.

Finallythereisawidearrayoftheoreticalliterature,whichhasbeenusedtoconstructthe

methodologicalfoundationofthisthesis.Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutdiscoursetheory,but

manypeoplewhoentertheworldofLaclauandMouffewillencounteraneedforastep‐by‐

stepinstructionofhowtoconceiveofthewholeanalyticalframework,andhowtogetstarted.

Thesewerealsomyinitialworries,butthankstotheliteratureofMarianneJørgensen,Louise

Phillips,andDavidHowarthIhavefoundtheprocessmoredoable.

1.6DelimitationsItneedstobementionedbrieflythatthisthesisdoesnotaimtogeneraliseaboutthe

discoursesinthedevelopmentindustryasawhole,nordoIwishtosayanythingabouthow

theindigenouspeoplesinotherpartsoftheworldunderstandinterculturaldevelopment.

Insteadmyobjectiveistointerpretandbeabletounderstandhowdevelopmentis

JesperSøeBergmann

10

understoodandwhatitmeansinthesocialsphereoftheinvolvedactors;andthisisexactly

whatthequalitativeresearchexcelsin.

Iamawareoftheinherentlyeuro‐centricacademicsystemIamapartof,andIknowthatthis

affectsmymindset,butIbelievethatwithasolidandtransparentmethodologicaland

theoreticalframeworkIwillstillbeabletoanalyseanddrawconclusionsbasedonthe

collecteddata.Furthermore,sinceIBISispositionedwithinthissameeuro‐centricsystemasa

so‐called‘developedworldNGO’,therepresentativesfromtheindigenousorganisationsare

from‘developingworldorganisations’,andtheStateissomehowcaughtinthemiddle,Ifind

thattheymakegoodrepresentationsofhowdifferentsocialgroupscanarticulateconcepts

differentlyandhencecreateantagonisticrelationshipsandcounter‐hegemonicstruggles.

1.7StructureoftheThesisMethodologyandTheoryChapter2outlinesmypositioninthephilosophyofsocialscienceandmyresearch

methodology.Thechapterrelatessocialconstructivismtotheanalysisofdiscoursesalong

withexplaininghowtheresearchiscarriedoutanddataiscollected.

Chapter3willexplainthetheoryappliedinthisthesis,andwillbeginwithanexplanationof

interculturalismandhowitrelatestomulticulturalism,beforemovingontoadiscussionofthe

roleofNGOsinsocietyandhowsocialprocessestakeplace;andfinally,anexplanationofthe

dilemmabetweenuniversalismandparticularism.Thesecondpartofchapter3explains

discoursetheory,itsanalyticalconceptsandtheimplicationsofsocialconstructivismand

discoursetheoryonsocialchange.

Analysis:

Chapter4willanalysediscursivelythedifferentarticulationsofinterculturalismfromthe

perspectiveofIBIS,theindigenousorganisationsofGuatemala,andtheGuatemalanstate.

Chapter5treatsthediscourseonnatureandnaturalresources.Thisanalysisdealswiththe

counter‐hegemonicdiscoursesonnaturebeingeitheraresourceforexploitation,asapartof

humanbeings,orassomethinginbetween.Itwillbeshownthatsomeofthearticulationsare

mutuallyexclusive,andthereforeinaconstantdiscursivestruggleforhegemony.

Chapter6explicitlyanalysesanddiscusseshowdevelopmentcanhavedifferentmeanings

dependingontheideologyoftheactors.Thisleadsontoadiscussionofhowantagonistic

articulationsondevelopmentstruggletogainhegemonybutalsocancreatecounter‐

hegemonicalliances.


11

Conclusion

Chapter7concludesthispaperandsumsupontheanalysisandbasedonthefindings,answer

howandwhyinterculturalisminfluencesthedevelopmentstrategyofIBISinGuatemala,and

howIBISbalancesbetweenuniversalistandparticularistvalues.

2PhilosophyofSocialScience

Inthefollowing,Iwillgothroughanddiscussmyphilosophicalviewandperspectiveofthe

socialsciences.Ibelievethatitisimportantforascholartobeawareofhis/herviewofthe

worldatbothanontologicalandanepistemologicallevel,since,inmyopinion,onewillnotbe

abletomakeapropermethodologicalanalysiswithouthavinghadthereflectionsonwhat

constitutesbeingandknowledge.IfollowinthestepsofMoses&Knutsenwhoclaimsthat

therearethreemembersofthemetaphysicalgang:(1)ontologyconcernedwithwhatthe

worldismadeof;(2)epistemologyaskingwhatknowledgeis;and(3)methodology

discussinghowweacquireknowledgeand“howdoweknow?”(2007:5).Bymakingthis

discussionexplicitIwillinvitethereadertotakepartofhowIviewthesocialworld(andto

someextentthenaturalworldaswell)inordertocreatealevelplayinggroundforlater

discussions.Ibelievethatwe,aspeople,alwaysunderstandatopicfromwithinawidersetof

ontological,epistemologicalandsocialboundaries.

First,Iwilldiscussontologyandepistemologyandhowitisconnectedfromasocial

constructivistperspective;thenIwillgothroughmymethodologicalconsiderationsduring

thepre‐researchforthisproject;andfinallyIwillexplainthemethodthathasbeenutilisedin

thisproject.Thisistomakesurethatthereiscoherencebetweentheoryandmethodona

philosophicallevel.

2.1OntologyandEpistemology

Whenapproachingaspecifictopic,beitaquestionineverydaylifeorthetopicforathesis,I

finditimportanttobeawareofwhatexistenceis–i.e.tophilosophiseabouttheworldof

beingandknowledge.Aperson’sviewofthiscanvaryaccordingtothecontextandwhatis

discussed;forinstancewhetherdiscussingthesizeofthereinforcementsonabridgeorif

divineinterferenceexists.InthefollowingIwillfocusonhowIperceivethesocialworldto

makesurethatthisfitswiththemethodologicalframeworkIintendtouse.

JesperSøeBergmann

12

2.1.1Socialconstructivism–howconstructivistamI?Constructivismreferstotheconceptofpeopleconstructingtheirownperceptionofreality;

whattheyperceiveastruth,facts,existence,etc.;thattherecannotexistanyobjectivitysince

whatisclaimedtobetrueiscontingentonthesocial,cultural,historical,etc.context;andthat

allperspectivesintheorycanbeequallytrue.Iwillinthisthesisnotgothrougha

philosophicaldiscussionofdifferentontologicalpositions,butwillinsteadfocusonmyown

viewofhowmeaningisconstructed,changedormaintainedwithinthesocialsphere.

Asstatedabove,Iamoftheopinionthatthesocialconstructionsoftheworldhavean

enormousimpactonhowweperceiveandexperienceeverydaypractices,andwhatwemake

ofthem;hereIrefertosocialconstructionslikelanguage,science,society,culture,history,etc.

Theseareallhumanconstructsandimbuedwithacertainidea,whichthenagainisopento

interpretationandchange,whichtakesplacealmostconstantly.(Krørup2008:164).

MypositioniswhatKrørup(2008:165)wouldcallontologicalconstructivismwithregardsto

humanrelationsinbelievingthatsocialpraxis,systems,thought,etc.aresociallyconstructed

phenomena.Thisalsomeans(aspreviouslymentioned)thatIbelievethatallhumanbeings,

sincewearereflectivingindividuals,understandandexperiencelifethroughaframeof

referencethatisaresultofasocial,culturalandhistoricalpast,whichitselfhasbeen

constructedandtransmittedthroughgenerations.Andexactlybecauseofthis,oneofthemost

importantaspectsofcriticalthinkingistolookathowweconstructsociety,whateffectsthe

constructedsocietyhasonourreality,andfurthermorehowdifferentideologiesaffectthis

realityandhowitcanbechanged,ifsowished.Furthermore,beingontologicalconstructivist

comeswithaspecificviewonepistemology,sincethetwoarea‘package’,inthattheontology

shapeshowepistemologyisperceived.

Sincesocialconstructivismisbuildonthepremisethatsocietyisconstructed(andtherefore

malleable)itimpliesthattheworldisfilledwithmeaning(s)byus,andthatmeaningis

contestablesincethereexistsnogivenobjectivereality.Theconstructivistdoesnotdisregard

phenomena,butinsteadshe/heinterpretsthemfromaperspectivethatisembeddedina

contextthatisconstructedthroughhumanrelations(Andersenetal.2005:16‐18),andthisis

exactlyhowIperceivethesocialworld,andwhatIwouldliketoinvestigateinthisthesis.Ido

notclaimtobeabletoholdaparticularuniversaltruthorthatIsomehowhaveaccessto

independentandobjectiveknowledgeabouttheworld.Insteaditismaintainedthatthisis

oneinterpretationofthetopic,basedononeframeofreference,readingsoftheliteraturein


13

thefield,andthereliabilityofthedatacollectedthroughthemethodologicalframework,with

theobjectiveoffindingananswertomyproblemformulation.

Fromhavingbrieflyexplainedmyperspectiveandpositiononontologyandepistemology,

andhowtheyareintertwined,Iwillmoveontoabriefdescriptionandinterpretationofhow

LaclauandMouffeviewtheworld.

2.1.2StructuralismandpoststructuralismIwillnowprovideabriefdescriptionofErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe’sviewon

structuralismandpost‐structuralism,sincethisisimportanttobeabletodistinguishand

understandthedifferentvariationsofdiscourseanalysisandtheory,whichwillbeexplained

later.Thisaffectshowoneunderstandsandinterpretssocialchange–throughconflictor

throughgradualchangeofagreement;andfinallyitinvolvesthedebateofstructure‐agency,

whichisinterestinginunderstandinghowsocialchangeisstarted.

2.1.2.1DiscourseinStructuralism&Post‐StructuralismStructuralismistheunderstandingthatcultureandothersocialconstructsneedstobe

interpretedandunderstoodthroughtheirinterrelationshipwiththesocietytheyare

embeddedin,i.e.thestructures.Post‐structuralismcompletelydismissthesestructuresand

claimthemtobeconstructed.

Post‐structuralism(LaclauandMouffe)andpost‐modernismissaidtobetherootofsocial

constructivismandaroseasareactiontothe,sometimes,universalisingtheoriesof

structuralism,e.g.Marxism(Jørgensen&Phillips1999:15).Discourseanalysisandtheoryare

basedonstructuralism’sunderstandingoflanguage,butpost‐structuralismopensupforthe

possibilityofsocialchangethroughaconflictualalternationoflanguageandmeaning,where

asstructuralisminitselfismoredeterministicandtotalistic.Throughdiscourseandlanguage

wecancreaterepresentationsofreality,buttheserepresentationsarenotsimpleobjective

snapshots,theyareconstructsandinthatwaytheyreproducethereality.Thisdoesnotmean

thatrealityandfactsdoesnotexist,butitmeansthattheyaremademeaningfulthrough

languageanddiscourse.Understoodinthisway,languageisnotjustatransferofinformation

andfactabouttheworld;languageiswhatconstitutesthesocialworld,relations,identities,

cultures,etc.

JørgensenandPhillipsdescribetherelationbetweendiscoursetheoryandpost‐structuralism

as:“Nodiscourseisaclosedentity:itis,rather,constantlybeingtransformedthroughcontact

JesperSøeBergmann

14

withotherdiscourses”(2002:6).Thewaydiscoursesarechangedis,fromthisperspective,

throughaconstantdiscursiveantagonisticstruggle,i.e.severaldistinctdiscourses,each

representingacertainwayofarticulatingandunderstandingthesocialworld,arestruggling

tobecomedominantandhegemonic;inotherwordstotemporarilylocktheotherwise

changingstructureoflanguageandmeaning(Jørgensen&Phillips1999:18).Iwillelaborate

ontheconceptofantagonisms,hegemonyandsocialconflictinsection3.1.Tovisualizethe

differentviewoftheroleofdiscourseasbeingeitherconstitutedorconstitutive,Jørgensen

andPhillips(1999:29‐30)drawoutthissimplesketch.

Tothefarrightwheretheviewisthatdiscourseisconstituted,discourseanalysisisrarely

seen,sincestructuralistsviewdiscoursesasareproductionoffixedsocialpractices,andit

thereforemakesmoresensetoanalyzeothertopicsofthesociety,e.g.theeconomicsystem.

Tothefarleft,socialconstructivistsholdthatlanguagecanconstituteandchangethesociety.

Socialconstructivism(andotherdiscourseanalyticalschools)comesoutofthestructuralist

wayofunderstandinglanguageandtheworld,andpost‐structuralismopensupforamore

changeableworldbecauselanguageisnolongerseenasatotalandunchangeablestructure.

Inbothsystems,signsgettheirmeaningfrombeingdifferenttoothersigns,butinpost‐

structuralismsignifiersconstructmeaning,andthiscanchangedependingonthesocial

context.So,post‐structuralismdoesnotneglectthestructureoflanguage,butunderstandthe

structureasbeingtemporaryandopentocontestationandhencechange,whichisrelevantto

thisprojectbecauseIanalysehowthedifferentarticulationsoninterculturaldevelopment

changedependingonthesocialcontextandgrouping.

Fromhavingexplainedmyontologicalandepistemologicalperspective,andhowitrelatesto

thelanguageanddiscourse,Iwillnowmoveontoexplainthemethodologyofthethesisto

stresstheimportanceofcoherencetobeabletodrawconclusionsinrelationtohow

interculturalism,asunderstoodbyIBIS,influencesthewayIBISworkswithdevelopment.


15

2.2MethodologyInthischapterIwilldiscussthemethodologicalconsiderationsandreasontowhyIhave

appliedthechosenmethodsinthisthesis.Itcanbedebatedwhetheritispossibleatallto

discusstheconceptofmethodologyfromadiscourseperspective,sinceconstructivistscience

questionsthetraditionalsetofrulesandnormsofhowscienceiscarriedout.Constructivism,

andthereforealsodiscoursetheory,canbetermedmoreasastepping‐stoneforreflexionof

theepistemologicalinsightsofthesocialworld(Hansen2009:391).Ihavedonethereader

theheuristicfavourofartificiallyseparatingthephilosophyofsocialscience,methodology

andmethodintoindividualchapterstomakeitmoreaccessible.

2.2.1TheHermeneuticalTraditionofQualitativeResearchThisprojectistakingitspointofdepartureinthehermeneutical,orinterpretative,tradition.

Instatingthis,IamtryingtomakeitobviousthatasawriterIamaffectedbymyown

backgroundandunderstandingofhowtoanalyzeandinterprettheworld.Theobjectofthe

hermeneuticapproachistocreateorachieveabroadunderstandingoftheintentionofa

socialcontext.Thismeansthatweconstructasocialreality(albeitconstructedand

understoodindifferentways),whichisopentodifferentinterpretations,butthisisnottosay

thateachindividualnecessarilymakeshis/herowninterpretation.Peoplearealsoinfluenced

byotherpeoples’interpretationsofthetopic.Beingawareofthiswillenablemetorelate

criticallytomyowncontext,andatthesametimetrytoincludeabroadunderstandingofthe

studiedtopics’contextaswell.Animportantpartofhermeneuticresearchistounderstand

thatinterpretationandunderstandingisacircularand/ordialecticalprocessinwhichone

shouldstrivetounderstandboththetotality,butalsotheindividualpartsofthetopic.

AnotheraspectofmychoiceofthehermeneuticresearchtraditionisthatIdonotintentto

producegeneralisedknowledgeaboutaverybroadsubject.Myaimistointerpretand

understandthetopicofresearch,i.e.interculturalisminadevelopmentperspective,andhow

thediscourseofdevelopmentaffectsthedifferentorganisations.Finally,thismethodology

opensupforotherunderstandingsandrealitiesoftheactors,which,inturn,cangivemea

newunderstanding.

2.2.2DiscourseasasociologicalanalysisThemethodologicalapproachtothetopicofthisthesisisasociologicalanalysisofdiscourse,

andthischapterwillexplainthereasonforthischoice.

JesperSøeBergmann

16

Ruiz2009dividestheanalysisofdiscourseintothreelevels:(1)Textualanalysiswherethe

discourseistreatedasanobjectofanalysis;(2)Contextualanalysiswhichlooksatdiscourses

assingleeventsthatcanbeanalysed;and(3)Sociologicalanalysisthatunderstandsdiscourse

asasocialproductofideology.Iwillbeoperatingonthesecondandthirdlevelthroughout

thisanalysis,andhencetreatdiscourseassomethingthatcanbeand/orrequires

interpretation.

Theconceptofdiscourseisinitselfadifficultonetodefine,andthereislimitedspecific

agreementaboutwhatexactlyconstitutesdiscoursetheoryandanalysis.Atthesametime,

thereisfairagreementaboutdiscourseshavingaconnectiontolinguisticsandhowdifferent

realitiesarecreated(Hansen2009:389),butfromasociologicalperspective“discourseis

definedasanypracticebywhichindividualsimbuerealitywithmeaning”(Ruiz2009:3).

Choosingamethodologythatanalysesthislevelenablesmetounderstandhowthe

articulationofdevelopmentandinterculturalismisdependentonawidersocialcontext,and

howthemaintenanceorchangeofthisdiscoursemightchangethesocialcontextofthe

individualsworkingwithit.

2.3MethodTheinterpretationandunderstandingofthiscasestudyiscarriedoutthroughthecollection

ofqualitativedata,usingmethodsthatwillbedescribedinthissection.

2.3.1CasestudyInthispaperIwillthroughacasestudyinterpretthewayIBISunderstandsinterculturalism;

howthisunderstandinginfluencesthedevelopmentprojectstheysupport;thewayIBIS

works;whytheyfindinterculturalismimportant;andhowthebalance‘universalvalues’with

respectfordiversity.Thecasestudygivesmeaccesstoanotherwisecomplexrealityof

interculturalismanddevelopment.BychoosingthecaseofIBISinGuatemala,Itakeadvantage

ofthepossibilityofstudyingaphenomenonthatencapsulatesmymaininterestsfromthe

masterprogramatAalborgUniversityinDevelopmentandInternationalRelationswitha

LatinAmericanspecialisation.Whencarryingoutacasestudyinthehermeneuticalresearch

traditionitisimportanttobeawareofthecontextualimplicitunderstandingsthatcanarise,

sincetheycanbehighlyrelevantfortheobjectofstudy(Yin2003:13).Forthatreasonitisup

totheresearchertopreparewellthequestionsandtopicsofresearch,sincetheydefineboth


17

thecontentandtheshapeofthestudy,andbecausetherearemany(sometimesdiverging)

interests,whenworkingwithhumanbeings.

Withregardstothepossibilityofmakinggeneralisations,thecasestudyisofcourserather

limitedinitsgeneralisability,butthisdoesnotmeanthatthecasecannotberepresentativeof

awidersocietalcontext.However,beingabletogeneraliseisnottheaimofthecasestudy,on

thecontrary,thepointistobeabletointerpretandunderstandthedifferentqualitative

layersandnuancesofthespecificcase,ratherthanmakingasuperficialandsimplified

generalisationofacomplexreality(Yin2003:21).

2.3.2Semi‐structuredinterviewsTobeabletounderstandthedifferentperspectivesoninterculturalisminadevelopment

context,Ihavechosentoperformanumberofinterviewswithrepresentativesofdifferent

organisationsinGuatemalaandrepresentativesofIBISinbothDenmarkandGuatemala.The

interview,ingeneral,isagreatwaytocollectinformationfromdifferentactors,andIwasin

thiscaseluckythatmanypeoplewereinterestedinparticipatingintheinterviews.

ThereasonIfindthesemi‐structuredinterviewtobeagoodmethodisbecauseitenablesme

togetabroaderunderstandingoftheinterviewees’reality,sinceitopensupfordialogueand

fortherespondenttocomewithhis/herowninterpretation,reflection,andelaborationof

timeandspace(Kvale&Brinkmann2008:17).

Theonlymethodologicalchallengeofthesemi‐structuredinterviewisthatit“reduces[the]

abilitytomakesystemiccomparisonsbetweentheinterviewresponses”(Klandermans&

Staggenborg2002:92‐93,author’sbrackets).This,however,wasneverthegoalofthisproject.

Insteadthepossibilitytoexperienceandlistentohowpeopleunderstandandconstructthe

socialworldcomplimentsthemethodologyofhermeneuticsanddiscoursetheory,sinceit

givesmeabetterunderstandingofpeoplefromothersocialcontexts.Finally,thesemi‐

structuredinterviewgivesmeexamplesofdiscoursesfromanotherspaceandtime,andthis

givesmethepossibilitytoexperiencehowthesediscoursesrelateandcontradictwiththe

discoursesusedbyotherinterviewees,andhenceitenablesmetointerpretandanalyseit

fromatheoreticalstandpoint.

JesperSøeBergmann

18

2.3.2FurtherCollectionofData

2.3.2.1TextanalysisOntopofthedatacollectedfrominterviewsIwillmakeuseofanalysisoftextsfromIBIS;

morespecificallythethematicprogramsregardingeducationandgovernance,thecountry

strategyforGuatemala,aswellasthecountrystrategyforDenmark.

2.3.2.2ParticipantObservationandFieldNotesIwillmakeuseoftheexperiencesmadeduringmyfieldtriptoGuatemalatoperformthe

interviews.Theseobservationsmightnotbeanalysedexplicitly,buttheyhaveaddedtomy

understandingoftheGuatemalansocietyandhavegivenmethepossibilitytoexperiencehow

everydaylifeisinbothGuatemalaCityandinHuehuetenango.AsaresearcherandtravellerI

triedtogetincontactwithasmanypeopleaspossibleonbusses,taxis,hotels,foodstandsin

thestreet,etc.Alltheseconversations(bothshortandlong)havegivenamorediverseand

nuancedimageofthecountryanditsmanyculturesandidentities.Allofthiswouldhavebeen

impossibletoexperiencethroughresearchfromAalborg.

