IndexAnthropology and DevelopmentDeconstructing the “Evil Twin”Anthropology and its Involvement with DevelopmentDevelopment and LinguisticsThe essay will examine several works within the discipline to expand on this “evil twin” relationship as we move away from this iconic work to contextualize this debate within current anthropology. The first section will review the discussion of development and anthropology as the history of both these fields is essential to forming the context of Ferguson's article, as well as the uneasy relationship that exists between pure and applied forms of anthropology. The second section will focus on the term “evil twin” as we seek to understand Ferguson's use of the term evil while seeking to understand the two opposite extremes of what developmental anthropology means to the discipline. The last and probably most important section questions some of Ferguson's assumptions in the current context of anthropology while trying to understand whether development is indeed “uninvited” or “unwanted” in today's context. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayAnthropology and DevelopmentAlthough the modern understanding of development may have become popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, the ideology it perpetuates is one that has been prevalent since the period of the Enlightenment in 18th century Northern Europe (Lewis 2005: 4). There was a rise of industrial capitalism which would then go on to promote a universal history supported by concepts of enlightenment from the theories of philosophers such as Hegel. However, what distinguishes it from modern notions of development is the fact that it was just an idea for understanding world history. It was not used as “motivation to act on that story” (Cooper and Packard 1997: 7). This would change in the 20th century, after Truman's Bretton Woods conference speech and the rise of supranational institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Indeed, the idea of ​​a modern notion of development is often attributed to the post-World War II period, when the 33rd President of the United States of America, Harry Truman, declared “the Southern Hemisphere to be 'underdeveloped areas'” (Sachs 1997:15, Esteva 1993:7, Cooper and Packard 1997). Development, thereafter, became a process “of paving the way for the replication” of “the conditions that should have characterized the most economically advanced nations” in most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Escobar 1997: 497 ). It has become a marker for people to explain “social and cultural difference on a global scale” (Venkatesan, Yarrow 2012: 1). This is to argue that it has become a form of discourse in which the argument is that underdeveloped countries must strive towards development through the tools of economic growth. This would lead to some popular paradigms of development theory such as modernization theory, which holds that development is a “progressive movement towards more technologically complex and integrated forms of “modern” society” which would then replace traditional forms of society (Long 1992 : 18, see Gardner, Lewis 2015). Although modernization theory is still popular among some development economists, the definition of development will undergo some changes as the factors that define development will move beyond the idea of ​​simply being understood through economic growth. This is to say that "the well-being of an economy can constitute a precondition for development", but it is also necessary to consider factors such as human rights and social well-being totruly characterize development (Lewis 2005: 3). This approach was marked by the birth of a Human Development Index. Although economic development was still the primary objective as the focus was on the goal of reducing and eradicating poverty (Gardner, Lewis 2015). economics is still the dominant discipline within the discourse followed by powerful institutions for development such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (End 2009, see Mosse 2015 LSE Podcast). I would say that this is an important point to keep in mind, within anthropology, as the relationship between anthropology and development will also require the study of economics as a discipline. This resonates with Ferguson's assertion that development knowledge is closely related to the “form of disciplinary knowledge” (1997: 170). This is to state that anthropology is not the only twin when it comes to development as other disciplines, especially economics, influence its definitions and practices. It would also mean dealing with a different type of relationship for anthropology since the debate does not only exist between applied anthropologists and the so-called "pure" ones. It also exists across the fields of economics and anthropology. It was important to traverse a history of development, in the context of this essay, as it has much to do with the history of anthropology and its enduring discomfort with the development project. . Lewis Henry Morgan in his iconic book, Ancient Society, advocates a theory of cultural evolution that is influenced by the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. He would argue that human culture has seven different stages: lower, middle, and higher savagery; lower, middle and higher barbarism; and civilization (Morgan 1877). Each phase is marked by a form of technological achievement and the ultimate goal of all societies is to achieve a form of civilization (ibid.). This will become a very influential text within anthropology and the reason I bring it up is to show the Enlightenment legacy of anthropology. Although it can be argued that this idea of ​​social evolution was refuted in the early 20th century, as Ferguson points out in his essay, “the break with evolutionism was less complete than it is often made out to be” (1997: 142) . This idea of ​​evolution is what is primarily criticized in Edward Said's seminal book titled Orientalism. He states that “the Orient was almost a European invention” (1978: 1). He elaborates on this concept by stating that Westerners have produced or imagined an Eastern Other in order to belittle him and justify his colonial rule. Talal Asad in his iconic book, Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, adds to this narrative as the discipline of anthropology itself played an important role in the colonial encounter. In his book he argues that anthropology is ideologically an integral part of the project of colonialism. He argues that “pre-independence anthropologists were 'apologists for colonialism' and devious agents of colonial supremacy” (1973, 15). Both Said and Asad's work, along with that of other anthropologists, brought the discipline into crisis as anthropologists felt guilty about the history of the discipline. While it has indeed led to a “crisis of representation,” I would argue that it has also propagated and fueled the tension between pure and applied forms of anthropology. This is not to say that it originated from this fault, but I believe that it has played a role in moving some anthropologists away from applied forms of work towards a more theoretical framework. This can be seen when scholars such as Escobar use Asad's argument to compare the “developmental