[PEN-L:5267] NGO analysis by Salvadoran and James Petras (fwd)

[charigul at iuj.ac.jp]

Pardon my different point of view  (Sam), but I simply see some appeal in subscribing to notions of "local collective action (David Korten), power-knowledge discourse (Foucault), critical systems heuristic (Ulrich), and postmodern thought in general.  All of these appeal to me if only for tendencies toward 'emancipatory knowledge' - a process of breaking through repressive and alienating modes of thinking and practice to accommodate "local and particular strugggles".   The countervailing demands of different actors vis-à-vis NGOs can never be explained by such mere emphasis on global power as an area of domination but likewise of resistance.   Now more than ever, the micro-actors (grassroots organizations) are able to articulate, employ, direct, and implement courses of action in relation to traditional sources of influence.   Chambers speaks of "enabling and empowering poor clients and discuss the need for service organizations to see clients know their rights and have power !
to demand them, enabling them to ensure quality of service and access."  Uphoff expounds on local institutional development to illustrate the depth and breath of empowerment that is realized within networks of cooperation.  Escobar further talks about alternate rationalities i.e., arenas of struggle that are away from fatalistic and reductionistic ways of thinking.  The proliferation of discourses towards people-centered development, in diverse and radical forms, have recently captured the interests of planners and practitioners who are in constant search for innovative systems designs and attendant practical approaches to development.  Am I subscribing to radical or moderate approach (a culturalist-idealistic hogwash in the words of Wojtek). 

cheers to all! 

Charisse Gulosino