2.3.3Individuals,informants,connectionsandconfidentialitySincetheinterviewsarepartofaqualitativeandin‐depthdiscourseorientedresearch

approachIhavetriedtoaccessrepresentativesfromIBIS’differentcounterpartsin

Guatemala.This,however,hasproveddifficultduetoseveralreasons.Firstly,becauseIonly

wasinGuatemalafortwoweeks,andmanyofthecounterpartsarebusyorganisations,soto

justarriveandhopeforthebestwasprobablyabitnaïve.Secondly,duetosocialuprisings

duringmystay,Iwasrecommended/orderedbythedirectorofIBISGuatemalanottogo

outsidethemaincities.ThiswasunderlinedbytheministryofinternalaffairsinGuatemala

whothroughmediastatedthatallforeignersinterferingininternalaffairswouldbeexpelled.

SincesomeoftheorganisationsIwasintouchwithareagainstthegovernment,Idecidedto

followthatadvice.ThismeantthatIstayedinGuatemalaCityandinHuehuetenango,and

arrangedforpeopletocometomefortheinterviews,andsincetheorganisationsdonothave

verylargebudgets,Ihadtocovertheirtravelexpenses(whichadmittedlywasnotveryhigh).

Thirdly,IBISputmeincontactwiththecenterofstudyCEDFOG2inHuehuetenangowhowere

veryopen,welcomingandhelpfulwitharrangingbus,taxi,hotelandanofficeforme.They

alsoarrangedinterviewsforme,sincetheyknewallthecontactsverywell.Thesepeopleare

2CentrodeEstudiosyDocumentaciondelaFronteraOccidentaldeGuatemala[StudyanddocumentationcentreofthewesternborderofGuatemala]


19

notnecessarilydirectlyconnectedtoIBISwork.Thereis,however,aconstantlypresentfear

orprecariousnessoftheauthorities,andmanyoftheintervieweespreferredtobe

anonymous,andtheinformationfromthesepeopleisusedasbackgroundknowledge.Some

ofthepeopleItalkedtointhestreetswerealsosuspiciousofcriticizingthegovernment–and

inthiscontextIwouldliketounderlinethatIdidnotmyselfbringupthetopicofgovernment

criticism.Fourthly,anumberoftheinterviewshadtobecancelledduetomanifestationsin

remembranceofapersonwhowaskilledbythemilitaryduringademonstrationtheyear

before.

3Theory

3.1DiscourseTheoryIwillinthisthesisusediscoursetheorytointroduceandcontextualisesomeoftheconcepts

thatarebeingusedintheworldofdevelopment.Theprevioussectiononmyontologicaland

epistemologicalviewofreality,societyandscienceexplainedwhyIamabletousediscourse

theoryinthisthesis,eventhoughdiscoursetheoryissometimesacontestedtopicwithinthe

socialsciences.Thischapterwillexplainthetheoryinitself,andhowIunderstanddiscourses

astemporarysystemsofsignifiersrepresentingandcreatingtheentiresocialandpolitical

systemofinteractions.AsclaimedbyErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe,thatbecauseof

discourse“everysocialconfigurationismeaningful”(Laclau&Mouffe1987:82,italicsin

original).

Thelastcoupleofdecadeshaveseenariseintheuseofdiscoursetheorywithinthe

humanitiesandsocialsciences,andseveraluniversitieshavecreateddepartmentsof

discourseanalysis.Atthesametimethegeneralideaoflanguageasacarrierofmeaninghave

spreadtocommunicationsadvisers,marketingdirectors,etc,whospendtheirwholecareer

thinkingabouthowtoarticulatethe‘right’wordswiththe‘right’meaningstoachievecertain

goalsandpersuadepeopleto‘buy’theirproduct–beitatoothpasteorpolitician.

Ratherthanhavingany‘agreed‐upondefinition’,discoursetheoryconsistsofavarietyof

differentideasandtheoreticalpractices(Alvesson&Karreman,2000:1127).Itevolvedfrom

the“linguisticturn”inthetwentiethcenturydenotingdifferentintellectualmovementsand

traditionssuchasstructuralisminfluencedbytheworksofLudwigWittgensteinandMartin

Heidegger(Strydom2000:34).Thepost‐structuralistapproachappliedinthisthesislooksat

“discourseinasocialcontext,includingthesocialandpoliticaldimensionsinadditiontothe

JesperSøeBergmann

20

discursive”(Alvesson&Karreman2000:1127).Languageor“discourses”arethusseenasa

formofsocialinteractionembeddedinacertainhistoricalcontext.

Eventhoughtheconceptofdiscourseanalysisarosefromsubjectslikelinguisticsand

semiotics,ithasspreadtostudieslikesociology,politicalscience,history,development

studies,etc.inanincreasinglyinter‐andintra‐disciplinarystudytradition,tohelppeople

interpretandunderstandspecifichappeningsthroughouthistory.Therecouldbemany

reasonsforthis,butoneofthegenerallyacknowledgedreasonsisagrowingdissatisfaction

withthepositivisticapproachtosocialscienceanditsinabilitytocomplementthe

hermeneutictradition.Additionally,theworldviewofcriticaltheoristsofpost‐modernism,

post‐structuralism,etcmovedincreasinglytowardsacknowledgingconstructivismas,onthe

onehand,helpingtheunderstandingofsocialchange,andontheother,anunderstandingof

themaintenanceofsocialstructures,e.g.throughhegemonicdiscourses.

Post‐structuralistsandpost‐marxistslikeDerrida,FoucaultandLaclau&Mouffeallhavea

broadunderstandingofdiscourses.Theyseesocialstructuresasambiguous,incompleteand

contingentsystemsofmeaning.Inearlywritings,LaclauandMouffestarteddeconstructing

theMarxistideologydrawingonpost‐structuralistphilosophy,wherebytheydevelopeda

conceptofdiscoursesthatcontainedallthepracticesandmeaningsthatshapeacertain

communityofsocialactors.Accordingtotheirperspective,adiscourseisthesymbolicsystem

andsocialorder,andtheroleofdiscourseanalysisistoinvestigatethehistoricalandpolitical

constructionandfunction.

Inoppositiontotheempiricist,realistandMarxistunderstandingofrealityinwhichthe

objectiveworld’snaturecreatethecharacterandtruthofthediscourses,Foucaultarguedthat

certaindiscursiverulesmakethesubjectabletoproduceobjects,concept,strategies,etc

whichtogetherconstitutesadiscourse.Inotherwords,Foucaultclaimsthatdiscoursesare

shapedbysocialpracticeswhilesimultaneouslyshapingsocialrelationsandinstitutions.

BuildingonFoucault,LaclauandMouffeexpandedthediscoursetheorytoincludeallsocial

practicesinawaythatdiscoursesanddiscursivepracticesaresynonymouswithsystemsof

socialrelations.

AfterabriefintroductiontodiscoursetheoryIwillbeforegoingintoadiscussionofthe

analyticallevelsofdiscourseanalysisandhowthesocialrealityisviewed,presentthespecific

discoursetheoreticalconceptsthatwillbeoperationalisedthroughouttheanalysis.


21

3.1.1DiscourseTheoreticalConceptBecausethisthesiswillanalysetheabstractsconceptsofinterculturalism,nature,and

development,itisimportanttofirstexplainthedistinctelementsofthediscoursetheoretical

frameworkthatwillbeappliedthroughoutthisanalysis.Foramorecomprehensive

explanationofthemanypartsofdiscoursetheoryseeappendix1.

3.1.1.1Sign,signifierandsignifiedInthesemiotictraditionasignisdividedintothesignifier(theformofthesign)andthe

signified(themeaningofthesign);insocialconstructivismthe

meaningofthesign(i.e.thesignified)isconstructedthrough

socialinteraction.Anoft‐usedexampleisthe“tree”whichissplit

upintoagenericpictureofa“tree”andthewordtreeinitself.

• Sign=signifier+signified=

Theactualmeaningofthesignifier“tree”isthenasocialconstruct

andisthencontingentonmanydifferentpremises.Fortheowner

oftheforestitisanincome;forapersoninterestedinconstructingaroaditmightbea

hindrance;forothersitmightbethe“earth’slungs”;foranornithologistitisthehomeofa

certainspecies;etc.

However,inthepost‐structuralistunderstandingoflanguageanddiscourseaworddoesnot

existinitselfasanemptyconcepttobefilled.Instead,varioussignifiersarearticulatedinto

elementsormomentstoconstructadiscourseandameaning.Thisarticulationisdependent

onthesocialcontextofthepersonarticulating.Thisthesiswilltreattheratherabstract

conceptsofinterculturalism,natureanddevelopment,whichareelementswithhighly

contestedarticulations(floatingsignifiers),andnot‘simple’materialobjectslikeatree.

3.1.1.2Keysignifiers

3.1.1.2.1ElementsandmomentsAnelementisasignifierwithmultiplemeaningsthatarenotfixedinadiscourseyet,whereas

momentsareelementswithanarticulatedpartiallyfixedmeaning.Inotherwords,tousethe

metaphorofdiscourseasafishnet,amomentistheknotinthefishnet,whereasanelementis

a‘meaning’thathasnotyetbecomeaknot(articulateddiscursively).Adiscourse‘tries’to

makeelementsintomomentsbyreducingtheirmultiplemeaningstoasinglemeaningby

JesperSøeBergmann

22

constructingatemporary“closure”(ornet)intheotherwiseconstanttransformationofthe

signs’meaning.So,adiscourseisasystemofmomentsinwhichthemeaningoftheindividual

signsisdeterminedbythesigns’relationtotheothersigns(Jørgensen&Phillips1999:36‐38).

3.1.1.2.2NodalPointsandfloatingsignifiersThetemporaryclosureofadiscourseisbuiltaroundnodalpoints.Nodalpointsareprivileged

signsthatothersignsareorderedaroundandgettheirmeaningfromthroughchainsof

equivalence.Nodalpointsaresignsthathavebeenfloatingsignifiersbutthroughstruggleand

contestationhaveestablishedameaningwithinaspecificdiscourse.InthewordsofJørgensen

&Phillips:“Nodalpointsarefloatingsignifiers,butwheretheconceptnodalpointsreferstoa

pointofcrystallisationinthespecificdiscourse,theconceptfloatingsignifierreferstothe

struggleoverimportantsignsbetweenthedifferentdiscourses”(1999:39,owntranslation).

Thismeansthatnodalpointscancombineotherwise“freeflowing”elementsintoadiscourse

onasocialtopicorfield.Inthecaseofthisproject,someofthefloatingsignifiersofinterest

areinterculturalismanddevelopment.

3.1.1.3AntagonismsandHegemonyDiscoursesareconstructedthroughstrugglesovermeaningwherenodalpointsviachainsof

equivalencecapturemomentsintothetemporaryclosureofmeaning.Thisisdonethrough

antagonisticdifferentiationandconflictinanattempttoexcludeothermeaningsofcertain

momentsanddiscourses.Theantagonisticstrugglebetweendiscoursescanonlybedissolved

(temporarily)throughhegemony,whichisaforceofmonopolisationthatsilencesthe

surroundingpotentialthreattothespecificdiscourse.Thisisbecausetheexcludedelements

ofadiscourseisalsothethingthatmakesitpossible–understoodinthewaythatadiscourse

isidentifiedby,ontheoneside,whatitis,andontheotherside,whatitisnot.Identitiesare

constitutedbybeingdifferenttoand/orchallengingotheridentities,i.e.itisalmost

impossibletospeakaboutotherpeoplewithoutreferringto“us”and“them”.

Hegemonyanddiscourseare“similar”infunctioninthattheybothtemporarilystructureand

excludesomething,buthegemonyis,sotospeak,ona“higher”level,inthathegemony

intervenestostructureseveraldiscoursesthatareinanantagonisticrelationship.So

hegemonyispresentandsuccessfulwhenonediscoursedominatesthesocialfieldwhere

thereusedtobeconflict,andconstructsan“objectivetruth”bystructuringparticular

meaningsaroundcertainprivilegedsignifiers–nodalpoints.LaclauandMouffebringin

politicsandideologyhere,since“hegemonicdiscourseis[…]politicalinthesensethatit

admitsonlyonecontingentfixationofmeaning,excludingotherpossiblemeanings”(inMüller


23

2010:13),therebymakingitanideologicalprojecttoachieveorbreakhegemonythrougha

constantstruggleoffixingmeaningtocreateadominatingperspective.Inthecontextofthis

paper,wemightfindantagonisticrelationshipsbetweenthedifferentarticulationsofthe

floatingsignifiers(interculturalism,natureanddevelopment).

3.1.1.3.1SocialChangeThroughConflictFollowingthistrainofthought,wherediscoursesareconstitutiveofthesocialspherethrough

antagonisticandhegemonicstrugglebetweenideologies,itbecomesevidentthatsocietal

changehappensthroughconflict.ThisisrelatedtoKarlPolanyi’sconceptofchangethrougha

double‐movement,inwhichsociety,throughiterativestepsmovestowardsanewstatusquo,

whereitstaysforawhile,untilnewantagonisticforcesariseandcontesttheexisting.The

reasonthatantagonismsariseisbecausesocialactorsbecomeunabletoconnectwithwhat

theyidentifywith3,andinthiswayantagonismsareconstitutiveofchange,sincesocial

formationsaredependentonwhois‘inside’andwhois‘outside’(Howarth2005:153‐154).

3.1.1.3.2TheStructureistheAgentPost‐structuralismacknowledgestheclassicaldialecticalrelationshipbetweenstructureand

agency,butherethepoweriswithintheagent.Thestructureisadiscursiveclosure,

understoodinthewaythatsocialsystemsaretheresultsofformerhegemonicstrugglesand

antagonisticrelationships.Atthesametime,theagentisasubjectthathasidentifiedwitha

discourse(throughinterpellation)tobecomeanideologicalsubjectthateitherrepresentsthe

existinghegemonicorderorsupportthecounter‐hegemonicdiscourse(ordoesn’tcare).This

highlightsthatsocialrelationshipsaregivenmeaningthroughlanguage,andthatthis

meaningshapesandmaintainseverythinginsociety(Jørgensen&Phillips1999:25).An

examplecouldbethecaseoftheindigenouspeoplesofGuatemala,whoasagentsareunable

toidentifywiththecapitaliststructure,andthereforeconstructsadiscoursethatiscounter‐

hegemonic.

Thissectionexplainedthetheoreticaltermsofdiscoursetheory,andIwillnowmoveonto

explaindiscoursetheoryinasocietalcontext,tounderstandhowdiscourseandsociety

influenceeachother.

3Forinstance,apeasantwholosesland,becomesalandlesspeasant,andhenceunabletoidentifywithwhatitmeanstobeapeasant.

JesperSøeBergmann

24

3.1.2ThreeLevelsofDiscourseTheoryLaclauandMouffe’stheoryofdiscoursestakesasapointofdeparturetheviewthatallobjects

andactionsaremeaningfulandthatthismeaningistheproductofspecifichistoricalsystems

ofrules.Thismeansthatsocialpracticesandactionsconstructandchallengealreadyexisting

discoursesthatconstitutethesocialreality,becauseactionscanchallengeanexistingsystem

ofmeaningssincethesystemiscontingentontheagent.

AccordingtoHowarth(2005),itisnecessary,inordertobeabletoanalyseintodetailthese

systemsofmeanings,rulesandstatements,toinvestigatethreedifferentlevelsofthe

discourse:1)thediscursive,2)thediscourse,and3)thediscourseanalysis.Thediscursive(1)

meansthatallobjectsarediscourseobjectssincethecircumstancesforwhatconstitutes

meaningdependsonasociallyconstructedsystemofrulesandmeaningfuldifferences.An

exampleofthiscouldbehowamountainforonepersonissomethingbeautifultoclimb,for

anotherapossiblesourceofminerals,whilesomeoneelsewouldseeitasanhindranceforthe

dailycommutetothenextvalley,etc.Inthiswaythemountainhasameaningnotonly

contingentontheeyeofthebeholder,butalsoonthesysteminwhichitisinscribed.This

doesnotmeanthattheexistenceofthemountainisquestioned,asatypicalrealistwould

argueagainstconstructivism.Instead,thediscursiveclaimsthatwealwaysfindourselves

withinaworldofalreadyexistingmeaningfulpracticesandobjects,andthatweashuman

beingsarethrownintothisworldofdiscoursesandshouldstriveto,anddoalways,createour

ownmeaningofit.(2)adiscourseisasetofhistoricallyspecificmeaningsthatcreatethe

identityofbothsubjectsandobjectsasconcretesystemsofsocialrelationsandpractices.The

shapingofidentitieshasthepurposeofcreatingantagonismsandpoliticalbordersbetween

aninsideandanoutside,i.e.us‐them.Anexampleofthiscouldbethediscourseon‘developed’

and‘developing’countriesthathascreatedadelineationbetweenthosewhoare‘more

developed’(‘us’)andthosewhoare‘lessdeveloped’(‘them’).Thediscoursecarrieswithit

manymeaningsofsocialrelationsandpractices,andimmediatelycreatespicturesand

thoughtsinone’smind.Finally,(3)Discourseanalysisistheprocessofactualanalysisofthe

discoursesascarriersofmeaning,inwhichtheanalystprocessesawidevarietyoflinguistic

andnon‐linguisticmaterial(interviews,reports,speeches,institutions,organisations,etc.)

whichenablessubjectstoexperiencearealityofwordsandpractices.

ThroughoutthisthesisIwillworkonallthreelevels,sinceIwillconductananalysis(3)of

differentdevelopmentdiscourses(2),andwillspecificallyinvestigatethreeactors’


25

articulationsofthreedistinct,butstillconnected,signifiers(1),i.e.IBIS,theindigenous

peoplesandtheGuatemalanstate’sarticulationofinterculturalism,natureanddevelopment.

3.1.3DiscourseTheory:ChallengingtheManyRealities.Ifinditinterestingtoanalysehowpeoplefromdifferentsocialcontextsarticulateand

understandthemanyrealities;howcultures,identities,etc.areconstructed,maintainedand

changeddiscursively;andhowdiscoursescanbecomehegemoniconmanydifferentlevels

andinmanydifferentcontexts(local–global,notjustgeographicallybutalsocontextually).

Discoursetheoryisnotconcernedwiththerevelationofanyhiddenunderlyingmeaningsof

everydaysocialpraxis.Onthecontrary,discoursetheoryisabouttheproblematictransferof

meaningthroughlanguagesincelanguageisanalreadyexisting(albeittemporary)closureof

meaningsanddifferencesbasedonasocialcontext.Thestudyoflanguageisthereforeusedto

createnewunderstandingsofthesocialpraxisplacingorimposingthesemeaningsinwider

socialandstructuralcontexts.Thisisdonetocreateawarenessofthemeaningsandsigns

carriedbyindividualsignifiersanddiscourses,sopeopleareabletocreatenewmeanings

fromthesamewordsorstartusingnewwordstocreateanewdiscoursewithanother

meaning4.Hence,discoursetheoryisaboutchallengingthesometimesdeterministicorstatus

quoofstructuralism,andnotacceptingsociallifeassimpleandobservablepositivistfacts.

Instead,discoursetheorycreatesthefoundationfordiscursiveinvestigationofarticulations

fromspecificsocialcontexts,andwhatandhowtherulesandconventionsthatstructurethe

productionofmeaningareconstructed.DiscoursetheoristslearnedfromMarxthatsocial

actorsplayanimportantroleincriticisingthetheoriesofdominanceandutility,butin

oppositiontotheclassicalMarxism’sfocusonproductionandtheworkers’struggle,thepost‐

structuralistandpost‐Marxistdiscoursetheoristsfocusontheanti‐essentialistandanti‐

reductionistperceptionsofsocietyaswellasstressingthematerialandpracticalpropertiesof

theideology(Howarth2005:24).

3.1.4IsDiscourseTheoryMissingSomething?Thecritiquecomingmainlyfromrealists,Marxistsandpositivistisaimedatdiscourse

theory’sallegedidealismandclaimsthatthetheorysimplifiessocialsystemsintolanguage.In

thiswaythereis,supposedly,adangerofloosingorignoringtheimportanceofthematerial

4Anexampleofthiscouldbethediscourseontheyearmanystudentstaketotravel,work,etc.Byusingthewordsabbatical‐orgap‐yearameaningiscreatedaboutthetimeasbeingrelaxingandpartying,whereasformanypeopleitismoreofanexistentialandeducativeexperiencethatcanshapethepersonslife.

JesperSøeBergmann

26

conditionsofthesocietyonthecreationandchangeofsocialmeaning,i.e.howinstitutions

andnaturelimitourroomofmanoeuvrability,orintheoverlydramaticwordsofMarx:

“Menmaketheirownhistory,buttheydonotmakeitastheyplease;theydonotmakeitunderselfselectedcircumstances,butundercircumstancesexistingalready,givenandtransmittedfromthepast.Thetraditionofall

deadgenerationsweighslikeanightmareonthebrainsoftheliving”(Marx1852).

Furthermore,criticismfocusontheproblemortheinabilityofdiscoursetheoriststostate

absolutetruthsandvalid,objectivestatementsabouttheobjectofstudy,duetotheclaimed

conceptualandmoralrelativismwithindiscoursetheory.Atthesametime,positivistsstress

theimportanceofthesystematiccollectionofobjectivefactsandcriticisediscoursetheorists

forreplacingthisrecollectionwithasubjectivistandmethodologicalanarchisticviewofsocial

phenomena(Howarth2005:25).Asaresponsetothecriticism,Howarth(2005)statesthat

thecriticismisinvalidbecauseitworksontheonticlevel,i.e.abouthowtomeasureand

describebeing,ratherthanontheontologicallevel,i.e.thephilosophyofbeing.Inother

wordsthecritiqueisabouthowweperceivethesocialworld(being),whichinthiscontextis

irrelevant,sinceitisdependentonwhatyouperceiveasthesocialworld(being)(ibid.).It

shouldbementionedthatthevalidityofaconclusioncouldbecontestedonamethodological

level,i.e.iftheargumentdoesnotleadtotheconclusion.