encounter” with the colonial one, in which they argue that an anthropologyof development will resonate with the discipline's relationship to colonialism (1995: 14). I believe that James Ferguson, as a post-development scholar like Escobar, would have a similar point of view as he describes development and its anthropological study as the “evil twin”.Deconstructing the “evil twin”The introduction of this essay has saw a quote from Ferguson's article which established that the evil twin in the title of the essay referred to the anthropology of development rather than development itself. This section will take a closer look at the term “evil twin”. It seeks to understand the implications of a linguistic choice while providing a possible alternative in the form of a “moral twin”. The relationship between the pure and applied forms of the discipline has always been conflictual, where the former “considers the latter to be second-rate, both intellectually and morally, while the latter regards the formal as irrelevant, both theoretically and politically” ( Gow 2002 : 299, see Ferguson 1997). This has been a matter of debate since Malinowski advocated a more practical anthropology through his contribution to politics while Evans Pritchard advocated an opposite approach and distanced himself from this applied anthropology (Lewis 2005 : 1, cf. Grillo 2002 ). Ferguson would describe this debate as a “Jekyll and Hyde conflict”, where the academic side is the good doctor while the applied side refers to his evil counterpart (1997: 170). Indeed, he would argue that this is specific to anthropology since other disciplines such as sociology and political science pose this problem as a “question not so much for applied researchers as for 'area studies' or 'international' specialists – a distinction that has little meaning. strength in anthropology, where everyone is an area studies specialist” (1997: 150). However, this Jekyll and Hyde metaphor along with the use of the term “evil” to describe the applied mode of anthropology is enough to take its place in the debate. He argues that it is bad because it “conflicts with the most basic theoretical and political commitments of his own discipline” (ibid.). But they are also twins because they also share the distinctive specialization of the sector, “which always has to do with the 'less', the 'below', the 'not-yet'. . . developed" (ibid.). These characteristics are what make them the "unwanted ghost" or "uninvited relative" who haunts the discipline with their presence (ibid.). David Gow would challenge the above-held view of the evil twin while he would argue that developmental anthropology is, in fact, a moral twin. Gow argues that Ferguson, with his use of the term evil, is questioning developmental anthropology in moral terms applied side of the discipline lies in its inability to transform development into something that is not morally problematic (Gow 2002). He takes this point and expands on it by arguing that one way to better understand the anthropology of development would be to try to do “a” critical analysis of the values, particularly ethics, underlying this subfield” (Gow 2002: 300). Martha C Nussbaum to argue that the focus must be on the moral narrative. He argues that anthropology needs to define and specify its moral values ​​since the emphasis of any project should be placed on “the quality of life that will result from the attainment of these rights and needs” (2002: 309). One could escape the “tyranny of ideology, academic discipline and political fashion” by structuring valuesof development around the moral question, as opposed to an economic or political question. While this argument is quite compelling and proposes a more optimistic future for developmental anthropology, there is one example in his work that is perplexing. It is disconcerting especially in the context of his moral narrative since the statement he cites from Michael Cowen and Robert Shenton's work on development is quite problematic and elitist in nature (see Szpotoicz 2015). He states that the intervention of international development organizations is imperative because “national elites in the third world are generally corrupt and show little interest in such populist” moral approaches to development. This statement is in line with the idea of ​​development that promotes difference. and argued that the West was superior and better in so-called underdeveloped areas. This makes the entire narrative rather disturbing, but in my opinion it doesn't detract from his argument. Therefore, the idea of ​​a developmental anthropology built on a moral narrative is still a powerful idea, but one might question the ethics and moral assumptions that Gow has in his mind. This is not yet to say that this is a superior or inferior approach to Ferguson's Evil Twin. The purpose of this particular section is to contrast Ferguson's disdain for the evil twin of discipline with Gow's celebration of the field as a moral twin (see Gardner, Lewis 2015: 5). Anthropology and its engagement with development. This commitment is not only important for understanding the anthropologist's popular stance towards development, but also paves the way for us to question a number of assumptions put forward by James Ferguson in his work on anthropology and the evil twin. He would argue that development and therefore the field of developmental anthropology sets out to destroy the very thing that the discipline loves to study. He states that a study of “the modernization of people might well have considerable applied or political significance,” but could hardly be “central to the most prestigious arena of anthropological theory” which has been built on the study of “societies as little contaminated by development as possible” (1997: 146). While this may have been a dominant idea when Ferguson wrote his essay, it is no longer applicable to the current world of anthropology. The introduction of subfields such as urban and digital anthropology meant that anthropology was no longer a study of local or primitive culture. This is to argue that even the theoretical aspect of the discipline that has nothing to do with development does so in one form or another. I would like to reiterate Lewis's argument that anthropologists do not have a clear position when it comes to its relationship to development. In the context of this reiteration, the following paragraphs and subsections examine some of the ways in which the discipline has moved beyond studying development strictly through an applied lens. Katy Gardner and David Lewis would revisit, update, and republish their book, Anthropology, and Development: Challenges for the 21st Century, in 2015 as the idea of ​​development has changed since the book was first published in 1996 (2015). Development is no longer something that only happens in the third world. As seen in the section reviewing the history of development, the term has moved beyond economic terms to also include factors such as environmental concerns and more. These new ideas of development as sustainable goals also apply to so-called developed countries. This means that a development anthropology is not limited to studying a society with “modernized” people, but can also work in and on so-called countries. (1995: 64).