Search

This article analyzes the poststructuralist criticism of development and insists on the implication of integrated local knowledge and not only indigenous technical knowledge (IK). The article underlines the cultural dimension and the political dimension that touch age and gender of implicated groups. The poststructuralist criticism of development is justifiably stinging. But it has a nihilism that does not bring anything constructive. By making development specialists the focus of their concern, the small farmer - whom they seem to support - paradoxically disappears from sight. Once all the other players are eliminated from consideration except the World Bank and other big players, the reality of development becomes a homogeneous playing field. To block out this sterile theoretical excess, we must take into consideration the different actors in society and consider how each one takes on its own reality of development, which is also present in western agencies simultaneously at work in villages of the Malian Sahara. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]