Afterhavingexplaineddiscoursetheory’stermsandconcepts,viewofsociety,andsocial

change,Iwillnowmoveontoanexplanationofculture,multiculturalismand

interculturalism.AfterthisIwillfinishoffwithabriefintroductiontodevelopmentand

nationalandinternationalNGOs.

3.2CultureandIdentity–TheConstructionofDifferentRealitiesIwillinthischapterdiscusstheconceptofcultureandidentitywithinsocialconstructivism,

andhowinterculturalismis,andcanbe,usedwheninteractingwithotherculturesthrough

developmentprojects.AfterhavingdiscusseddifferentculturesandhowtheyinteractIwill

throughadebateofuniversalismandrelativismmoveontotheissueofwhattoacceptinthe

nameofculture.

Whenanalysingthediscoursesoninterculturalismanddevelopment,Iwilltreatcultureasa

complexdiscursivelyconstructedsystemofintangiblesymbolsandtraditions,including

knowledge,beliefs,values,moral,customs,language,art,myths,etc.i.e.atemporary

hegemonicconstructionamongagroupofpeopleinordertocreatemeaningofthereality.

Thisrefersnotonlytothesocialreality,butalsotothenatureandthenaturalworld.Cultures


27

arenotstaticandfixedstructuresofmeaning;instead,becauseculturesaredynamicand

evolveunderconstantimpressionfromthesurroundingsocietysinceself‐reflectingpeople

discursivelyconstructthem.

Withpost‐modernismtherecameanincreaseinthefocusontowhatextentthebehaviorof

individualsaffectstheconstructionandmaintenanceofculturesandhowpeopleinteract

betweenandwithindifferentcultures.Thiswasmostlikelyduetotheincreaseinmigration

facilitatedbyeasiermovementandtheeaseofwhichinternationaleconomyand

communicationsuddenlytookplace.Sincecultureasasocialconstructiongivespeoplea

senseofbelongingtoandidentificationwithalargergroupinsociety,itmayaddstability,

orderandstructureintheeverydaylife(Halloran,2007);anunderstandingthatissharedby

TedCantle,whoclaimsthat:“Toalargeextent,identitycannowberegardedaschosen,rather

thangiven”(Cantle).

Identityishereregardedasadiscursiveconstruction,inwhichidentityisarepresentationof

andidentificationwithatemporarydiscursiveclosure.Thesubjectisbasicallydividedand

triestocreateanidentitythroughsortingdifferentsignsanddiscoursesintowhatthesubject

isandwhatitisnot,i.e.inrelationtosomethingelse.Andsincediscoursescanbechanged,so

canidentities,andthepossibilityofhavingseveralidentitiesinonepersonalsoexists,butis

contingentonthesubjectitself(Jørgensen&Phillips1999:56).Thismeansthatasubjectcan

‘be’differentpersonalitieswithindifferentcollectives,butitalsomeansthatculturalconcepts

canbecontested,e.g.whatitmeanstobea‘man’,’woman’,’Danish’,etc.

BecauseofthisIwillnotlooksomuchattheidentityofthedifferentactorsinthisthesis,but

insteadfocusonhowandwhycultureandinterculturalisminfluencesIBIS’work.

3.2.1Multi‐andInterculturalismWeliveinaglobalisedworldwithmultiplecultures,whereweallhaveourownhistoricaland

culturalbackground.Thismeansthatweinevitablywillencounterandhavetointeractwith

manydifferentunderstandingsofrealityonaneverydaybasis.Foraninternational

developmentorganisationitisimportanttotrytounderstandthecultureandunderstanding

ofrealityofthepartnerorganisations,toavoidmisunderstandingsandconflicts.Thedifferent

culturesarenotnecessarilyequal,andsincesomeculturesaremoredominantorhegemonic

thanothers,intolerancetowardsotherworldviewsorrealitiescancreateconflictswhen

peopleevaluateothersbasedontheirownworldviews.Atthesametime,theriskofbeing

eitherethnocentricorfolkloriccanarisewhenweareinteractingwithothercultures,because

JesperSøeBergmann

28

“too”muchintoleranceortolerancecanlegitimisesomething,whichisnotacceptabletoother

people.Forthatreason,aneedforamodelthatcouldhandleinterculturalencountersaroseto

helpmediatebetweentheethnocentricandthefolkloricpositionwithintheframeworkof

interculturalunderstanding.Thisisrelatedtothediscussionofuniversalismagainst

particularism,whichIwillgetbacktoinchapter3.2.4.

ManyinternationalNGOshavebeenaccusedofforgettingthelocals’socialgroupsandasa

resultofthatnotbeingsufficientlydemocratic,asunderlinedbyShankar:“Itisnowwidely

acceptedthatoneofthereasonsfortherelativelyunsuccessfulresultsoffourdecadesof

developmenteffortisthatculturewasoverlookedindevelopmentthinking”(1998:1).

Shankarreferstothefailureofbilateralnationaltop‐downdevelopmentprojects,buthis

statementcanbeappliedtointernationalNGOdevelopmentprojectsonalocallevelaswell,

wherethelackofacontextualculturalunderstandinghasledtoproblemswithunsuccessful

developmentprojects.ThishascausedmanyinternationalNGOstoincludenational/localcivil

societyorganisationsincarryingoutprojectsonthelocallevel,becauseoftheirclosercontact

andunderstandingwiththepeopleswhomtheprojectsareaimedat,andhencetheculture

theyidentifywith.

Interculturalismandmulticulturalismacceptandrecognisethattheworldismulticultural

(Alsina2009).Inthiscontextitisimportanttonoticethatinterculturalismreferstothe

normativeideologyofpractisinginterculturality,whichistherelationbetweenpeopleof

differentcultures,andmulticulturalismistheideologyofpractisingmulticulturality(Olivé

2004).Both‘–isms’acceptandunderstandthe‘–ities’,whichisnotthecasetheotherway

around.DuringmyresearchforthisprojectInoticedthatinSpanishthe‘–ism’isveryrarely

used.Insteadthe‘‐ity’formoftheconceptsisused,whichmeansthatthereisadifferencein

discoursesandcontent,whichcouldposemisunderstandings.Ihave,however,chosento

conflatethetwoconceptsinthisproject,becauseIbelievethattheyinthiscontextare

metonyms.

AccordingtoTedCantle’sthereisaneedforinterculturalisminmulticulturalsocieties,

becauseinterculturalismbreaksdowntheseparatismthatcanarisewithintherelativistand

ethnocentricapproachtootherculturesofmulticulturalism(Cantle).Thisisnotafeatureof

multiculturalisminitself,butithasbeentheresultbecausemulticulturalism,hasastrong

inclinationtowardsaus‐themseparation,whereastheconceptofinterculturalismmeans,


29

accordingtoTedCantle,tovaluewhatwehaveincommoninsteadofflaggingthedifferences

betweenus.Inthatwaypeoples’identitybecomeslessimportanttoourco‐existenceand

cooperation.Weshouldnotconcealourindividualidentity,butpeopleshouldlearntorelate

tootherpeoplewhoaredifferent,andseethemasanopportunitytolearnandunderstand

somethingnew,andtoseethatcategorizingpeopleaccordingtostereotypesand

presuppositionsisrarelythesuccessfulwaytogettoknowpeople.Teachingpeoplethe

interculturalcompetenciesofinteractionandunderstandingcouldcreateconfidenceso

peoplearenotafraidoflosingtheiridentitytothe‘threatening’otherculture.

Regardingfaith,peopleshouldrespectthattosomepeoplefaithcanbeavaluable

contribution,“butiffaithisinthepublicspherefaithcommunitiesmustexpecttheirviewsto

becontestedtoo”(Cantle).SowhenIBISoperatesinmulti‐cultural,multi‐national,multi‐

ethnic,multi‐faith,etc.countriestheyaimtobeawareofandopentootherontological,

philosophicalandhermeneuticviewsoftherealitythantheirown.

Sometimespeoplefearthatmulticulturalism,interculturalismandglobalisationeraseor

assimilateallculturesintoonehomogeneousculture.Iamundertheimpressionthataslong

asculturesandsocialgroupingsareseenasdiscursivelyconstructedandnoculturalvalues

areseenasuniversal,peoplearefreetoapproachothercultureswithanopenmind,and

globalisationgivespeopletheopportunityto‘choose’betweenthevaluesthataremost

interestingandappealing,suchfearsareungrounded.

Withregardstointerculturalismanddevelopment,interculturalismisseenasapolitical

projectwithrelationsbetweendifferentcultures,inwhichthe‘common’isemphasised,as

wellastherespectforculturallydifferentindividualsandgroups(Alsina2009).Hence,the

interactiononalevelplayinggroundisimportantforaproperfunctioningofthecooperation

inIBIS’developmentprojects.Whenpracticinginterculturalcooperationitisalsoimportant

toovercomeourownculturalunderstandings,nottoignorethem,buttobeopentoother

waysofunderstandingtheworld.Thisdoesnotmeanthatweshouldleaveourown

understandingandputusselfinthe‘others’’place,sincethiswouldbeimpossible.Rather,we

shouldaimtotranscendandunderstandthecultureoftheother–butnotbecometheother.

3.2.2WhyDevelop–WhatisDevelopment?Etymologicallytheverb‘todevelop’hastracesmanycenturiesback,andhasbeenarticulated

invariouswaysdependingonthecontext.Thedirectsynonymoftheverb‘develop’is:to

JesperSøeBergmann

30

unroll,unfold(Etymologyonline),bringoutthecapabilitiesorpossibilities,elaborate,expand,

generate,evolve,bringtoamatureoradvancedstate(Dictionary.com),etc.Asearchon

Wikipediarevealsmorethan50differenttypesofdevelopment,soitcomesasnosurprise

thatweneedtobeclearaboutwhatwethinkdevelopmentis,beforedevelopingtheargument

further(punintended).Ineverydaymediaandpoliticalspeakdevelopmentusuallyrefersto

economicgrowthandpovertyrelief(normallymeasuredthroughGDP),anddiscussionsare

abouthowtoresolvethis.AccordingtotheUnitedNationsdevelopmentis:“Reducingpoverty,promotingprosperityandprotectingtheplanet.UnitedNationsdevelopmenteffortsprofoundlyaffectthelivesandwellbeingofmillionsofpeoplethroughouttheworld.Theyarebasedontheconvictionthatlastinginternationalpeaceandsecurityarepossibleonlyiftheeconomicprosperityandthewellbeingofpeopleeverywhereisassured”(UNA).Alargeproblemwithdefinitionslikethatisthattheyraisemorequestionsthantheyanswer,

since1)thedefinitionhasasenderwithapurpose,2)thediscourseisconstructedand

thereforeopentocontestation,3)Howthedefinitionisunderstooddependsonasocial

context.Whatisforinstanceeconomicprosperity,well‐being,knowledgeable,decent?

Anotherproblemishowtoachievethesegoals,whichofcourseisacompletelydifferentand

ideologicaldiscussion.

Thetraditionaldevelopmenttheories,i.e.modernisationtheory,centre‐peripherytheory,and

world‐systemstheorycanbeandhavebeencriticisedheavily,forbeingbiasedand

deterministic,forfavouringorfocusingtomuchoneconomicdevelopmentandforignoring

thedifferentunderstandingsandrealitiesinthesocialandnaturalsphere.Additionally,itis

importanttorememberthatalltheoriesariseasarticulationsofasocialconstructionandasa

productandproducerofasocialcontext.Thismeansthatthetheoriesarenotuniversally

applicable,sincepeoplearticulateandunderstandtheconceptsindifferentways.Forinstance

modernisationtheoryhasbeencriticisedforconstructingaworldwhere‘modernisation’=

‘better’,whichmightbetrueforsomepeople,whereasothersmightarticulate‘better’as

somethingdifferent.

Asaresponsetothis,andasaresultofpost‐modernapproachestodevelopment,theconcept

ofinterculturalismasadevelopmenttheoryandmethodarose.

3.2.2.1InterculturalismasaDevelopmentTheorySinceweconstantlyinteractwithpeoplewhohavedifferentbackgrounds,andbecausethe

waysweunderstandtheirculturedependonhowweviewtheworld,itisimportantto

understandindividualsassocialactors,insteadofisolatedbeings(nomanisanisland).With


31

thisunderstandinginminditbecomesapparentthatculturesasdynamicphenomenachange

overtimeduetointeractionbetweenpeople,andthereforealsonewarticulationsofthe

context,whichinturncreatenewmeaningsaboutthesocietyandreality.Theinevitable

contactbetweenpeoplescancause(andhavecaused)conflictsonvariouslevels,butmaybe

byunderstandingthatourdifferentbackgroundsshapeourdifferentworldviews,and

acknowledgingthisassomethingpositivesomeofthoseconflictscouldberesolved

peacefully.Thedilemmahere,whichbeexplainedlaterinthischapter,ishowtobalancethe

linebetweenethnocentrismandrelativism,i.e.howtodecidewhattoaccept,andwhatnot,in

thenameof‘culture’and‘diversity’.

Withinthedevelopmentorganisations,interculturalismwaswelcomedasasolutiontothe

earliererascopy‐pasteapproachestodevelopmentproject,whichwere,firstlyverystate‐

centricinmethodology,andsecondlyhadabiastowardscopyingthedevelopmentmodelthat

theso‐calleddevelopedcountrieshadfollowed.Traditionallytheseprojectswerenotequally

successfulforalltheinvolvedparts,whicharguablywereduetothelackingunderstandingof

theculturalframeworkinthespecificareas.Withinterculturalismasadevelopmentmodel,

thelevelofanalysisismuchmorespecific.Thefocusisonspecificgroupsandorganisationsin

society,anditisimportantthatthereisadegreeofautonomyintheindividualorganisations,

soastoavoidmakingthemistakesofearliertimes.IBIS,forinstance,onlyhastwoforeigners

inGuatemala,andtheremaining16areformdifferentareasofthecountry,whichmakesthe

cooperationwiththelocalcounterpartsmucheasier,becausethereseemstobeadeeper

understandingofhowthecountryworks,onalocallevel.Furthermore,manyofthe

employeesarefromtheindigenouscultures,whichtraditionallyhavebeendiscriminated

duringtheyearsofthedictatorshipandarmedconflict.

Butaspreviouslymentioneddoestheinteractionbetweenpeoplefromdifferentbackgrounds

andculturesbringupthedilemmaofvaluesandhowpeoplejudgeotherpeoplebasedon

theirownbackground.Thisbringsupthedebatebetweenuniversalismandparticularism,

whichIwilltreatinthenextsection.

3.2.3TheParticularUniversalismTheuniversalemergesoutoftheparticularnotassomeprincipleunderlyingandexplaining

theparticular,butasanincompletehorizonsuturingadislocatedparticularidentity(Laclau1996:28)

Intheoriesabouttheconceptofcultureadilemmahasarisen:doesabsolutecriteriaexiston

whichwecandecidewhatsystemsofnormsarepreferable(thecriteriathatare‘above’any

JesperSøeBergmann

32

culture),oraretherenoabsolutecriteriaandeverythingalwaysdependsonaspecific

culturalconcept?Proponentsoftheabsoluteperspectiveclaimsthatthereexistuniversal

principlesandvaluesthatweallshouldacceptnomattertheculturalcontext.Itpresupposes

anotionofcommonrationalityofallhumanbeingsindependentofcultureanditsupposes

beliefsthatareobjectivelytrue.Contrarytothistherelativistpositionsclaimsthatcustoms

shouldbeevaluatedwiththemeaningoftheactanditselementsfortheparticipatingagents

inmind.Inthisway,therelativistdeniesthatabsolutevaluesanduniversalnormsexist(orat

leastthattheyareconstructedbytheeveryone)andmaintainsthatculturalrelativismhelps

torecognizethelogicofthecultureandtheethnocentricbarriersthatareinevitableinany

culturalgrouping.

Obviouslythetwopositionshavebeencriticized.Theabsolutistpositionshasbeencriticized

forsustainingthatitispossibletosupposethatthecriteriaforthejustificationofan

aggressionisabsolute,inotherwordsindependentlyofanyculturalcontext.Furthermore,if

theabsolutistwereright,thepositionthatmaintainsthatindigenouspeoplesshouldabandon

theirsystemofmoralevaluationandtraditionaljusticeinfavourofamodernandliberal

systemwouldstillhold,butonlybecausetheyhaveyettofindtherightmoralprinciples.In

thiswaytheabsolutistholdsapositionthatisintoleranttodiversity.Therelativistposition,

thatmaintainsthatnoabsolutecriterianorprocedureexists,claimswhatturnsouttobe

difficulttosustain:ifanypracticeorbeliefcanbejustifiedfromtheadequatepointofview,

therecannotexistalegitimatepointofviewtoevaluateanyaction.Inthisway,therelativist

runstheriskofpermittingeverything.Additionally,thisrelativismdoesnotgiveusananswer

tohowweshouldact,butitdoeshelpusdiagnosethesituation.Finally,accordingtosome,we

havetodevelopapluralistpositionthatissupremetotheothersandthatpermitsustocreate

ahealthybaseforculturalrelations.

ErnestoLaclaudiscussedtheseinherentcontradictionsphilosophicallyinhis1996book

“Emancipations”byasking:“Aretherelationsbetweenuniversalismandparticularismsimple

relationsofmutualexclusion?”(Laclau1996:22).Heassertsthattheuniversal,iftruly

universal,shouldbereachablethroughreason,nomatterfromwhichcultural,historical,

social,etc.startingpoint(ibid.22),sincepreviousexperimentswithuniversalvaluesystems

haveonlyhadfunctionedinspecificcultures.Anexampleofthisisreligion,whichthe

rationalityoftheEnlightenmentmadeanefforttoterminate,onlytoreplacethedivinewith

theEurocentriccultureofman‐over‐nature(ibid.24).Basicallythismeansthatatanypointin


33

timeandspacewhereaparticularideologyhastriedtobecomedominantanduniversal,ithas

eventuallyfailedtherebyprovingthattheuniversalcannotexistexclusively.Inasocial

context,ithasbeenprovedthroughouthistorythatreferringtouniversalvaluescreatesmore

conflictsthanisbeingsolved.

Contrarytothis,Iamundertheimpressionthattheexistenceoftheparticularasanidealin

societywillnotsolveanyoftheproblemsIBISarefacingintheirdevelopmentprojects,since,

theoretically,byacceptingtheparticularIBISwillhavetoacceptallkindsofatrocitiesas

beingculturallydependent.ThismeansthateventhoughIBISfromanintercultural

perspectiveshouldrespectandacceptparticularbehaviour,theymusttrytoestablishsome

kindoflevelplayinggroundappealingtosomesortofuniversalprinciples;“thereisno

particularismwhichdoesnotmakeappealtosuchprinciplesintheconstructionofitsown

identity(ibid.26)”.Additionally,apureparticularismwouldcauseacompletemeltdownofthe

socialinsociety,sinceallgroupsinsocietyareconstitutedthroughdifference,andeveryone

wouldbedifferentfromtheother.Mostlikely,thiswouldcreateconflictasgroupsand

individualstendtoidentifythemselvesdiscursivelythroughdifferences,antagonisms,

exclusionandpowerrelations(ibid.27).

Sotheinherentdilemmaindevelopmentiswhattoacceptinthenameofdifferencesinsocial

context.Iwilltouchuponthisduringtheanalysis,buttoconcludethissectionIwill

emphasizethedifficultyIBISisfacing,becausetherighttobedifferent(particular)shouldbe

respectedfromanintercultural(‘universal’)perspectiveofcoexistence,butatthesametime

IBISworksto“develop”theparticularculturesbasedonuniversalvalues.

3.2.4TheRoleoftheNGOinSocietyAlthoughthereisnolegaldefinition

ofwhatconstitutesaNon‐

GovernmentalOrganisation(NGO)it

isnormallyunderstood,asthename

suggests,thatNGOsoperate

autonomouslyfromthegovernment

andstateadministration,butin

realitythisisrarelythecase.

Additionally,accordingtongo.org,

anNGOisa“non‐profit,voluntary

JesperSøeBergmann

34

citizens'groupwhichisorganizedonalocal,nationalorinternationallevel”(NGO.org).It

couldbedebated,however,thatwithregardstofinance,notallNGOsarenecessarilynon‐

profit,butthevastmajoritydonothaveprofitasagoalinitself,butinsteadtheytryto

reinvesttheeventualprofitintonewprojects.IBISasaDanish‐basedinternational

developmentNGOreceivedin2012around53%oftheincomefromtheDanishstate,andthe

restfrominstitutionalandprivatedonors(IBISC2012:6&10).

Inthesimplemodelofsociety(above),theNGOisplacedincivilsociety,fromwhereitcan

seekinfluencein,andisinfluencedbythemarketandthestate,bothonanationaland

international.

Buttherealworldiscomplex

(evenmorethanthisfigure)and

everythingisconnectedand

influencedbyotheractorsand

institutions.Tomakecomplicate

thingsevenfurther,each

organisationconsistsofpeople

whohavetheirownworldview

andinterpretsandunderstands

realityintheirownways.

AdditionallythereisadifferencebetweennationalandinternationalNGOs.Aninternational

NGOhastobeabletomanoeuvrebetweendifferentsocialcontextsandwillalwaysrelyonthe

permissionfromthestatetooperateinthecountry.Furthermore,boththenationalandthe

internationalNGOrepresentagroupofpeoplewithanobjectiveofchangingormaintaining

somethinginsociety.

3.2.4.1NGOsasagentsofsocialprocessesTheNGOconsistsofpeoplewithacommoninterestwhoworkonspecifictaskstoperform

importantfunctionsincivilsocietythattheyfeelarenottakencareofbythestatesand

existinginstitutions.Thiscanbehumanitarian,environmentalordevelopment(IBIS)causes

andissues,socialproblems,forwardingpeoplesconcernstogovernments,supervisionand

monitoringofprojects,promotionofpoliticalparticipation,etc.Inperformingthesefunctions

theworkasinterestgroupsinsocietybyconductingexpertanalysesoftopicswhichareused

togaininfluenceandaffectpublicorgovernmentopiniononalocal,nationaland/or


35

internationallevelthroughmeansoflobbyismandpublicrelations.DifferenttypesofNGOs

includeprivateindependentorganisationsandassociationsprovidingorimplementing

developmentprojectsor“public”goods(e.g.education);internationalcharities,research

institutes,lobby‐groups,churches,etc.Onabroaderlevelonecanfindseveralforumswhere

independentNGOsmeettodiscusscooperation,shareknowledge,andworktowardsthe

samegoals.InaDanishcontextNGO‐Forumcomestomind,andonagloballevelWorldSocial

Forumandthe“CumbreContinentaldelosPueblosIndígenas”.

NGOsareofficiallyseparatedfromstateinterestandcontrol,andareintheoryfreetocriticise

andopposewhatevertheyfeelfor.Thecatch,however,isthatmanyNGOsreceivetheir

fundingpartlyfromthestate,andtheirfinanceisthereforedependentonworkingtowards

thesamegoalsasthegovernmentfindworthwhile.Ontheotherhand,thegovernmentuses

theinformationprovidedbytheNGOsandinterestgroupstoformulatethepolicies,andit

becomesa,sortof,circularinterdependenceofNGOandstatecooperation.Inthisway,the

NGOfulfilsanimportantroleinsocietybridgingthegapbetweenthestateapparatusandthe

people,whomightfeeldistancedfromthedemocracy.Thisis,obviously,basedonthe

premiseofafunctioningdemocracyinwhichpeoplecansaywhattheyfeel.Itisawhole

differentcasewhenappliedtoacountryinwhichgroupingsareoppressedanddiscriminated

byothers,bethatstate,business,racial,economic,educational,etc.Inthiscase,theNGOcan,

fromtheperspectiveofthestate,beseenasinterferinginnationalpoliticsandasathreatto

nationalsovereignty.ExamplesofthiscouldbethecaseofIBISbeingexpelledfromBoliviain

December2013(IBISD)accusedofturningtheindigenouspeoplesagainstthegovernment.

Anotherexample,albeitnotyetenforced,ishowthegovernmentinGuatemalathreatensto

expelallforeignersinterferinginnationalmatters(SinEmbargo2013)afteralleged

observationsofforeignersontouristvisabeingpresentatdemonstrations,orGreenpeace

membersbeingaccusedofterrorismafteraprotest.Incaseslikethesethestatewillnormally

betheauthoritymakingthedecisions,nomatterhowunfairtheymightbe,whichagainshows

thatacasecanhavedifferentmeaningsdependingontheeyesandinterestsbehind.

InthecaseofIBISwhooperatesinternationallywithpartnersinmanycountries,thequestion

ariseswhethertheyshouldcooperatewiththeindigenouspopulationwithintheframework

oftheexisting‘democracy’,oriftheyshouldsupportthecompletechangeofsociety–and

howwilltheydoit.

JesperSøeBergmann

36

3.2.4.2HowcantheNGOaffectdiscoursesIdeallytheNGOcanplay,andhaveplayed,alargeroleinsocietyinshapinglegalprocesses

andreformsonalllevelsofsociety,duetotheirratherspecialisedknowledgeoncertain

topicsandissues(UNB).Onecan,ofcourse,discusswherethereisaneedforNGOsand

interestgroupsinsociety,andifitreallyisdemocraticifsomeorganisationhavebetteraccess

tothedecision‐makingprocessesthanothers.Fromthisperspective,anNGOiscomparableto

thelobbyistsofaweapons‐ortobacco‐producerbyrepresentingagroupofpeoplewitha

commoninterest,albeitwithamorehumanepurpose,anditisoftenseenthatNGOsareused

asgovernmentconsultantsorsupervisorswhenpoliticsareshaped,i.e.Greenpeaceon

environment,IBISondevelopment,etc.InDenmark,DANIDA(TheofficialDanish

DevelopmentAgency)used,amongothers,IBISpolicyadvisorstoformulatetheofficial

developmentpolicies.Atthemoment(March2014)thereisanongoingroundofgovernment

hearingsinwhichthenewpoliticsofthecivilsocietyindevelopingcountrieswhereIBISplays

animportantroleamongotherNGOs(U‐landsnyt2014).However,thismightchangeifthe

governmentchangestoanotherpoliticalinclinationputtingemphasisonothervaluesthan

IBIS.

TheamountofNGOsgloballyisendless,whichcouldbeseenasbothapositiveandanegative

feature.Positive,becausethereisanactivecivilsociety,whichisconcernedwithothers

problems;andnegativebecausetheneedforNGOsshowsthatthedemocraticsystemmight

notworkperfectly,unless,ofcourse,youconsiderNGOsasanintegralpartofademocratic

system.Furthermore,itraisesthequestionofallpartsreallyarerepresentedinsociety,andif

anNGOfromonesocialcontextreallycanrepresentpeopleinothersocialcontexts,i.e.arethe

peoplefromtheNGOabletounderstandthepeopletheycooperatewith.

Thischapterstartedoutwithanexplanationanddiscussionoftheaspectsofdiscoursetheory

thatwillbeutilisedintheanalysed,afterthatitwentintoadiscussionofculture,identityand

interculturalism,beforemovingintoabriefexplanationandproblematisationofdevelopment

theories.Thisledtoadiscussionofthedilemmabetweenuniversalismandparticularism,and

finallybriefdebateaboutNGOsandtheirroleasanactorinsociety.Thisprojectwillanalyse

differentarticulationsofinterculturalism,andwhyitisimportantforIBIStoapplyittotheir

developmentworkinGuatemala.Furthermore,IwilldiscusshowitispossibleforIBISto

workinterculturallyandatthesametimepromoteuniversalvalues.


37

4InterculturalismandtheThreeArticulationsAswehaveseeninthetheoreticalpartofthethesisitisimportanttounderstandhow

differentdiscoursesconstitutesocialrealities,andhowitisimportanttotrytounderstand

theserealities.Sinceeacharticulationofinterculturalisminitselfisaproductofasocial

contextanddiscourse,itisinterestingtoseehowthedifferentactorsinthecontextofIBIS’

developmentworkstrikeabalancebetweentheirownandtheothers’understandingof

interculturalism.Inotherwords,caninterculturalismbeunderstoodasauniversalvaluethat

shouldbepracticedeverywhereifthedifferentarticulationsofinterculturalismare

antagonistic?Aswewillseeinthefollowingpart,thereisaninherentchallengeinsome

articulationsofinterculturalismwhenitcomestounderstandingothersocialgroupsand

contexts,sinceinterculturalismcanrepresentarelativistapproachtowardunderstanding

othercultures.Thereforeitisimportanttolookat,understand,andanalysethedifferent

articulationsofinterculturalismwithregardstohowtheytreatthedilemmabetween

universalismandrelativism.

4.1TheApplicationofInterculturalism:IBISinGuatemalaAccordingtoIBIS’countrystrategyforGuatemala(IBISE2011),thereisaneedforafocuson

theintercultural(whichIwillgetbackto).Buthowis‘intercultural’understoodandwhydo

IBISarticulateitinadevelopmentdiscourse?

ItisinterestingtoseethatnowhereinIBIS’visionandmission(IBISF2011)is

interculturalismmentioned–norcantheirvisionandmissionbeseenasintercultural.Onthe

contrary,theypositionthemselvesasworkingfor“democraticdevelopment”,“collective

Vision

IBISisworkingforajustworldinwhichallpeoplehaveequalaccesstoeducation,influenceandresources.Togetherwithourpartners,IBIScombatsglobalinequalityandpoverty.

Mission

Locally:Westrengthenindividualrightsandopportunitiestotakepartinsocietybyensuringaccesstoknowledgeandgoodeducation.

Nationally:Wesupportdemocraticdevelopmentthatpromotescollectiverightsandpopularparticipationinpolicydecisionstobenefitthepoorandoppressedgroups.

Globally:Wedefendpoorpeople’sinterestsandwefindintelligentsolutionstostructuralproblemscausingglobaleconomicinequalityandpoverty

JesperSøeBergmann

38

rights”byfinding“intelligentsolutions”toprotectthe“poorandoppressedgroups”,i.e.asort

ofone‐waydevelopment.Thediscourseofpromotingsupposedlyuniversalvaluesto“defend

poorpeople”maintainsthetraditionalsuperior‐inferiordiscoursetowardsdevelopingthe

peoplesofotherculturesandsocialcontextsthatarenotasdevelopedasIBISis(the

discussionondevelopmentwillbecontinuedinchapter6).

Theproblemisthatdifferentsocialcontextshavedifferentvalues,andnoteveryonehasthe

sameworldviewasIBIS.Togetawayfromadiscourseofus‐themmanyorganisations

(includingIBIS)introducedinterculturalisminthecontextofdevelopment.

InIBIS’countrystrategyforGuatemalainterculturalismisdefinedas:“theconceptofinterculturalismisunderstoodasapoliticalprocessthatseekstobuildasocietyandastaterespectfulofdiversityandtherightsofdifferentcultures,sothatthegroups,whichhavebeenhistoricallyexcluded,cancontributemosteffectivelyinbuildingatrulydemocraticcountry.apictureofIBIS’definitionofinterculturalismemergesassomethinghighlyimportant”

(IBISE2011:7)

Thewordinterculturalismismentioned52timesonthe38pages,andthecountrystrategy

carriesthename“Movingtowardsinclusionandinterculturalism”.IBISdemandsthatthe

governmentandtheindigenouspeoplesworktowardsequalityandrespectfordiversity,

humanrights,etc.becausethecurrentsituationinGuatemalaproves(fromIBIS’pointof

view)thatthestatedoesnotliveuptoitsobligationsasastate.Insimpleeconomicterms,

accordingtoIBIS’owndocuments,Guatemalaisoneofthemostunequalcountrieswiththe

“richest10%ofthepopulationaccountsfor42%ofincome,whilethepoorest10%accounts

for1.3%ofthenationalincome”(IBISE2011:4).Althougheconomyhasplayedandisplaying

acentralpartinthehegemonicdevelopmentdiscourse,IBISalsolooksatvarioussocial

indicators.IBIShighlightsfourtrendsthathave“resultedinalossofgovernanceandan

increasedvulnerabilityofthemostexcludedpopulation[…]:1)violence,criminalityand

impunity,2)socialandeconomicinsecurityexacerbatedbytheeffectsofclimatechange,3)

politicalconfrontationand4)socialconflict”(ibid.).

AskeddirectlyonwhatmakesIBIS’workintercultural,MortenBisgaardfromIBISin

Denmarkrepliedthat:

“[…]deeprespectforotherpeoples’culturesandwayofseeingtheworld,andrespectingthatthe

pointofdepartureiswiththem,andthatwedonotcomewiththe‘truth’,wedonotcomewitha

recipeofhowtodothiswork.Wecomewithsomevaluesandstrategiesinrelationtohowwe


39

wouldliketocooperate,andwehavesomeambitions,buthowpreciselyitwillbecarriedoutis

verymuchuptotheculturesweworkwith,andtheyareverydifferentfromAfricatoLatin

America,andevenwithinLatinAmerica.Sotherespectforthe‘other’basedonsomecommon

globalprinciplesthatarefoundedinthesignedconventionsandhumanrights,that’swhereyou

canfindsomethingyoucouldcallinterculturalism,maybe”(Morten2013:31.50,own

translation,invertedcommasindicatedbyMorten).

Mortenhighlightstheimportanceofrespectandunderstandingofthe‘other’cultures,and

arrivingwithanopenmindsettowardstheimplementationofvalues.Thisinitselffullylives

uptobothIBIS’andthetheoreticaldefinitionsofwhatconstitutesinterculturalisminthat

thereisrespectfordiversity,andthereisinteraction.But“deeprespect”isaonlyapassive

understandingofothercultures,andthisdoesnotnecessarilyequalunderstanding,andwhen

heinthesamecontexttalksabout“respectforthe‘other’basedoncommonglobalprinciples”

heisarticulatingademandwhichgoesaheadofdialogue.Thisdoesnotinvitetoopenand

respectfulinteractionsincetherelationshipisfromtheoutsetoutofbalance.Inthestatement

thedifficultyinexplainingwhyinterculturalismisimportantinIBIS’developmentworkcan

beseen.ThisissomethingthatIBIShasreceivedcriticismforbecauseitisaconceptthatis

verydifficulttocommunicateandexplain.Forinstance,ifanindigenousspokespersonis

askedduringaninterviewtoexplainbrieflywhataninterculturalsocietyisorbuenviviris,

andhe/sheisnotabletodoit(ibid.:50.54)theelementsimplycontinuesasafloatingsignifier

withoutbeingabletoformanodalpointinanarticulateddiscourse.Furthermore,thisopens

upthediscoursetocontestationfromcounter‐hegemonicarticulations,aswewillseelater.

IBIShasahumanrightsbasedapproachtodevelopmentoftheGuatemalansociety.Thefocus

is,besidestheinterculturalperspective,ontheuniversalhumanrightstakingitspointof

departureintheUnitedNationsdeclarationofuniversalhumanrights,whichissignedby

almostallnationsandterritoriesintheworld,includingGuatemala.ButwhereasbothIBIS

andtheGuatemalanstatecanagreeontheimportanceofthecontentofthehumanrights,

thereiswidespreaddisagreementonhowmucheffortshouldbeputintosecuringthe

peoples’fulfilmentofthebasichumanrights.Furthermore,tosecureequalopportunitiesfor

thewholepopulationitissometimesnecessarytotreatpeopledifferently,e.g.focusingmore

onthepartofthepopulationthatsuffersfromtheunequalsociety.

JesperSøeBergmann

40

Fromtheperspectiveoftheinterculturalencounter,thediscourseonhumanrightscanbe

problematic,becauseitcomesoutofaspecificsocialcontextanddiscourse,whichnot

traditionallyhasfavouredtheindigenouspeoplesaroundtheworld.Itisalsoimportantthat

thediscourseonhumanrightsarticulatesawidevarietyoffloatingsignifiers,andittherefore

endsupbeingameaninglessdiscussion,sincethearticulationofthedifferentelementsis

contested.Furthermore,thereisariskthat,asinthiscasewithIBIS,universalhumanrights

becomeapre‐demandforinteractionbetweendifferentculturesandcontexts.

IBIStriestoarticulateatemporaryclosureofadiscourseoninterculturalismcombinedwith

thediscourseonuniversalhumanrights,becausetheycomplementeachotherinthe

discourseoninterculturaldevelopment.Inthisarticulationthe(universal)democraticsociety

isbuildaroundrespect,understandingofandinteractionbetweenthedifferentculturesinthe

society,insteadofonegroupofpeopledictatinghowthesocietyshouldbe(relativist).But

thatarticulationdoesstillnotresolvetheproblemofwhattorespectandunderstandinother

cultures.

Ascanbeseeninthefigurebelow,IBISarticulatesmanysignifierswhenreferringto

interculturalismasapoliticalprocesstowardsanequalanddemocraticsociety.Furthermore,

thearticulationofinterculturalismisorderedaroundthenodalpointof‘respectand

acceptance’,withthefloatingsignifiersof‘equality’,‘democracy’,‘rights’,andachainof

equivalencecomposedbytherest.TheproblemsisthatIBISarticulatesafloatingsignifier

withotherfloatingsignifiers,whichmeansthattheirarticulationisopentointerpretationand

contestation,sinceotherallthefloatingsignifierscanbearticulateddifferentlyineachsocial

context.ButwhyisitnecessaryforIBIStoarticulatewhatinterculturalismandintercultural

governanceis?AndcanIBIS’articulationofinterculturalismbecontestedfromanotherpoint

ofview?


41

InIBIS’articulationofinterculturalismtheemphasisisonequalopportunities,respectand

acceptanceofthediversitythereisintheGuatemalansociety(floatingsignifiersofuniversal

valueswithrelativistimplications).Thesevaluesarenotnecessarilyinthemselvesexclusively

interculturalvalues,sincetheyareIBIS’articulationsofvaluesthatshouldbepresentinany

(multi‐andintercultural)democraticsocietywithuniversalrights.SoareasonforIBISto

emphasiseandarticulateitspecificallylikethismighthavesomethingtodowithhowthe

GuatemalansocietyisconstructedtodayandhowtheGuatemalanstatearticulates

interculturalism.ForthatreasonIwillbringforwardtheongoingdiscursivestrugglebetween

theantagonisticarticulationsofIBISandtheGuatemalanstateindefiningandarticulating

signifiersintonodalpointstoconstructahegemonicdiscourseoninterculturalismand

interculturaldevelopment.Furthermore,Iwilldiscussifbothactorscouldarguethatthey

followthe‘universal’principles.

JesperSøeBergmann

42

4.2IBISvs.theState;AntagonisticArticulationsofInterculturalismInnoneoftheGuatemalangovernment’sofficialpapershaveIbeenabletofindaclear

articulationofhowinterculturalismisunderstoodbutreadingthroughtheofficialwebsitesI

havefoundvariousreferencesandmentioningoftheword.Often,however,itisinthecontext

ofbilingualeducation(GovernmentA)orthecreationofanationaldayofmulticulturalityand

interculturality(GovernmentB).Indirectreferencetodevelopment,interculturalitywas

mentionedinaspeechbyPresidentMolinawhenreferringtothenewlong‐termdevelopment

plan“K’atun:ourGuatemala2032”5,inwhichhestatesthattheplanisbasedon“including

andinterculturalplanning,respectfulandinharmonywiththenature,thatwillgenerate

opportunitiesforsustainabledevelopmentforall”(GovernmentC,owntranslation)6.

Fromthisreadingadiagramofthearticulationsofthe

floatingsignifier‘interculturalidad’intheGuatemalan

States’discourse.Onseveraloccasionsitismentionedin

speechestogetherwithsignifierslike:energy,mining,

security,integralruraldevelopment,climatechange,etc.

Throughthisanalysisitbecomesevidentthat

interculturalismandinterculturalityistwocompletely

differentthingsforIBISandfortheGuatemalanState,andthatthetwoarticulationsare

strugglingtohegemonicallydefinethefloatingsignifier.

ThewaysthatIBISandtheStatearticulateinterculturalismmirrordifferentpoliticalconcepts

andcontexts.IBIShastiedmanydifferentconnotationstogethertocreateanodalpointwitha

complexsetofsupposedlyuniversalvalues.Inthisway,IBIScanarticulateinterculturalismas

anecessarymethodofreachingtheirgoalofsocialchange.Onthecontrary,theStateof

Guatemalahasnotexplicitlygiventhoughttohowinterculturalityisunderstoodandshould

bearticulated.Itbecomesevidentthatinterculturalityisusedbecauseitisa‘popular’and

contestableconceptthatthestateitselfcanarticulate,andbecausemanyofthecountriesin

LatinAmericawithmultipleindigenouspopulations,aswellastheUnitedNationsandmany

otherorganisationsusethesignifier.Thisalsoshowsthatthestateadoptsthediscourseof

someoftheinternationalsocietyandthentriestoshapeitaccordingtoitsownsocialcontext.

5TheK’atunisaMayanunitoftimecorrespondingtoalittlelessthan20years6“planificaciónincluyenteeintercultural,respetuosayenarmoníaconlanaturaleza,quegeneraráoportunidadesdedesarrollososteniblepatatodos”


43

Inthiswaythegovernmentcanclaimtowardscritiquesanddissidentsthattheydoindeed

worktowardsaninterculturalsocietyalignedwiththegoalsoftheinternationalsociety,but

ineverydaypracticeverylittleisdonetochangethegovernment’sconservativerule,andthis

isexactlyboththeproblemandthefeatureofafloatingsignifier.

Thisisnottoclaimthatbilingualeducationisnotintercultural.Thepointhereisthat,unless

youactuallymakeaneffortinreflectingonanddefiningthesignifiersthatarebeing

articulatedinpublicdiscourses,itcouldbeconcludedthatthesignifierhasverylittlecontent,

whencomparedtoIBIS’definitionofinterculturalism.Butitmightalsobeastrategyfromthe

government’sside,sincetheinternationalsocietyprescribesasetof‘universal’valuesand

norms(floatingsignifiers)thatshouldexistinallsocieties,whichareupforcontestation

throughcounter‐hegemonicdiscourses.Furthermore,thesocialcontextsandaudiencesare

notalwaysthesame,andalthoughthegovernmentisaddressingthewholepopulation,much

oftheGuatemalanstate’srhetoricisdirectedtowardsuncriticalmediaandafewpolitical

analysts.Additionally,itgivesthestatethepossibilitytodisarmcriticalorganisationsboth

fromthecivilsociety,butalsofromotherstates,etc.

IBIS,ontheotherhand,isbasedinacompletelydifferentculturalsetting,wherethediscourse

isverydifferentandtheaudienceisthemembersoftheNGO,butalsotheMinistryofForeign

AffairsinDenmark,whichprovidesIBISwitharound50%oftheirfunding.SoIBIShastolive

uptothedemandsoftheDanishDevelopmentorganisation,DANIDA,inorderforIBIStobe

abletocarryouttheprojectstheyfindnecessarybasedontheirownarticulationof

interculturaldevelopment.Ascomplexasthenetworksarewithinthedevelopment

organisations,thelanguageisremarkablysimilarnomatterifyoureaddocumentsfrom

UNESCO,DANIDA,IBIS,etc.Thishighlightsthatdiscourse,cultureandsocialcontextareparts

ofthesametightlywovenfabric,andthatitcomesasacompletepackage,whichiswhyitis

importanttohaveaninterculturalunderstanding,whencooperatingwithpeoplefromother

socialcontexts.Moreover,thefloatingsignifierinterculturalismaroseoutoftheinternational

society,anditshouldthereforebesuspectedthatitispartofamoreelaborateclosureof

momentsorderedinchainsofequivalence.

Bybringinginathirdactor,theindigenouspeoplesofGuatemala,Iwillinthefollowing

investigatetheirdiscourseoninterculturalism/interculturality,soseehowtheirarticulation

ispositionedincomparisonwithIBIS’andtheGuatemalanstate,andhowtheyrelatetothe

JesperSøeBergmann

44

possibilitiesofsocialchangewithinthediscoursesoninterculturalism.Finally,Iwilldiscuss

theindigenouspeoples’understandingof‘interculturalismbasedonuniversalprinciples’in

relationtothedebateonrespectforculturaldifferencesanduniversalvalues.Thiswillhelp

meintheunderstandingofwhyIBISfindsinterculturalismimportantinpromoting‘universal

principles’,howthedifferentgroupsinteracttocreatesocialchange,andhowtheyeach

constructmeaninginrelationtoeachother.

4.3TheMulticulturalGuatemalaandInterculturalismThroughinterviewsperformedatthestudycentreCEDFOGinHuehuetenango,Iaskeda

numberofintervieweeshowtheywouldarticulateinterculturalism,andhowtheysawit

workinginsociety.Thisgavemeaninterestinginsightofhowthereisadiscrepancybetween

whatthestatepreachesandwhatitpractices–atleastfromtheperspectiveofthepeopleI

interviewed.

DuringtheinterviewwithAntoniofromOxlajujAjpop,anorganisationthatworkstorecover,

systematiseandpromotetheMayanspiritualvaluesandservices(Oxlajuj2013),hewasvery

clearonthatinhisunderstandinginterculturalismis“politicalproposalsofhowtoovercome

conflicts,acquireharmoniousspacesandrelationsbetweenpeoples(Antonio2013:40.10,

owntranslation).”Andtoemphasise,hesaidthatthisdefinitionisnotonlywhathe“thinks”it

is–“itislikethat”(ibid.).Continuinghestatedthatwhatinterestshimthemostisthe

relationshipbetweentheculturesandtohiminterculturalismisexactlythat“aquínadiees

masgrandequeotro[hereno‐oneislargerthantheother]”(ibid.).So,Antonio,asa

representativeofanindigenousorganisation,shareshisdefinitionofwhatconstitutes

interculturalismverymuchwiththatofIBISandotherinternationalorganisations,which

pointstowardsanantagonisticrelationshipbetweenOxlajujAjpop,IBISandtheGuatemalan

State.

IBIS’andAntonio’sarticulationsdo,however,divergeabit,sinceMortenstressedthe

interculturalencountershouldbebasedonuniversalprinciples,whichcanbeinterpretedas

conditionfordialogue,whereasAntonio’sarticulationofinterculturalismcomesasanopen

invitation.Thisopensthedebateofwhattoacceptandrespectinthenameofculture.

Furthermore,“nadieesmasgrandequeotro”canbeinterpretedasafloatingsignifier,since,if

wetranslateitintoequality,therearevaryingdegreesandarticulationsofequality.With

regardstosocialchange,Antonio’sarticulationisclearlyshapedbyhisexperiencedrealityof

conflict.


45

ThisisbackedupbyRubénHerrerawhoisthecoordinatoroftheassemblyofpeoplesin

Huehuetenango.Whendefiningwhatheseesasinterculturalismhebringsforwardthe

importanceofcoexistence(convivencia)betweenpeoples;howpeopleinterrelate;andhow

peopleviewtheuniverse.ToRubén,interculturalismistoseeeachotherasequalandtofocus

onwhatunitespeople,i.e.thecommon.Heacknowledgesthatpeoplearenotsimilar,but

believesthatthroughan“integrated”understandingofone’sowncultureandothers’it

becomeseasiertocoexistwithotherpeoples(Rubén2013:22.59).TheGuatemalan

governmenthighlightsnoneofthesevalueswhenreferringtointerculturalism,andinthat

wayitsuddenlyappearsliketheStateisnotinterestedinactuallyarticulatingtheconcept,

becauseinthatwaythestatecanusetheconceptaspleased.Anotherinterestingpointisthat

Rubén’sunderstandingdivergesfromIBIS’inthatRubénfocusesalotmoreonequalityand

the“common”.AswithAntonio,theimpactofthesocialrealityandcontextisclearinthe

articulationofinterculturalism,whichinthisarticulationbecomesanarticulationofhisown

socialreality.

InthefollowingfigureIhaveoutlinedtheelementsandsignifiersthatwasmentionedduring

theinterviewsinthecontextofinterculturalism.Therewasalargedegreeofagreementon

thearticulationofinterculturalism,butwhenaskedaboutthepracticalimplicationsofthis,

thevastmajorityrepliedwithdiscontentwithregardstotheimplementationof

interculturalismatthelevelofthestate.Whentheintervieweesarticulatedtheir

understandingofinterculturalismitwasoftenexplainedasbeingincontrastwith

governmentpraxis,whichisnormalwhendifferentsocialactorswantstriestocreatesocial

changethroughadiscursivestruggle.Inthiscasethenegativerelationshipbetweenthestate

andtheindigenouscommunitiesmirrorstheirantagonisticdiscursiverelationship.To

exemplifythis,thesearesomeofthepointsthatwasbroughtforwardbyAntonio:thesociety

isdesignedforandbymoney,controlandregisters(Antonio2013:45.02,owntranslation);

thestatetalksaboutinterculturaleducation,butthesocietyisneoliberal(Antonio2013:

18.03,owntranslation);thestatetalksaboutequalandinterculturalaccess,butthrough

corruptionthepowerisheldwithinthesamecircles(Antonio2013:49.10,owntranslation);

theindigenouspeoplesdonotfeelthatthestateunderstandsthevaluesoftheCosmovision

(ibid.).

JesperSøeBergmann

46

Withregardstothislastpoint,onecouldofcoursearguethattheindigenousgroupsdonot

understandandrespectthe‘neoliberal’world‐vieweither.Thisisprobablytruetoacertain

extent,buttotakethestandpointoftheindigenouspeoples,theneoliberalvaluesdoactually

oppresstheoriginalculturesoftheGuatemalansocietytothebenefitofarelativesmallgroup

ofpeople.Sojudgingfromthestatementsoftheindigenousorganisationsitcanhardlybe

claimedthattheStateactsaccordingtothebroad(inthiscase)articulationof

interculturalism,butinsteadactswithinitsownarticulationofinterculturalism.

4.4DiscussingInterculturalismAfterhavinggonethroughthethreeactorsarticulationofinterculturalismIhaveseenthat

IBISandtheindigenouspeoples’articulationoftheconceptstandsincontrasttotheState’s

articulation,butalsothatIBIS’andtheindigenouspeoples’havedifferentarticulationsofthe

concept.FromthisunderstandingitcanbeclaimedthattheState(whichsupposedlyis

representativeofthepopulation)constitutesanantagonisticsphereagainstthehegemonic

articulationofinterculturalismasarticulatedbyIBISandtheindigenousorganisations.There

ishoweverdifferencesbetweenthechainsofequivalencethatarearticulated.

IBIS’articulationofinterculturalismisconditionedon“universalprinciples”andwiththisin

minditcouldbeinterpretedasifIBISappliesinterculturalismtotheirdevelopmentstrategy


47

toavoidconflictsinsteadofovercomingthem.Thismeans,thatIBISpromotesrespect,

understandingandinteractionwithotherculturesthroughinterculturalismaslongasthey

liveuptoandsupporttheuniversalprinciples.Inthiswaythedifferencesandantagonisms

betweenIBISandtheIndigenouspeoplesaretoneddown,tostandstrongertogetheragainst

thestate.Furthermore,fromadiscoursetheoreticalperspectiveinterculturalismis

articulatedbyIBISasanapoliticalapproachtodevelopment,whererelativistvaluesof

respectandunderstanding‘soften’theimplementationof‘universal’valuesofdemocracyand

inclusion.TobefairtoIBIS,theydocooperatewiththeindigenouspeoplesofGuatemalaeven

thoughtherearedifferencesinarticulationofinterculturalism,andaccordingtoMortenIBIS

alwayslistensandtriestounderstandthesocialrealitiesofthepartners.

Itisverylikelythattheindigenouspeopleshaveadoptedthearticulationofinterculturalism

fromIBISandotherinternationalorganisations,andifthisisindeedthecaseitcanbe

concludedthattheEurocentricdiscourseoninterculturaldevelopmenthavehegemonisedthe

indigenouspeoples.UnderliningthispointtheStatehasadoptedinterculturalismasawordto

showthatitisincludingandrespectfuloftheculturallydiversesociety.Unfortunately,the

politiciansabandonthehegemonicmeaningofinterculturalismandactsaccordingtotheir

ownneoliberalideology.Thishastwoimplications:1)thatthestateenterintoacounter‐

hegemonicstruggleforthearticulationofinterculturalisminwhichittriestochangethe

meaningoftheword;or2)thatthestateusesinterculturalismasapoliticalmarketing

strategybecauseitmostlyhavepositiveconnotations.Thelatterisobviouslythemostcynical,

andunderminesthepossibilityfornegotiationswiththepeopleswhocouldbenefitfroma

moreinterculturalsociety,sinceittakesthecontentoutofthedebate,becausetheStateis

abletoclaimthatitoperatesinterculturally.

5NatureandtheArticulationofLifeandProgressFromhavingdiscussedinterculturalismasafloatingsignifierinthecontextofdevelopment,

andhavingestablishedthatIBIS,theindigenousgroups,andtheGuatemalanStatehave

differentarticulationsoftheconcept,Iwillinthischaptergointoananalysisofhowthethree

actorshavedifferentontologicalviewsofwhatconstituteslifeandbeingandwhatnatureis

understoodtobe.Sinceoursocialcontextinfluenceshowweunderstandandinterpret

differentconceptsanddiscourse,andinturnhowwere‐articulatesignifiers,Ibelievethat

peoples’worldviewofthenatureanduniverseaffectsthewayweunderstandandarticulate

JesperSøeBergmann

48

development.Atthesametime,peopleconstructtheirrealitiesinrelationtootherrealities,

anditishencetheinteractionbetweenthesedifferentrealitiesandhowtheyaffecteach

group’sdiscoursesthatisinteresting.ThisisrelevantforIBIS’articulationofinterculturalism

becausepeoples’understandingofdifferentculturesisconnectedwiththeirworldview.

IwillstartwithananalysisoftheMayanCosmovisión,beforemovingontotheroleofnature

withinthecapitalistsocietyandfinallyananalysisofhowIBISsupposedlypositionsthem

discursively.

5.1LaCosmovisiónandtheBalanceofManandNatureTobeabletodiscussthedifferencesbetweenandwithinculturesandhowculturesaresocial

discursiveconstructionsofrealities,itisimportanttolookattheMayanCosmovisiónandtry

tounderstandhowtheuniverseisviewedwithinthissetofbeliefs,whichisradicallydifferent

thantherationalistunderstanding.Ibelieveitispossibletocomparethediscoursesand

articulationsoftheindigenousgroupsinGuatemalawiththoseoftheGuatemalanStateand

IBIS,eventhoughSpanishisnotthenativelanguageofmanyoftheindigenousgroups,since

thehegemonicstrugglestakeplacewithinthesamediscursivespheres,centredonthe

Spanishlanguage.

TheCosmovisiónisportrayedasasetofvaluesandprinciplesinwhicheverythingfromthe

spiritualtothephysicalandbiological,andfromhumanitytonature,isconsideredtobeof

eternalconnection.Thismeansthatnothingcanexistoutsideofthisuniverse,becausenature

isapartofhumanityandhumanityispartofnature,andpeoplelivetoprotectthenature,

whichatthesametimeprovidesshelterandfoodforhumanity.Thisunderstandingofthe

cosmosdoesnotonlyrefertointeraction;italsoreferstotherelationshipbetweeneverything

(animals,humans,plants,mountains,valleys,rivers,etc.)asbeingapartofeverythingelse.

Hence,allobjectsandsubjectshavetobalanceorganically,becauseitsomethingoffsetsthe

equilibriumitmighthavecatastrophiceffectsonthecosmos.Humansareallowedtotake

fromthenatureaslongasthebalanceandreproductionofthenatureissecured,andthe

cosmosdoesnotendupworseoffthanbefore.

Inthisway,itcanbeseenthatboththenaturalandthesocialspheresofsocietyboth

constitutetheCosmovisiónandareconstructedaroundthenodalpointoftheCosmovisión,

withachainofequivalenceconsistingofsustainability,equality,respect,harmony,balance,

etc.whichatthesametimearefloatingsignifiersinotherdiscourses.Asdiscussedinthe


49

previouschapter,theindigenouspeoples,IBISandtheGuatemalanstatestruggleovermany

ofthesamefloatingsignifiersintheirdifferentarticulations,becausetheyareinantagonistic

relationship,andinthiscontextsustainabilityisthefloatingsignifierthatisusedinall

discoursesonnatureacrosstheglobe.Andforthatreasonitisimportanttobecriticalwhen

metbydiscoursesonsustainability,sincethearticulationcanbeverydifferentdependingon

thesocialcontextandgoalofthearticulator.

TheGuatemalanscholarAjbéeJiménezisconnectedtothestudycentreCEDFOGin

Huehuetenangoandprovidesresearchanddataformanydifferentorganisations,including

IBIS.Inaspeechaboutdevelopmenthestatedthat:“[…]weproposeasystemofMayan

thinkingthattakesustothesearchforafull,completeanddignifiedlife,butnotjustofbeing

humanbutforallthelivesthatcoexistswithusinthisworld”(Jiménez2013:96,own

translation).7Hereheunderlinesanimportantdistinctionfromthecapitalistsocietyinwhich

natureexistsforthepeople(i.e.toexploit)insteadofwiththepeople.Furthermore,through

hisstatementheindirectlyclaimsthatacompleteanddignifiedlifeisnotpossibleina

capitalistsocietywherepeopleliveincreasinglydistancedformthenaturethatsupportstheir

life.Throughthisarticulationhebuildsupacounter‐hegemonicdiscourseagainsttherational

capitalisticwayofexploitingthenatureforprofitandtherebyunderminesallpreviousclaims

fromthe‘developed’societyaboutdevelopmentthroughexportationofnaturalresourcesas

beingbeneficialtothelocalsociety.Additionally,itisseenthathisarticulation(re)emergesas

anantagonismoftheexistingdiscourseonnature,andhenceidentifiesbybeinginopposition

tothealreadyexistingnorms.

LifeintheMayanCosmovisiónisa(constructed)realitythatonelivesandinternalises,andit

isimportanttobeawareofone’sownwellbeingasbothdependingonandconstitutingofthe

wellbeingoftherestofthecollective,i.e.asaharmoniousbubble,inwhicheverythinghasa

vibrantenergy–aheartbeat(Mysticomaya.com).

7“[…]queremosproponerunsistemadepensamientoMayaquenosllevealabúsquedadeunavidaplena,completaycondignidadperonosólodelserhumanosinoladetodaslasvidasqueconvivimosenestemundo”(Jiménez2013:96).

JesperSøeBergmann

50

Figure5.1SelectionofelementsfromtheCosmovisión

Byvisualisingaselectionofelements(whichisnotanexhaustivelist)insideaglobe/bubbleI

havetriedtooutlinehowtheCosmovisiónconstructseverythingasbeinginterrelated,and

notasindividualandseparateobjects.Figure5.1showsthatallthesignifiersareinterrelated

anddependentoneachother,somethingthatcontrastswithhownatureisviewedwithinthe

neoliberalcapitalistworldview(Iwillgetbacktothislater).Theelementslistedarethe

signifiersthatwerebroughtupduringtheinterviewsandtexts,anditisseenthatmanyofthe

signifiersoftheCosmovisiónarealsosignifiersintheindigenouspeoples’articulationof

interculturalism,i.e.nodalpointswithinthisarticulation.

Figure5.2showssomeoftheelementsofthe

articulationofnatureintheCosmovisión.Itis

importanttounderstandthatalltheseparts

containenergy,andthatthisenergyneedsto

beinbalancewiththerestofthecosmos.

TheseenergiesarecalledNawalesandare

crucialforthefunctioningofallofthesociety,

i.e.political,economical,cultural,social,etc.

Bymaintainingthestrongdiscourseofthe

Cosmovisiónitisensuredthatthecultural

rootsarenotforgotten,anditisavoidedthat


51

humansfallinthemodernistictrapoflivingfortheaccumulationofmaterialwealth.

AjbéeJiménezmaintainsthatthereisaspiritualrelationshipwiththenature.Buthedoesnot

acknowledgethecriticismoftheCosmovisionforbeingareligionandcriticisethatrational

capitalistsonlyfocusonnothingbuttheimagesfromtheceremoniesandtherebyjudgingthe

indigenouspeoplesfromarationalisticpointofview.Byviewingtheterritoryasspiritualand

sacredhearticulatestheterritoryasbeingpartofhumansandviceversa,insteadof

separated.“Wearetalkingaboutaperspectiveinwhichterritoryisasacredspacethatstarts

withme,frommythoughtsandfeelingsandthatfeedsfrommyconscience”(Jiménez

2013:98,owntranslation8).InthestatementJiménezarticulatesthathumanshavetolivewith

thenatureandnotjustfromit,andforthatreasontheindigenouspeopleshavetobe

consultedpriortoexploitationofthearea.Atthesametime,theindigenouspeoplesof

Guatemalahavehadbadexperienceswiththedevelopmentprojectsthathavepreviously

beenimplementedintheirareas,whichhavedamagedthenatureandimpoverishedthelocals

byrelocatingthemtootherareaswithoutfarmlandandwater.Thishascreatedastrong

oppositionandhaveincreasedtheidentificationwiththeCosmovision,becauseitiscounter

tothearticulationofnatureanddevelopmentofthestate.Anexampleofthisisthedam

Chixoythatwasconstructedin1982againstthewillofthelocalpopulation.32communities

weredeprived(despojados)oftheirlandand400peoplewereassassinatedfor

demonstratingagainsttheconstruction9.Thesepeoplewerekilledbythegovernmentor

militarybypeoplewhohavestillnotbeeninfrontofajudge10,andthiscreatesaverystrong

mistrusttowardsallauthorities(includingtheUN,theWorldBank,IMF,etc.thatsupported

theconstruction)exceptfortheancestralauthoritiesthatbasetheirdecisionsinthelocal

democracy.Furthermore,thesocialcontextofresistanceagainstthestateinfluencesand

reinforcesthecounter‐hegemonicdiscourseagainsttherational,capitalistneoliberalregime.

Theextractionofnaturalresourcesthatissoinherenttocapitalisteconomy,andwhich

traditionallyhasnotbeenimplementedwithconsensusinmanypartsoftheworld,playsa

largeroleinshapingtheindigenouspeoples’dailylife.Hereinterculturalismbecomes

8Estamoshablandodeunaperspectivadeterritoriocomounespaciosagradoqueempiezaconmigomismo,desdemipensamientoysentimientoyquesealimentaatravésdemiconciencia(Jiménez2013:98)9Averyeducativefilmaboutthiscasecanbeseenherehttp://www.rightsaction.org/content/la‐represa‐chixoy‐30‐a%C3%B1os‐sin‐reparaciones‐ni‐justicia‐ni‐paz10Rememberthatthiswasduringthearmedconflict/civilwarinwhichmorethan250.000people–mostlyindigenous–werekilled.Alargemajorityofthosewerekilledbythemilitaryonthemilitarybases.

JesperSøeBergmann

52

interesting,becauseideallythedifferentculturesandactorsthatareinvolvedandaffected

wouldbeconsultedpriortoimplementation,andinthiscasewherethecultureisconstructed

aroundtheCosmovisiónandnatureasbeingapartofhumanstheprojectswouldnotbe

approved.TheexactsamedebateisstilltakingplaceinGuatemalatoday,whereduringmy

researchforthisthesistherewereuprisingsinthenorthofthecountry,Barillas,andIwas

advisednottotraveltotheareabyIBISGuatemala.Thegovernmentwantstoconstructa

hydroelectricdamtogenerateelectricityfor‘development’,butthecommunitiesfearthatthe

electricitywillonlyreachtheindustrialindustriesofthearea,i.e.themaquiladores,mining

andoil‐extraction(Fitzpatrick‐Behrens2009),whereasthecommunitieswillberelocatedout

oftheirnativearea,whichissacredtothem.Inalocallyorganisedconsultationmorethan

21.000peoplefrom144communitiesvoted,andtheresultwasthat19.000votedagainstthe

constructionofthedam,whichwillburry17ofthecommunitiesunderthewater(ibid.).

FromthisperspectiveitisseenthatthediscourseontheCosmovisiónhighlightsacounter‐

hegemonicdiscourseagainsttheexploitationofnaturalresourcesconstructedaroundthe

articulationofdestructionofland,impoverishmentofthecommunities,destructionofsacred

culturalspacesandtheinabilityofthestateandbusiness‐sectortounderstandthespiritual

relationshipwithnature.

Anexampleofhowthegovernmentarticulatesinterculturaldevelopmentandrespectfor

naturalresourcesasanimportantpartofthepoliticalagenda,butthenaftertheelectionthe

politicscarriedoutleansmoretowardsthebusinesssectorandattractionofforeigndirect

investment(FDI)andexportsofnaturalresourcesandrawmaterials(mining,petroleum,

sugarandAfricanpalms).AccordingtotheNorthAmericanCongressonLatinAmerica,aUS‐

basedorganisationknownforcriticisingelitistinterests,FDIgrewby56%in2008,andmost

ofthosefundswentintotheabove‐mentionedprojects,therebybenefitingforeigncontractors

orlocallandowners.Furthermore,thecompaniesinvolvedintheconstructionworkare

closelylinkedtothecorporationsthatwillbenefitfromtheconstructionofhydroelectric

damsandalargehighwaythroughthenorthofGuatemala(ibid.),i.e.themaquiladoresand

industry.

Theprojectsare‘sold’throughadiscourseondevelopmentoftheruralareasofthecountry,

butthehydroelectricplantsarealwaysplacednearbyaminingorextractiveindustrysite,and

thelargeprojectsareknownfor“corruptionandrubberstampingofenvironmentalimpact

reports,”andthishasclearlyledtoa“severelackoftrustinpublicinstitutions”(Jonesin


53

Reeves2014).Thecapitalistgovernment’sdiscourseondevelopmentthroughtheextraction

andexploitationofnaturalresourcesisarticulatedontheculturalbasisofwhatPolanyicalled

afictitiouscommodificationoflandandanartificialownershipofthenature.Thereby,the

actionsofthegovernmentcanbeinterpretedalongthesamelinesasthelast500yearsof

foreignownershipoftheindigenouspeoples’territories,andanexploitationofthenatural

resourcesasbeingapublicgoodforthemajorityatthecostoftheminority.

ThiselaborateanalysisoftheCosmovisionhasservedtocreateadeeperunderstandingofthe

socialcontextoftheindigenouspeoplesandtheirantagonisticrelationshipwiththestate,

whichisnecessarytobeabletounderstandinwhichcontextIBISoperateswhentheyapply

interculturalisminadevelopmentperspective.Ido,however,believethattobeabletofully

understandtherelationshipbetweentheCosmovisionandthecapitalistapproachtonature,it

isnecessarytoanalyseanddiscusstheneoliberalandconservativestate’sarticulationof

natureasaresource.

5.2NeoliberalCapitalismandtheNatureasaResourceTothe‘modern’‘man’,natureisperceivedasaresourceoffood,water,forests,oil,gas,

mining,etc.andtheseresourcesarealltobeexploitedtoadegreewhereithasbeen

necessarytocalmhumansdownintheirshortsightedsearchforprofitsandimposealegal

andmoralframeworkofsustainability.Throughouthistorytherehasbeenmanyexamplesof

de‐territorialisationanddisplacementofindigenouspeoplesorcommunitiesforthe

extractionofresourcesandexploitationofthenature.Thishascreatedmistrusttowardsthe

governments’andcorporations’discoursesonnaturalresources,sinceeveryarticulationof

naturalresourceshavecausedanintrusionandoffsetoftheCosmovision.Overtime,the

articulationofnatureasaresourcetobeexploitedforthebenefitofthenation,corporation

andhumanityasawholehascometosignifyignorance,displacementandkillingofthelocal

inhabitantsaswellasdestructionofnatureandtheecosystem.Tomakemattersworse,the

recentdecades’discourseonsustainabilityandinterculturalgovernancehasnotchanged

anythingfortheruralcommunitiesinGuatemala.

TheInternationalLabourOrganisation’sarticle169statesthatpriortoexploitationofland

indigenouscommunitiesneedtobeconsulted.Beinganinternationalorganisationithas

powertoconstructandarticulatedifferentdiscourseson‘universal’rights,andalsopowerto

havethemratifiedbygovernments.Buteventhoughthegovernmentfacilitatesaconsultation

itdoesnotmeanthattheconsultationwillchangeanything.Thegovernmentlistenstothe

JesperSøeBergmann

54

communitiesbecauseithastoandbyactinglikethisthegovernmentconstructsadiscourse

aroundaJanus‐facedstrategyofpretendingtobeinterestedandrespectfulofothercultures’

viewoncertainissues,butatthesametimeonlyworkingtoprotectbusinessinterests.When

theindigenouspeoplesmanifestthemselvesthroughdemonstrationsthestateusesmilitary

violencetosilencethecommunities,whichshowssupportforthecompaniesandinvestors

benefittingfromtheexploitationofresources.

Thiswayofactingoutlinesperfectlytheclashbetweentwoarticulationsofnaturethatare

antagonistic.Thereistheindigenousdiscourseofarespectfulrelationshipwiththenatureas

beinganinseparablepartofhumanbeingsagainstthecapitalistdiscoursebasedona

supremacyovernatureandtheeconomiclogicofextractionandexploitationforprofit.

Furthermore,itshowsthatthegovernmentcynicallyhasnointerestinunderstandinghow

theCosmovisiónaffectstheindigenouspeoplesrelationshipwithnature.Assuchthe

governmentdoesnotactinterculturally,accordingtoIBIS’andtheindigenouspeoples’

articulationofinterculturalism,butaccordingtothestate’sownarticulationitdoes.

Fromthiswecanvisualisehownatureisarticulatedwiththecapitaliststate(figure5.3),in

thiscasetheGuatemalanstate.Therecanbemoreorlessliberalversionsofthisarticulation,

e.g.fairtrade,sustainability,etc.butthearticulationofnatureasaresourceforexploitationis

thesame.Thesignifiersthat,heldtogether,constructthestate’sarticulationofnatureareina

counter‐hegemonicrelationshipwiththeindigenousdiscourseofCosmovisiónandnature.

Fromdiscussingtheantagonisticrelationshipbetweenthecapitalistarticulationofnature

andtheCosmovisión’s,IwillnowmoveontoincludeIBISinthediscussiontoseehowthey

articulatenature,andhowthisinfluencestheirarticulationofinterculturalism.


55

5.3IBISandNatureInthischapterIwillanalysehowIBISarticulatesnature,anddiscusstheiralignment,ifthere

isany,i.e.whethertheyaremostlyinlinewiththecapitalistnature‐as‐a‐resourcediscourse

oriftheyfollowthecounter‐hegemonicdiscourseoftheCosmovisión.Inanycase,IBISasan

NGOthatclaimstoworkinterculturallyhastobeabletounderstandandrespectthedifferent

culturesaswellasbeabletointeractwiththem.

5.3.1FromanInterculturalPerspectiveThedirectorofIBISGuatemala,AnaMaria’s,initialunderstandingoftheCosmovisiónisthatit

isaverybeautifulwayoflivingincoexistencewithnatureandhumans,but,accordingtoher

understanding,recentdecadeshas,duetodifferentcircumstances,shiftedsomeofthevalues

intheCosmovisiónawayfromnon‐violenceandrespect.Thisisherunderstanding,andthere

mightbeadiscrepancybetweenherunderstandingandtheindigenouspeoples’articulation,

aswithanydiscourse,butshetakesahighlycriticalstancetowardsthearticulationofthe

Cosmovisiónassomethingunconditionallypositiveandhumane.Accordingtoherthe

indigenouscommunitiesarestronglyinfluencedbyamachismoculture,lynchingduetolack

ofpublicjustice,andgeneralviolenceagainstpeople.IfthisiswhatCosmovisiónisabout,IBIS

cannotsupportitsinceitgoesagainsttheuniversalprinciplesthatshapeIBIS’visionand

mission.ButreferringtohercolleaguesattheheadofficeinGuatemalaCitywholiveinthe

Cosmovisión(accordingtothemselves),thoseviolentpeoplearenotlivingaccordingtothe

inherentlynon‐violentdiscourseonco‐existencewithnature(AnaMaria2013:1.12.00,own

translation).

AnaMariaalsomentionsthatpeopleoutsidetheCosmovisióncanlearnagreatdealaboutthe

relationshipwithandhowtoprotectthenature,andcontinuesbycriticisingtheinternational

developmentorganisationsforimplementing‘GreenDepartments’withtheobjectiveof

teachingindigenouspeopleshowtomanagethenature.Inrealitythe‘developed’world

shouldlearnfromthe‘developing’indigenouspeoples(AnaMaria2013:54.20,own

translation).ThiscritiquewasbackedupinarecentarticleintheDanishnewspaperPolitiken

thatincooperationwithaDanishEnvironmentNGO(VerdensSkove)hadbeeninPanamato

assesstheUNprogramtoReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandforestDegradation

(REDD).TheprogramwascriticisedbytheindigenouspeoplesofPanamaforbeingarrogant

andnotalignedwiththelocals’cultureoflivinginharmonywiththenature.GilbertoArias,a

leaderfromtheGunacommunitystated:“Wehavenotamputatedtheforestlikeyouhave.

Canyouteachusanythingaboutconservingtheforest?”(Rothenborg2014,Eberlein2014,

JesperSøeBergmann

56

owntranslation).Thisisinterestingbecauseinthe‘rationalist’capitalisticdiscourseof

humansbeingknowledgeableabouteverythingwithinthenaturalsciences,andarticulating

scientificsolutionstoalloftheworldsproblemsitisnotusualtoencountercounter‐

hegemonicdiscourses.Inrecentyearsthecounter‐hegemonicdiscoursehasactuallybeen

strengthenedalongsideamorepowerfuldiscourseonindigenousculturesandidentity,which

hascreatedaprideofbelongingtoanindigenousculture.Thisisverylikelytohaveemerged

fromtheworkofdevelopmentorganisations’(includingIBIS)worktopromoteknowledge,

respectandequalityintheinteractionwithothercultures,whereaspreviouslyothercultures

havebeenmetwithaggressionandarrogance.Hence,fromIBIS’pointofviewthereisagreat

dealtobelearntabouttheco‐existencewithnaturefromtheinteractionwithothercultures.

5.3.2FromaCapitalistPerspectiveWhenIBIStalksaboutdevelopmentprojectsrelatingtothenature,thenodalpointof

importanceis“resources”andhowtheindigenousculturescanbenefitfromtheexploitation

oftheresources.Around60%ofthepoorpeopleintheworld,liveincountriesthatarerich

innaturalresources,andallofthecountriesinwhichIBISispresenthavelargedepositsof

naturalresourcesthatcanbeexported,andthedepositsaremostlyinareaswherethe

indigenouscommunitiesarelocated(IBISG,owntranslation).

Withregardstotheirdevelopmentstrategy,IBIS:1)supportsandteacheslocalcommunities

abouttheirrightsandopportunities;2)helpsthelocalsinsupportingtherightsandgetting

theirvoicesheardbycentraldecisionmakers;3)makessurethatofficialandnational

directionsareagreeduponregardingtheextractionofnaturalresourcesandthepeoples’

human,environmental,social,culturalandeconomicalrights;4)increasestransparencyin

theadministrationofnaturalresources,tomakeitclearforthepopulationhowmuchmoney

ismadeontheresourcesandhowlargeapartoftheprofitthatstaysinthecountryandwhat

itisusedon(ibid.).

Thisarticulationofnatureasaresourcethatisavailabletobeexploitedisveryclosetothatof

theGuatemalangovernment,andthegovernmentwouldprobablyofficiallyagreeonthe

principles,butinpracticenotputalotofeffortintocarryingouttheprinciples.IBIS’discourse

onnaturalresourcesarticulatestherightsofthepeopleswhoareaffectedbytheexploitation,

andthesignifiersthatarearticulatedthemostareinclusionandpriorconsultationinthe

processleadinguptotheimplementationoftheproject.Thismakessense,sinceaspreviously

mentioned,earlierprojectshavecreatedvastdestructionofthenatureandcausedsocial


57

conflictsduetoanignoranceoftheinterestsoftheindigenouspopulations11.Tomany

communitiesthediscoveryofnaturalresourcesisacurseandanomenofnaturaldestruction,

andaccordingtoIBISthesolutionistoteachthelocalsabouttheirrights,facilitateprior

consultationssothelocalshaveasayintheshapingofthecontract,andtoeducatethemas

agentsthatareabletomonitortheprocessofexploitationtomakesurethatalllegal

agreementsarefulfilled.

Thissolutiontothechallenges,however,putsIBISinbetweenthestateandthepeoples,since

thepeoplesarenotinterestedinexploitationatall,andthestatewillneveragreetonot

exploitthenature.InGuatemalatherearelargedepositsofgold,silver,nickel,zinc,etc.and

accordingtothestateitcreatesemploymentandprofitforthenationaleconomy.According

toIBISthetax‐andmining‐legislationmeansthataverysmallpartoftheprofit(1%)staysin

thecountrywiththerestbeingsentabroad(IBISH;AnaMaria2013:32.07,owntranslation),

informationthatisbackedupbyAntoniowhowonderswhyhepays12%taxwhena

multinationalcorporationonlypays1%(2013:28.58,owntranslation).Itishereseenthat

bothIBISandtheindigenouspeoplesarticulateneoliberalismastheantagonisticpoleofthe

indigenouspeoples’interests.

ButbyanalysingIBIS’discourseonthe

natureitisalsoseenthattheyarticulate

natureasbeingaresourceavailablefor

exploitation,whichismorealignedwith

thestate’srationalistandcapitalist

discourse.WheretheydifferisinIBIS’

interculturalapproach,whicharticulatestheinclusionofthelocalcommunities’attitudeto

theexploitationoftheresources,butwithoutsupportingtheindigenouspeoplescompletely.

InIBIS’countrystrategyforGuatemalathearticulationofhowIBISunderstandsthe

antagonisticrelationshipbetweenthegovernment’sandtheindigenouspeoples’discourses

onnatureanditsresourcescanbefound.ThrougheducationandinformationIBISaimsto

helptheindigenouspeoplesdefendthe:“territoryandnaturalresourcesofindigenouspeoples’

communitieswithintheframeworkofcollectiverightsfortherespectofnaturalheritage,

11Seeforexamplethefilm“TambiénlaLluvia”(EventheRain)thattreatstheBolivianwaterwars,wherethewatersupplywasprivatisedtoamultinationalcorporation.

JesperSøeBergmann

58

environmentalprotectionandpreservationoftheirculturalhabitat”and“promote

accountabilityandgoodmanagement,innaturalresourceextraction,improvingtechnicaland

practicalskillsonenvironmentalmanagementandfairdistributionofroyalties”(IBISE:29).

ThediscourseisclearlythatofaninternationalNGOembeddedinacapitalistdiscourse,

whichishighlightedthroughtheusethesignifiers:management,royalties,technicaland

practicalskills,naturalresources,accountability,etc.ThearticulationofIBIS’worktohelpthe

indigenouspeoplesinthestruggleagainstthecapitaliststateisaimedatthestateand

thereforehasafocusonchangefromabove.

Thearticulationofnatureisassuchnotcounter‐hegemonic,sinceithasthesamesignifiersas

thestate’sarticulation,butIBISincludesamorerightsbasedapproachtotheexploitationof

naturalresources,andtherebypositionsthemselvesclosetothestate.Interculturalismisnot

mentionedspecificallyinthiscontext,anditcouldbearguedthatinterculturalismis

irrelevanttothistypeofdevelopmentstrategy.Butatthesametime,thediscoursedrawson

thesamesignifiersasIBIS’articulationofinterculturalism,i.e.respect,culturalhabitatand

collectiverights.Theproblemsisthatthesignifierscanbeunderstoodasarticulationsof

eitherinterculturalismoruniversalvalues,andthishighlightstheschizophreniathereis

presentinsomeofIBIS’articulations,i.e.if‘respectforothercultures’isauniversalvalue,

whyisinterculturalismthenrelevant?;orif‘respectforothercultures’equals

interculturalism,whatareuniversalvalues?


59

Comparedtothecapitaliststate’sarticulationofnatureasentirelyaresource,IBIS’

articulationisalotmorecomplex,andtriestomixvaluesfromaninternationalhumanrights

approachtohelptheindigenouspeoplesprotecttheirsacredandspiritualnature,withthe

capitalistarticulation.Atthesametimeitisacombinationofabottom‐upandatop‐down

approachbecauseIBIStargetsthestatebyarticulatingthepoliticians’‘obligation’toinclude

theindigenouscommunitiesinconsultationsconcerningthepeopleswholiveintheareas;

andIBISarticulatesanempowermentoftheindigenouspeoples,sotheycancreatechangesin

thepoliticalsystemfrombelow,bybeingawareofhowthepoliticalsystemworks.This

articulation,however,isnotapartofhowIBIS’discourseonnature,butinsteadon

empowermentofpeople,whichIwilllookatinthefollowingchapterondifferent

articulationsandunderstandingsofdevelopment.

6Development?AlmosteverytimeItellsomeoneaboutthemasterprogramindevelopmentandinternational

relationIammetwiththesamequestion:whatisdevelopment?AndeachtimeIhavetoreply

thatdevelopmentcanbemanydifferentthingsdependingonthecontext.Inthecontextof

IBISandintercultuturalismasadevelopmentstrategyinGuatemala,Ifounditinterestingto

investigatethedifferentarticulationsofinterculturalism,andhowthesearticulationswere

influencedbythewaypeopleseetheworldandtheirsocialrealities.Buttofindoutwhy

interculturalismisimportantinIBIS’developmentstrategies,Ineedtolookintohowthe

involvededactoreacharticulateandunderstanddevelopmentasaconcept.IndoingthisIwill

discusshowtherespectandunderstandingofotherculturesfrominterculturalismis

combinedwithdevelopment,whichnormallyisarticulatedthroughuniversalrightsand

values.

6.1NeoliberalCapitalistDevelopmentSohowisdevelopmentunderstoodintheneoliberaleconomyinthiscaseexemplifiedbythe

Guatemalanstate?InGuatemalanpoliticaleconomythereisalargefocusontheattractionof

foreigndirectinvestment,andPresidentMolinahasdonemuchtoprotecttheinterestof

privatecorporations.Forhisworkhewasawardedthe“2013leaderoftheyear”attheLatin

Trade&BRAVObusinessawards.Theprizewasgiventohimbecausetheattractionofforeign

investorsisimportanttothepresident–onallhistravelshebringsbusinessleadersto

JesperSøeBergmann

60

emphasisethatthereisasharedinterestindevelopmentbetweenthepublicandtheprivate

sectorinGuatemala(Gutierrez2013).

ThattheGuatemalanstate’sdevelopmentprogramishighlydependentonprivateinvestorsis

seenintheCorredorInteroceanicodeGuatemala(CIG)[TheInteroceanicCorridorof

Guatemala],whichaimstoconnectthetwonewlyconstructedharboursoneachsideof

Guatemalawitha372kmlonghighwayforlorries,tworailwaylinesandfourhydrocarbon

linesforpetrol,crudeoilandnaturalgas.Theobjectiveistocreatecompetitionforthe

PanamaCanalanddevelopmentinGuatemalathroughalargeinfrastructuralprojectwitha

budgetof7billionUS$‐allprivateinvestments(GovernmentD).Projectslikethishighlights

theaspectsofdevelopmentthatareinarticulatedintheneoliberaldiscourse,whichfocuses

onexportsofnaturalresourcesandprimarygoods,aswellasforeigndirectinvestment,

economicgrowth,etc.–ingeneralatop‐downapproachtodevelopmentthrougheconomics.

AnaMaria,thedirectorofIBISGuatemala,claimsthattheGuatemalanstatestillbelievesin

thetheoryoftrickle‐downeconomy,hasnointentionsof‘development’andthatit“is

orientedtowardsservingthebusinessstructures”(AnaMaria2013:28.55,owntranslation).

Thisimpliesputtingthepowerofpoliticaldecisionsintothehandsofeconomicanalysts,and

thatathrivingprivatebusinesseconomyeventuallywill‘develop’thecountry.Furthermore,

thelevelofdevelopmentofthecountryismeasuredinGDP,economicgrowth,theinterest

rateandtheinflation.

Developmentcanbemanythings,andtothequestionofhowthepopulationingeneralviews

theprojectofIBIS,AnaMariarepliedthatwhenshetalkstopeoplethatarenotpartofthe

partnerorothersolidarityorganisations,sheoftenonlytellsthatIBISworkswith

development,withoutgoingintoadeeperdiscussionofwhatdevelopmentis.Thereasonfor

this,shecontinues,isthatlargepartsofthepopulationdonotthinkaboutotherpeoplethan

theirclosestfamilyandtheirincome,nordotheyknowabouthowtheindigenouspopulation

ofGuatemalalivesandwishestolive.“(…)thepeopledonotunderstand.Itispeoplewhodo

notknowtheircountry.Here,therearemanyGuatemalanwhosincerelydonotknowtheir

country.ThefurthesttheyhavegoneistotheAtitlánLake,becauseitisenormouslybeautiful”


61

(AnaMaria2013:38.57,owntranslation)12.Thestatewithitsfocusoneconomicdevelopment

combinedwithverylittleunderstandingandtoleranceforothercultureshasthroughalong

maintenanceofaneoliberaldiscoursecreatedahighlyseparatedpopulation,bothculturally

andeconomically,inwhichtherichdonotunderstandthepoor,noraretheyinterestedin

trying.Furthermore,anorganisationlikeIBIShastoavoidtalkingabouttheirprojects,

becausetheycanbeseenaspoliticalandinoppositiontothegovernment’spolitics.

Figure6.1

Figure6.1showshowthestateofGuatemalaarticulatesdevelopmentinthecontextofa

constructionofaconservative‐liberalstate,i.e.astatewithstrongreligioustiesandliberal

economicpolitics.Inadditiontothis,thestatearticulatestheirdevelopmentdiscoursein

relationtotheCosmovisiónandtheindigenouspeoples’rejectionofneoliberaldevelopment.

Inthiswaythetwoactorsenforcetheantagonisticrelationshipbyaccusingtheotherofnot

understandingwhatdevelopmentis.Ingeneral,itcanbeseenthatthearticulationof

developmentisbasedonthesamesignifiersandfloatingsignifiersasusedininternational

discoursesondevelopment.Tobeabletocomparethestate’sdiscourseondevelopment,I

willnowmoveintoananalysisoftheindigenouspopulationandgroupings’discourseon

development.

12“(…)lagentenoentiende.Porqueesgentequenoconocesupaís.AquíhayunenormecantidaddeGuatemaltecosquesinceramentenoconocesupaís.DecirlomaslargoquehanllegadoesellagoAtitlán,porqueellagoesenormementebonito.(AnaMaria2013:38.57).

JesperSøeBergmann

62

6.2ThePeoples’PerspectiveonDevelopmentTheeconomicandpoliticaleliteofGuatemalahastheirwayofunderstandinglifeandtheir

realities,andthisaffectstheirarticulationsofdevelopment.InthissectionIwilllookintohow

developmentalsocanbearticulated,whenpeoplehaveanotherunderstandingoftheworld.

Afterdecadesof‘development’inGuatemalaacounter‐hegemonicstruggleisgaining

influenceatthemoment,asacombinationofnewapproachesfromdevelopmentNGOsanda

strongersocialmobilisationonbehalfoftheindigenouspeoplesinLatinAmerica.ThePost‐

developmentscholarGustavoEstevaclaimsthatpreviously,thearticulationsofdevelopment

withregardstoeducation,health,andeatingonlybroughtmiseryandpovertybecausethere

werenoteachersandschools;therewerenomedicalservices,doctors,hospitals,drugs,etc.;

andtherewasnoincomeandfoodtobuyandfeedthepeople.Thishascreatedamovement

backtoastrongerarticulationoftheancientvaluesoftheindigenousculturesinwhichthe

culture,tradition,andthecommonsagainareinfocus.“Forpeopleonthemargins,

disengagingfromtheeconomiclogicofthemarketortheplanhasbecometheverycondition

forsurvival”(Esteva2010:17‐18).Aswewillsee,thepost‐developmentandpost‐colonial

scholarssharetheantagonisticdiscourseagainstcapitalistdevelopmentwiththeindigenous

communities.

FortheindigenouspopulationofGuatemala,developmentisarticulatedassomething

completelydifferentthanthestate’sarticulation.AntoniofromOxlajujAjpopspeaksculturally

onbehalfofthecommunitywhenstatingthat:“developmentreallyistohavethebasicsfor

survival”(Antonio2013:5.54,owntranslation13).Thisarticulationofdevelopmentisatfirst

glanceinagreementwiththeneoliberaldiscourse–ortheneoliberalisatleastnotopposedto

thisarticulation,inthateveryonecanagreeonthe‘positive’insurvival.Theantagonistic

relationshiparisesinhowtoachievethissurvival.TheCosmovisiónisnotabout“greycement

projects,itisaboutthehome,theland,itiswheretohavethecorn,beans,chicken,haveyour

forestthatsuppliesyouwithfirewood,maintainthewater(…)toworklikefarmersandto

haveagoodrelationshipwiththecommunity”(ibid.).Amongtheindigenouspeopleswholive

intheCosmovisiónthefocusofthecommunityis‘community’–notcompetitionand

individualitylikeintheneoliberalsystem,andeverybodyhelpseachotherifforinstancea

houseburnstotheground,andsothecommunityconstructsanewoneinafewdays.Nobody

buysanything,everybodyandexchangesinthemarket;moneyisnotanecessityorbasicsfor

13“eldesarrollopropiamenteestenerlobasicoparasobrevivir”(Antonio2013:5.54).


63

development,butAntonioisworriedthatnow,whenthesystemhasbeen‘corrupt’bymoney

andwhensomepeoplehavegonetotheUStoworkandhavebecomeinterestedinbuying

things,thesystemwillfalloutofequilibrium(ibid.).

Antonio’scounter‐hegemonicdiscoursegoesagainstthecapitalistarticulationsof

developmentbecausethey:“lookatthecement,atwhatisexpensive,theinfrastructure,

electricity,andsaythatitisdevelopment.Butwhatkindofdevelopment?(…)Development

hereismoney.Thekindofdevelopmentthathastodowithpoliticsandconsumerism.

Focusingonmercantilism,competition(…)”(Antonio2013:14.1214,owntranslation).Inthe

government’sarticulationofdevelopment,ifoneisopposedtodevelopmentasinthecaseof

thehydroelectricplantsonedoesnotunderstanddevelopment.Andifyouareagainstthe

state’sdevelopmentmodel,andinsteadarticulatedevelopmentasintheCosmovisión,the

statewillcriminaliseyouasaterroristbecauseyoudonotsharethesameideology,“theylook

atdevelopmentinonewayandweseeitassomethingdifferent.Sowhereistherespectin

that.Thecorporations,throughtheauthorities,areinrealityviolatingthetraditionsorthe

valuesthatreallyhavepowerandauthority”(Antonio2013:28.58,owntranslation15).

Antonio’schoicesofsignifierstoarticulatedevelopmentareallconnectedtotheCosmovisión

throughcommunity,survival,land,andnature(corns,beans,chicken,forests,water).Thereby

thediscursivesystemoftheCosmovisiónbecomesatcompletehegemonicentityinwhichall

relationsarealignedinasetofdiscoursesandarticulationsoftheuniverseandits

inhabitants.InthesocialcontextofMayasitcanbearguedthatthediscourseofthe

Cosmovisiónhasbecome“objective”.Interestingly,however,isitwhenitcomestothe

interrelationshipswithotherculturesofanothermindset,whichiswhereinterculturalism

becomesinteresting.Itcanbearguedthattheindigenouspopulationhasonlybeenmetwith

hostilityanddisrespectthelast500years,whichcanbethereasonthattheyrecentlyhave

gainedsuccessinarticulatinganotherandcounter‐hegemonicunderstandingoftheworld

thanthepreviouslydominantandhegemonicdiscourse.

14“miranelcemento,miraneldinero,semiraaloqueescaro,lainfraestructura,laluz.Llegolaluz,eeeeeyahídesarrollo.Peroquedesarrollo?(…)eldesarrolloacáespisto.Entonceseltipodedesarrolloacáesmasquetienequeverconlaspolíticasydeconsumismo.Entoncesvaenfocadomasahídelmercantilista,decompetencias”(Antonio2013:14.12)15“Ellosmiraneldesarrollodeunamaneraynosotrosmiramosdeotramanera.Entonces,dondeestáelrespetoeneso.Lasempresas,atravésdelasautoridades,estánviolandorealmenteesastradicionesoesosvalores,querealmentetieneunpoderytieneunaautoridad”(Antonio2013:28.58).

JesperSøeBergmann

64

Antonio’sviewofdevelopmentisbackedupbyBasilioTzoy,advocacycoordinatorinCEIBA

(FriendsoftheEarthGuatemala),whohighlightstheimportanceofsharing,first,withinthe

community,second,withintheculture,andfinallyonthemarket,wherethealimentationthat

thefamiliescouldnotconsume,isexchangedforotherproduce.Thisdiversificationand

exchangeofalimentationstandsinsharpcontrasttotheagro‐industrythatspecialisesin

producingafewcrops16inlargequantities.Basilioclaimsthatifthepopulationdoesnot

produceitwilllooseitssovereignty,andthatalargepartofdevelopmentwithinthe

Cosmovisiónisbalancingagriculturewithpolitics(Basilio2013:9.11).Basiliothensupports

thecounter‐hegemonicdiscourseoftheindigenouspopulationagainstcapitalism’s

industrialisedapproachtonature,agricultureandproduction.Andhecontinuesbyclaiming

that:“Estamosclarosqueeldesarrollocapitalistadestruye[weareclearthatcapitalist

developmentdestroys]”(Basilio2013:14.35).Herehereferstothemethodsofmaximising

profitthroughtheusechemicalsinindustrialisedagriculturalproduction,andhowitdestroys

thesoilandallofnature.BasilioalsosupportsAntonioinhisaccusationsagainstthestatefor

criminalisingthepeoplewhoareagainstneoliberaldevelopmentreferringtotheongoing

struggleinSantaCruzBarillasinthenorthofGuatemalawheretheconstructionofa

hydroelectricplantisscheduled.Thecompanies,supportedbythestate,abductpeoplefrom

theorganisationsthatareinopposition,which“revivesthememoriesoftheinternalarmed

conflictinGuatemaladuringthe36yearsofcivilwar”(FOEI2013).

Feliciana,astudentofancestralauthoritiesanddevelopmentwithintheMayantraditionfrom

aMam17regionofHuehuetenango,describesdevelopmentintheCosmovisión’articulationas

focusingon“buenvivir”[goodliving]wherethepeople“reallytakeintoconsiderationwhatis

theearth,lamadrenaturaleza[mothernature]andtheintegrityofallthis,becauseitis

integratedwithbeinghuman”(Feliciana2013:1.00,owntranslation,author’snotein

brackets).Thereby,shebringsouttheimportantnodalpointoftheindigenouspeoplesof

LatinAmerica,elbuenvivir,whichthelast10‐15yearshasbecomeanincreasinglypowerful

counter‐hegemonicdiscourse,andeventhehegemonicdiscourseinsomesocialgroupsand

nations(e.g.BoliviaandEcuador)whereithasbeeninscribedintheconstitution.

16Alsotermedmonoculturesinwhichalargeareaoflandisdedicatedtoproducingonlyonecrop.E.g.inArgentinamanyfarmerproducesolelysoy,becausethepricesarehigh,butthismeansthattherehasbeenalackofothercropsinthecountry.17MamisagroupofnativepeoplesfromthewesternpartsofGuatemala


65

Withthisarticulationofdevelopment,itdoesnotseemliketheCosmovisiónandneoliberal

developmentcanco‐exist,sincetheyareinanantagonisticrelationshipandhencestruggleto

gainhegemony.Inthiscasehistoryunderlinesthatsocialchangecannothappenthrough

gradualharmonicchange,buthappensthroughconflict–mostlydiscursiveandnot

necessarilyphysicalviolentconflict.RubénHerrera,coordinatorforthepeoples’assemblyin

Huehuetenangowhohimselfhasbeenkidnapped,arrestedandimprisonedforopposingthe

constructionofthehydroelectricplant(Burke2013),believesthattheneoliberalstateby

sellingouteverythingtotheprivatesectorhasnotsucceededincreatingjobsnorimproving

theconditionsforthepeoples.Ithasonlycreatedmorepoverty,moreexploitationandmore

malnutrition;“Wearenotinterestedbecauseitgoesagainstallthepossibilitieswehavetobe

abletoliveinpeace,havesomethingtoeat,canbesustainable,canstrengthenouridentity

andmakeourlifelarger.Onthecontrary,theyareobligingustomakeourstrugglemore

extensive”(Rubén2013:42.30,owntranslation)18.Rubénarticulatesthestruggleagainstthe

neoliberaldevelopmentdiscourseasbeingimportanttothecultureandidentityofbeing

Mayan.Thereby,heenforcesthediscursivestruggleinherenttothecounter‐hegemonic

discourseoftheindigenouspeopleswithregardstodevelopment.

18“Nonosinteresaporquevaencontradetodaslasposibilidades,paraquenosotrosvivamosenpaz,paraquenosotrostengamosquecomer,paraqueseamossosteniblesysustentables,paraquesefortalezcanuestraidentidadyhagamosmasextensadenuestravida.Alcontrario,nosestánobligandohacermasextensanuestralucha,eneltiempo”(Ruben2013:42.30).

JesperSøeBergmann

66

Figure6.2

Figure6.2visualisethearticulationofdevelopmentintheCosmovisión.Acomparisonwith

theneoliberalarticulationofdevelopmentinfigure6.1showsthattheindigenouspeoples

incorporatedevelopment,politicsandthemarketintothesamesystem,whereas

neoliberalismhaveseparatesystemsformarket,politicsandthesocial,andthen‘add’

developmenttosoftentheimpactofcapitalism.Itcan,however,bediscussedwhether

‘development’isarticulateddiscursivelyintheCosmovisión.Itismorelikelythatitisa

signifierfromacapitalistdiscourse,whichhasbeenadaptedandarticulateddifferentlytofit

thevaluesandtraditionsoftheindigenouspeoples.

Furthermore,asspokespersonsoforganisationsthatpromotethevaluesandtraditionsofthe

MayanCosmovisióntherespondentsarealldeeplyembeddedintheirviewoftheworldand

theuniverse,anditisimportanttorememberthateventhoughtheCosmovisiónisanancient

culture,itisstillaconstructionoflanguage,values,traditions,etc.andhenceitisopento

socialchangethroughdiscursivechange.Adiscoursedoesnotbecome‘moretrue’or‘more

hegemonic’bybeingancient,andalldiscourseshouldbecriticallyexamined.Inthiscasethey

constructapowerfulcounter‐hegemonicarticulationofdevelopmentasbeingsomething

completelyopposedtotheneoliberals’articulation.


67

Aswithinterculturalism,developmentisarguablynotapartof‘original’Mayanvocabulary,

butisaconceptthathasbeenarticulatedinthecontextoftheCosmovisiónbecauseaneed

arosetoconstructacounter‐hegemonicdiscoursetochangesocietyfromanotherwise

oppressiveregimethatthreatenedtoextincttheindigenouspeoplesthroughassimilationinto

aneoliberalregime.

Thissectionhasexplainedandanalysedtheindigenouspeoples’articulationofdevelopment

andhowitrelatestotheneoliberalarticulation,anditwasseenthatthetwoarticulationsare

antagonistictoeachotheronnearlyalllevels.InthefollowingsectionIwillanalysehowIBIS

relatestothetwoantagonisticdiscourses,beforegoingintoadiscussionofhowallthree

articulationsrelate,andwhyinterculturalismisinterestinginthiscontext.

6.3IBISasaDevelopmentNGOSohowdoesaDanishbaseddevelopmentNGOoperateinaninternationalcontextof

antagonisticdiscoursesofdevelopment?IBISisallowedtooperateinGuatemalabythe

government,andifthegovernmentissufficientlyannoyedbyIBIS,theywillloosetheirpermit

ofoperations;butatthesametimetheyhavetoshowtotheirmembersthattheymakea

differencetothepartnerorganisationsandcreatesocialchange.InthissectionIwillanalyse

IBIS’articulationofdevelopmenttoseehowIBISunderstands“ajustworld”(IBISF).

ThegeneraldevelopmentobjectiveofIBISinGuatemalais:“topromotethebuildingofa

democratic,interculturalandequitablesocietybyempoweringmen,womenandyouthof

indigenouspeople,sotheycanexerciseanddefendtheirrights,aswellasfulfillingtheir

obligations”(IBISE:5).Thearticulationofdevelopmentshareselementandmomentswith

IBIS’articulationofinterculturalism.Thisstandsincontrasttothestate’sarticulationof

development,whichcontainnoreferencestoanyarticulationsofinterculturalism,

coexistence,respect,etc.Whereastheindigenouspeoples’articulationofdevelopment

emphasizesandmakesuseofthesamesetofmomentsastheirownarticulationof

interculturalismdoes,becausethesemomentsarecrucialtothewholeconstructionofthe

Cosmovisión.

ThegovernanceadvisorofIBISinDenmark,MortenBisgaards,statesthattohim

developmentistotakethepointofdepartureintherealitiesofthepeoplesthatIBISworks

with,andcontinuesbypointingoutthatdevelopmentisnotastaticconcept,andthatthereis

noformaldefinitionofwhatconstitutesdevelopment.Instead,heemphasizes,howone

JesperSøeBergmann

68

understandsdevelopmentisverydifferent,andthatishowitshouldbe.ToMorten,itis

movingoutofthedevelopmentparadigmwhensomeonestartstobreakasetofconventions

ofrights,buthe(personally)thinksthereissomethingattractivetotheCosmovisión’s

approachofleavingmineralsintheground,andinsteadarticulatedevelopmentasbasedon

humanrelations.HighlightingthatIBISdoesnothaveapatenteddefinitionofwhat

developmentis,hestateswithregardstothepeoplesaroundtheworld:“theroleofIBISisto

facilitatesignificantstepsforwardinrelationtodevelopmentofthecivilsocietyandto

democraciesaroundtheworld,butithastobebasedontheirdreamsandvisionsforthe

worldtheywant”(Morten2013:19.19,owntranslation).Nonetheless,intheirstrategiesIBIS

reliesonasetofvaluesthatarerightsbased,andIBIS’understandingofdemocracyisabout

givinginfluencetothegroupsofpeoplesthatthepoliticiansrepresent,i.e.deepdemocracies

(ibid.).

ArecurringsignifierinIBIS’articulationsisfacilitation,anditisemphasizedbyother

intervieweesthatIBISdoesnothaveadefinitionofwhatdevelopmentis,insteadIBIS

supportspartnerorganisationsinthecivilsocietytoreachtheirgoals.Thisisbackedupby

Claudia,headofcommunicationofIBISinGuatemala,whostatesthatIBISneverinterferesor

worksdirectlywithprojects,butalwayssupportsalreadyexistingorganisationsintheirwork

(Claudia2013:1.00,owntranslation).TheprojectsthatIBISsupports,however,arealways

connectedtomarginalisedpeopleswhodonothavetheirbasicrightsfulfilled,asAnaMaria

(directorifIBISGuatemala)pointsoutwhentalkingaboutdevelopmentbeingtogenerate

“betterqualityoflife”(AnaMaria2013:1.00).Whenaskedwhatbetterqualitythenisshe

answers:“Qualityoflifeistorespecttheessentialelements.Vitaltobeinghumanisalifein

community.Fromaveryearlyinfancy,totherighttoeducation,therighttoahealthy

alimentation,therighttohealth,therighttotheaccesstogenerateanincome,towork,to

developwithdignityasahumanbeing”(ibid.owntranslation).

ThearticulationofdevelopmentfromtheperspectiveofIBIScaneventhoughitisstressed

thatIBISsupportswhateverthecounterpartswant,bevisualisedinthefollowingfigure.The

reasonIdothisisbecauseIBISdonotsupportorganisationsthatworkagainstIBIS’

articulationofdevelopment.IthereforebelievethatIBIS’articulationofdevelopmentcanbe

analysedthroughtheorganisationstheysupport.


69

Figure6.3

IBISarticulatesdevelopmentasbeingwhateverthecounterpartswantsaslongasitlivesup

tointernationalrightsconventions–inotherwordsIBISarticulatesdevelopmentasbeingthe

fulfilmentofaninternationalrightsregime,andinthecaseofGuatemalacombinedwiththe

promotionoftheCosmovisión.RegardingtheCosmovisión,AnaMariastronglysupportsthe

valuesandtraditions,butwithoutbeingfolkloric(AnaMaria2013:54.20).InthiswayIBIS

livesuptoboththeirownarticulationofinterculturalism,inwhichthereshouldberoomto

respectfullycriticiseothercultures.AnaMariaisespeciallycriticaltowardsthewaywomen

aretreatedinGuatemalansocietytoday,wherethewomenhastotakecareofeverything,

becausethemanisatwork,andcomedrunkhomeatnight,beatuphiswifeandrapehis

daughter.Inheropinionthiscannotbeacceptedinanysociety,andshouldnotberespected

onthegroundsofculturaldifferences.Shebelievesthatmanandwomanarearticulatedas

equalsintheCosmovisión,butinrealitythewomenaredoingitall(AnaMaria2013:1.06.01‐

1.13.00).ThestaffatCEDFOGsupportedthisadayduringlunchandoneofthefemalestaff

jokinglysaidthat‘theonlythingaGuatemalanmandoesistomovehischairclosertothe

JesperSøeBergmann

70

table’(ownobservation).ThepointhereisthatIBIScriticisestheindigenouspeoplesandthe

Cosmovisiónfornotlivinguptouniversalvaluesofequalopportunities.

Figure6.4(Agustín2013:92)

OntheonehandIBISfollows(maybeunknowingly)therecommendationsofpost‐

developmentscholarArturoEscobarinmultiplying“thecentresandagentsofknowledge

production–inparticulartogivesaliencetotheformsofknowledgeproducedbythosewho

aresupposedtobethe‘objects’ofdevelopment”(EscobarinZiai2007:21).InthiswayIBIS

deconstructsthe‘traditional’developmentNGO’sarticulationofdevelopmentasbeingtop‐

down,andinsteadofrelyingonthedevelopmentindustry’sexpertknowledgesupportthe

localorganisations’articulationofdevelopment.Tovisualisetherelationshipbetweenthe

differentdiscoursesandhowalliancesarepossible,itcanbeseeninfigure6.4thatsinceboth

IBISandtheindigenouspeoplesoperateonthelevelofresistance(equivalent),butdifferent

inarticulation,theycanagreetostruggleagainsttheneoliberalstateinGuatemala.Onthe

otherhandIBISarticulatesuniversalvaluesaboveculturalnorms,whichtheoreticallygoes

againsttheparticularisticidealsofinterculturalism.Inthiscase,itplacesIBISaspartof

globalisationandhenceintheantagonisticrelationship,whichcountersculturalrelativism

andpromotesglobalised‘objective’values.

ThelistoffloatingsignifiersinIBISarticulationofdevelopmentisalmostnever‐ending,since

allthemomentsintheirarticulationcanbearticulateddifferentlyinanotherarticulation.In

thiswayIBISneveractuallymanagestocreateaclosureofmeaning,sinceallthesignifiersare


71

orcanbecontestedindifferentarticulations,whichinturnmakesIBIS’articulationopento

differentascriptionsofmeaning.

7ConclusionTheaimofthisthesiswastoanswer:1)howandwhyIBISappliesinterculturalismasa

developmentstrategyinGuatemala;and2)howitispossibletopromoteinterculturalismand

universalvaluesatthesametime.

Thisthesisanalysedthreeactors’differentarticulationsofinterculturalism,andcompared

thesearticulationsofhowandwhyinterculturalismisrelevantinadevelopmentperspective.

IfoundthatIBISappliesinterculturalismbycooperatingwithorganisationsfromdifferent

indigenouscommunitiesanddifferentsocialcontexts,andbypromotingindigenouspeoples’

rightsinasocietythatishighlyeconomicallyunequal,racist,culturallydividedandstill

woundedafterdecadesofoppressionandcivilwar.Oneproblemwithinterculturalismisthat

thetwoinstitutionsthatIBISworkswith/againstarticulateinterculturalismdifferently

becausetheyareembeddedinadifferentsocialcontext.ThismeansthatIBIScanadvocate

theirownarticulationofwhatconstituteinterculturalismasadevelopmentstrategyandat

thesametimetheGuatemalangovernmentcanclaimthattheyalreadyhaveimplemented

interculturalism,becausethestatehasanotherarticulation,andnoneismorecorrectthanthe

other.Anotherproblemisthattheindigenouspeoples’understandingofinterculturalismis

alreadyarticulatedthroughtheCosmovisión,whicharticulatescoexistence,equalityand

respectfortheotherasuniversalvalues,sointheeverydaylifewithintheindigenous

communitiesinterculturalismdoesnotchangemuch.Theydohowever,togetherwithIBIS,

formacounter‐hegemonicallianceagainstthegovernmenttopromotetheircommon

articulationofinterculturalismtochangethemulticulturalsocietyfromtheboththebottom

andthetop.Theresultofthisantagonisticstrugglewilldependonthehegemonisationofone

ofthearticulationsintoatemporaryclosureof‘objective’meaning,butsincetherecannever

beonesinglediscoursethatconstructsallsocialrelations,thestrugglewillcontinue.

Thesecondpartoftheresearchquestiontreatedthetheoreticalcombinationofdevelopment

andinterculturalismfromtheperspectiveofIBIS,andhowthetwocanbecombinedin

differentsocialcontexts.IBISbasetheirdevelopmentstrategyonuniversalvalueswith

respectforothercultures,andthisconstitutesadilemmabetweentheuniversalismof

developmentagainsttherelativismofinterculturalism.Sincethedifferentgroupingshave

JesperSøeBergmann

72

differentarticulationsofdevelopment,andsincetheyareinasomewhatantagonistic

relationship,IBISproposesaninterculturalapproachtodevelopment.Thereasonforthis

proposalisthatIBISbelievesthatinterculturaldevelopmentcancreateamorerespectfuland

equalapproachtochangingthesocietyaccordingtoarights‐basedunderstandingof

development.Fromadiscoursetheoreticalperspectivethattakescultureandidentitytobe

discursiveconstructionsresultingfromanarticulationof,forexample,therelationshipwith

nature,combininginterculturalismwiththearticulationofdevelopmentdoesnotchangethe

antagonisticrelationshipbetweenthedifferentarticulations.Instead,itaddsanotherfloating

signifiertothearticulationofdevelopment,andhencemakesthearticulationcontestable

sinceveryfewpeoplehaveanaprioriunderstandingofneitherinterculturalismnor

development.Differencesandconflictsofinterestaredisarticulated,therebydepoliticising

IBIS’developmentstrategytofocusonmoreonovercomingsocialproblemsthansolving

theirstructuralreasons.

Commontoallthreearticulation,isthattheyarediscursiveconstructionofgroupsof

signifiersthatcanchangesocietytosomething‘better’,andinthiscontextitbecomesclear

thateachpartconstructtheirownarticulationinantagonisticrelationshipwithwhatthey

believeiswrongwiththeexistingsociety.

Ifitispossibletoworkinterculturallywhilepromotinguniversalvaluescannotbeanswered,

becauseitdependsonhowonearticulatesinterculturalismanduniversalvalues.Ihavefound

thatIBISarticulatesinterculturalismasbeing“respectfulofdiversityandtherightsof

differentcultures”(IBISE:7)whichcanbeinterpretedasarelativismtowardsthemultiple

culturesandsocialgroupingsofsociety.MeanwhileIBISarticulatesarights‐based

developmentstrategy,whichcanbeinterpretedasanarticulationofauniversalism.Froma

discoursetheoreticalpointofviewtherecannotexistatotaluniversalismsinceallthings

‘exist’bybeingdifferenttosomethingelseandtheuniversalwouldhavetoexclude

everythingelse;andtherecannotexistapureparticularismsincetherewouldbeno

antagonisticrelationsonwhichweformgroupsanditwouldbreakdownallcultures,

identitiesanddiscourses(Laclau1996:22‐27).Itopensthedebateaboutthepossibilitythe

rightsofpeoplesself‐determinationexcludesorsupplementstheuniversalrights.Inthe

contextofIBIS,itcanbearguedthatsincetheuniversalhumanrights‐baseddevelopment

strategywascriticisedforbeingtoofoundationalist,essentialist,andarticulatedbyagroup

withaspecialpoliticalinterest,interculturalismwasintroducedtocreateanapolitical

balancebetweenuniversalismandparticularism.Howtheexactdividinglineisfoundmustbe


73

uptothenegotiationsoftheindividualsinthespecificsocialcontext,andthisdependsona

relationofpowerbetweentheactors,e.g.abottom‐upchangeofthedevelopmentdiscourse

tobecometemporarilyhegemonicandinthatwayconstitutesocialchangethrougha

discursivestruggle.

Butatthesametime,IBISopensuptocriticism,becauseinterculturalismasadevelopment

strategyisacontestedconcept,sinceitisaconceptconsistingoffloatingsignifiers,which

makesitaconceptthat,forinstance,thegovernmentcouldadaptandarticulatedifferently.

Furthermore,onecouldarguethatsinceIBISconditionsinterculturaldevelopmentonasetof

universalprinciples,IBISmightaswelljusthavetheuniversalprinciplesasadevelopment

strategy,e.g.ifitistheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,whynotjusthavethemasa

developmentstrategy?Finally,sinceIBISisoperatinginasocietywherethesocialrelations

areveryunstable,theantagonismsareverylargebetweentheindigenouspeoplesandthe

state,andtherearethereforerelativelyfewproblemsforIBIStopartnerwiththeindigenous

communities.

Theconclusionofthisthesisisthatinterculturalismanddevelopmentarecomplexand

complicatedconcepts,anditdemandsalotfromanorganisationinarticulatingits

understandingoftheconceptstoavoidmisunderstandingsandconflicts.Atthesametimethe

useoffloatingsignifiersasinterculturalismanddevelopment,cangiveanorganisationroom

tomanoeuvrein,becausetheorganisationisnotboundtospecificdefinitionsofwhat

constitutesthestrategy.

Throughinterculturalism,IBISpromotesthecreationofbottom‐upalliancesbetween

differentindigenousgroupings.Inthisway,IBISmanagestomakeadifferenceinchanging

civilsocietytosomethingthelocalpeopleswantbyproducingneworganisationalalternatives

tothepoliticalparties.Ihavenotbeenabletofindtheexactdividinglinebetween

universalismandparticularismsinceitdoesnotexist,andIBISleavesthelinefloatingsince

everynegotiationdependsonthesocialcontextoftheinvolvedparts,andthisimpactofIBIS’

andtheindigenouspeoples’articulationofinterculturaldevelopmentagainsttheneoliberal

conservativestateshouldnotbeneglected.

JesperSøeBergmann

74

8BibliographyAgustín,ÓscarG.2010.Discursoeinstitucionalización:unenfoquesobreelcambiosocialylingüístico.Logroño:UniversidaddelaRioja.

Agustín,ÓscarG.2013.DiscursoyautonomíaZapatista:lainstitucionalizacióndelarebeldía.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.Alsina,MiquelR.2009.“(In)comunicaciónintercultural,”inEldiálogointercultural.EditedbyAlfonsoGarcíaMartínez,83‐118.Murcía:UniversidaddeMurcía,Serviciodepublicaciones.Alvesson,M.&DanKärreman.2002.“VarietiesofDiscourse.OntheStudyofOrganisationsThrughDiscourseAnalysis.”HumanRelations,53:1125‐1149.

AnaMaria.2013.InterviewwithAnaMaríaMéndez,directorofIBISGuatemalaattheheadquatersofIBISGuatemalainGuatemalaCityonOctober9th2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.

Andersen,NielsÅ.,AndersEsmark&CarstenBLaustsen.2005.Poststrukturalistiskeanalysestrategier.”Frederiksberg:Roskildeuniversitetsforlag.

Antonio.2013.InterviewwithAntonioMendozafromUxlajujAjpopatCEDFOG,HuehuetenangoonOctober2nd2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.

Basilio.2013.InterviewwithBasilioTzoyfromCEIBAatCEDFOG,HuehuetenangoonOctober3rd2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.Burke,Denis.2013.“UPDATE:GuatemalanhumanrightsdefenderRubénHerrerahasbeenreleased!”InFriendsoftheEarthInternational.LastmodifiedMay27th2013.AccessedMarch13thathttp://www.foei.org/en/blog/free‐guatemalan‐human‐rights‐defender‐ruben‐herrera

Butler,Judith,ErnestoLaclauandSlavojZizek.2000.Contingency,Hegemony,Universality.ContemporaryDialoguesontheLeft.London:Verso.Cantle,Ted.“AboutInterculturalism.”AccessedJanuary20thathttp://tedcantle.co.uk/resources‐and‐publications/about‐interculturalism/

Claudia.2013.InterviewwithClaudiaPujolRosenlundfromIBISGuatemalaattheheadquartersofIBISGuatemalainGuatemalaCityonOctober9th2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.Dictionary.com“Develop.”AccessedFebruary11thathttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/develop

Eberlein,AnneL.2014.“Klimaminister:SkovfolkskalinvolveresiFNprogram.”VerdensSkove,March112014.AccessedMarch15th2014athttps://www.verdensskove.org/node/35421Escobar,Arturo.2007.“’Post‐development’asaconceptandsocialpractice.”inExploringPostdevelopment;Theoryandpractice,problemsandperspectives,editedbyAramZiai,18‐32.NewYork:Routledge.Esteva,Gustavo.2010.“Development.”InTheDevelopmentDictionary,aguidetoknowledgeaspower,(2nded.)editedbyWolfgangSachs1‐23.NewYork:ZedBooks.

EtymologyOnlineDictionary“Develop”AccessedFebruary11thathttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=develop


75

Feliciana.2013.InterviewwithFelicianaOrtízatCEDFOG,HuehuetenangoonOctober2nd2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.Fitzpatrick‐Behrens,Susan.2009.“ElectrifyingGuatemala:Cleanenergyanddevelopment.”NACLA,November30th2009.AccessedMarch2ndathttp://nacla.org/news/electrifying‐guatemala‐clean‐energy‐and‐development

FOEI.2013.“Leaderofcommunityresistancetohydroprojectabductedandarrested.”InFriendsoftheEarthInternational.LastmodifiedOctober1st2013.AccessedMarch9th2014athttp://www.foei.org/en/what‐we‐do/land‐grabbing/latest‐news/leader‐of‐community‐resistance‐to‐hydro‐project‐abducted‐and‐arrested

GovernmentA.2013.“AvancesenEducaciónBilingüeIntercultural.”LastmodifiedMay20th2013.AccessedMarch3rd2014athttp://www.guatemala.gob.gt/index.php/2011‐08‐04‐18‐06‐26/item/3820‐avances‐en‐educaci%C3%B3n‐biling%C3%BCe‐interculturalGovernmentB.2012.“ConadurpideaprobacióndeLeydeDesarrolloRural,yquesedeclareel21dediciembreDíadelaMulticulturalidadeInterculturalidad.”LastmodifiedDecember11th2012.AccessedMarch3rd2014athttp://www.guatemala.gob.gt/index.php/2011‐08‐04‐18‐06‐26/item/2327‐conadur‐pide‐aprobaci%C3%B3n‐de‐ley‐de‐desarrollo‐rural‐y‐que‐se‐declare‐el‐21‐de‐diciembre‐d%C3%ADa‐de‐la‐multiculturalidad‐e‐interculturalidad

GovernmentC.2014.“IIInformedeGestióndeGobierno.”LastmodifiedJanuary14th2014.AccessedMarch3rd2014athttp://www.guatemala.gob.gt/index.php/2011‐07‐25‐15‐57‐34/item/6893‐ii‐informe‐de‐gesti%C3%B3n‐de‐gobiernoGovernmentD.2013.“ExponepresidentePérezMolinatrascendenciadecanalsecoparadesarrollodeGuatemala.”LastmodifiedJuly24th2013.AccessedMarch15th2014athttp://www.guatemala.gob.gt/index.php/2011‐08‐04‐18‐06‐26/item/4703‐expone‐presidente‐p%C3%A9rez‐molina‐trascendencia‐de‐canal‐seco‐para‐desarrollo‐de‐guatemala

Gutierrez,Santiago.2013.“LíderDelAño:OttoPérezMolina,PresidenteDeGuatemala“Compromisoporeldesarrollo.”InTheLatinTradeSymposium,October2nd2013.AccessedMarch12thathttp://bravo.latintrade.com/es/2013/10/lider‐del‐ano‐otto‐perez‐molina‐presidente‐de‐guatemala‐compromiso‐por‐el‐desarrollo/Halloran,MichaelJ.2007.“Culture.”InEncyclopediaofSocialPsychology,editedbyRoyBaumeister&KathleenVohs,211‐213.SagePublications.

Hansen,AllanD.2009“Diskursteoriietvidenskabsteoretiskperspektiv.”inVidenskabsteoriiSamfundsvidenskaberne–påtværsaffagkulturerogparadigmer2ndedition,editedbyFuglsang,Lars&PoulB.Olsen,439‐466.Frederiksberg:RoskildeUniversitetsforlag.Herrera,Rubén.2012.“ElcontextodeHuehuetenango:lasmiradasdelosactores.”inSextaJornadadeEstudiosyExperienciassobreTerritorio,PoderyPolíticaHuehuetenango,25‐34.Huehuetenango:CEDFOG.Howarth,David.2005.Diskurs.EnIntroduktion.DanishtranslationbyStigW.Jørgensen.København:HansReitzelsForlag.IBISA.“IBIS’Historie.”AccessedFebruary20thhttp://ibis.dk/om‐ibis/ibis‐historie/

IBISB.“OmIBIS.”AccessedFebruary20thhttp://ibis.dk/om‐ibis/

IBISC.“BalanceSheet2012.”DownloadedFebruary1stfromhttp://ibis.dk/sites/default/files/PDF%20global/Finance%20PDF/aarsrapport_2012_endelig_version.pdf

JesperSøeBergmann

76

IBISD.2013.“IBISsmidtudafBolivia.”LastmodifiedDecember25th2013.AccessedMarch1stathttp://ibis.dk/press‐release/ibis‐smidt‐ud‐af‐bolivia/IBISE.2011.“IBISinGuatemalaCountryStrategy2012‐2016.Movingtowardsinclusionandinterculturalism.”Downloadedfromhttp://ibis.dk/sites/default/files/PDF%20global/Guatemala%20PDF/ibis_in_guatemala_country_strategy_2012‐16.pdf

IBISF.2011.“VisionogMission.”LastmodifiedNovember5th2011.AccessedFebruary1st2014http://ibis.dk/om‐ibis/om‐ibis/vision‐og‐mission/

IBISG.“Ressourcer.”AccessedFebruary20th2014athttp://ibis.dk/ressourser/

IBISH.“Råstof‐udvindingiIBISsamarbejdslande.”AccessedFebruary20th2014athttp://ibis.dk/det‐gor‐vi/rastof‐udvinding‐i‐ibis‐samarbejdslande/

Jiménez,Ajbée.2012.“TerritorioyDesarrollo.”inSextaJornadadeEstudiosyExperienciassobreTerritorio,PoderyPolíticaHuehuetenango,95‐112.Huehuetenango:CEDFOG.

Jiménez,Ajbée.2013.“LaFranjaTransversaldelNorte:Unaheridaprofundasobreelterritorio.”inCuadernosdelCorredor,vol.10.Huehuetenango:CEDFOG.Jørgensen,MarianneW.&LouisePhillips.1999.DiskursanalysesomTeoriogMetode.Frederiksberg:RoskildeUniversitetsforlag.

Jørgensen,MarianneW.&LouisePhillips.2002.DiscourseAnalysisasTheoryandMethod.London:SagePublications

Klandermans,Bert&SuzanneStaggenborg(eds).2002.MethodsofSocialMovementResearch.UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Krørup,Søren2008“Menneskevidenskaberne,Bind2.”HumanistiskeForskningstraditioner,RoskildeUniversitetsforlag.Kvale,Steinar&SvendBrinkmann.2009.Interview.Introduktiontilethåndværk.2ndedition.København:HansReitzelsForlag.Laclau,Ernesto.1996.Emancipation(s).London:Verso.

Laclau,E.&ChantalMouffe.1987.“Post‐MarxismwithoutApologies.”NewLeftReview,166:79‐106.Marx,Karl.1852.“TheEighteenthsBrumaireofLouisBonaparte.”AccessedJanuary12thathttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th‐brumaire/ch01.htm

Morten.2013.InterviewwithMortenBisgaardatIBISHeadquartersinCopenhagenonOctober31st2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB

Moses,J.W.&Knutsen,T.L.2007.Waysofknowing:Competingmethodologiesinsocialandpoliticalresearch.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan

Müller,Martin.2010.“DoingdiscourseanalysisinCriticalGeopolitics.”AccessedFebruary15thathttp://espacepolitique.revues.org/1743Mysticomaya.com.“TheMayanCosmovision.”AccessedMarch4thathttp://mysticomaya.com/a_05_aut/engcosmovision.phpNGO.org.“DefinitionofNGOs.”AccessedFebruary2ndathttp://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html


77

U‐Landsnyt.2014.“FremtidenforNGOerne(12):VagthundenårDanidaerude.”LastmodifiedMarch24th2014.AccessedMarch25th2014athttp://www.u‐landsnyt.dk/nyhed/23‐03‐14/fremtiden‐ngoerne‐12‐vagthunde‐n‐r‐danida‐er‐ude

UNA.“Development.”AccessedFebruary11thathttp://www.un.org/en/development/UNB.“Non‐governmentalorganizations.”AccessedMarch1stathttp://www.unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=23

Olivé,León.2004.InterculturalismoyJusticiaSocial.México:UNAM.OxlajujAxpop.2013.“QuienesSomos.”AccessedMarch10th2014athttp://www.oxlajujajpop.org.gt/quienes‐somos/

Rothenborg,Michael.2014.“Naturfolkvilikkebelæresomderesskov.”InPolitikenMarch9th2014.AccessedMarch15thathttp://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2230349/naturfolk‐vil‐ikke‐belaeres‐om‐deres‐skov/Rubén.2013.InterviewwithRubénHerrerafromthe‘AsambleadePueblosdeHuehuetenangoPorLaDefensadelTerritorio’atCEDFOG,HuehuetenangoonOctober3rd2013.TranscriptionandrecordingavailableonUSB.Strydom,P.2000.Discourseandknowledgethemakingofenlightenmentsociology.Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress

Reeves,Benjamin.2014.“BacklashcontinuesoverhydroelectricpowerprojectsinGuatemala.”TheTicoTimes.AccessedMarch5thathttp://www.ticotimes.net/2014/03/10/social‐discontent‐swells‐over‐hydroelectric‐power‐projects‐in‐guatemala#comments‐30547

Ruiz,Jorge.2009.“SociologicalDiscourseAnalysis:MethodsandLogic.”inForum:QualitativeSocialResearch.Vol.10,No.2,Art.26–May2009accessedFebruary7th2014athttp://www.qualitative‐research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1298/2882

Shankar,Rajkumari.1998.“CultureandDevelopment,”inDevelopmentExpress.Internationaldevelopmentcentre.CanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency

SinEmbargo.2013.“Guatemalaamenazaexpulsarextranjerosqueparticipenenprotestas.”LastmodifiedSeptember30th2013.AccessedMarch1stathttp://www.sinembargo.mx/30‐09‐2013/771871

Yin,RobertK.2003.CaseStudyResearch.DesignandMethods.3rdedition.London:SagePublications.

JesperSøeBergmann

78

9Appendix1–DiscourseTheoryMüller,Martin2010“DoingdiscourseanalysisinCriticalGeopolitics”accessedathttp://espacepolitique.revues.org/1743

Apparatus Term Concept

Elements Signifierswhosemeaningare

multipleandhavenotyet

becomefixedinadiscourse

Articulation Apracticethroughwhicha

partialfixationofthe

meaningsofelementsis

achieved

Moment Elementswhosemeaninghas

beenpartiallyfixatedthrough

articulation

Closure Thefixationofthemeaningof

asignifierwithinadiscourse

Fieldsofdiscursivity Thesurplusofmeaningwhich

isoutsidediscourse.A

discourseisalways

constitutedinrelationtoa

fieldofdiscursivity.Thefield

ofdiscursivityharboursthe

potentialforthecontestation

ofadiscourse.

Discourse:

Arelationalensembleof

signifyingpracticescreating

meaning,whichextendstothe

wholesocialspace,both

linguisticandextra‐linguistic.

Discoursesareorganised

throughnodalpoints.

NodalPoints Privilegedsignifierswithin

discoursesaroundwhich

othermomentsareorderedin

chainsofequivalence


79

FloatingSignifiers Elementswhichare

particularlyopentodifferent

ascriptionsofmeaningand

mayformnodalpointsin

differentdiscourses

SubjectPosition Differentpossibilitiesofthe

constructionofmeaningofa

subjectindifferentdiscourses

Contingency Agivenidentityispossible

butnotnecessary.Therecan

neverbeonesinglediscourse

whichexclusivelystructures

thesocial

Identity:

Articulationofasubject

positioninadiscoursewhich

isalwaysincomplete.

Identityisorganisedthrough

master‐signifiers.

Splitsubject Thesplitsubjectis

perpetuallyincompleteand

constantlystrivestobecome

whole

Antagonism Discursiveexterioritywhich

presentsathreateningforce

forahegemonicdiscourse

Hegemony Thefixationofmeaninginan

antagonisticterrain

naturalisingaparticular

articulation

Objectivation Discoursesbecoming

seeminglynaturaland

uncontestedthrough

hegemonicintervention

Politics:

Theorganisationofsocietyin

aparticularwaythatexcludes

otherpossiblearrangements.

Thesocialsphereisorganised

throughmyths.

Dislocation Acontingenteventthat

JesperSøeBergmann

80

cannotbesymbolisedor

representedwithina

discourseandthusdisrupts

anddestabilisesordersof

meaning

Documents

INTERCULTURALISM IN A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE · The case of IBIS in Guatemala serves as a point of departure, and the analysis will be based on interviews with representatives of