Cultural freedom The 2004 Human Development Report asserts the importance of culture as a

serious part of life and entitlements, the denial of which leads to ‘significant deprivations’ (p13). With its emphasis on ‘freedom in cultural spheres’, the report is a blast of liberalism in a field in which group rights have predominated over individual rights and concerns for cultural conservation over advocacy for change. As the report states, ‘cultural liberty is an important aspect of human freedom, central to the capability of people to live as they would like and to have the opportunity to choose from the options they have – or can have’ (p13). The fundamentals of a particular vision of the human development approach are thus re-stated: secular states are apparently the most likely to expand human freedom and human rights, and to recognize democracy.

The report is very clear that the recognition of culture derives from, but is ultimately of secondary importance to, the ultimate value of freedom. As the overview observes, cultural liberty is about defending individual choices, not about preserving values or tradition as an end in itself. Cultural liberty is about ‘being able to choose one’s identity – who one is – without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices ...’ (UNDP, 2004, p10).

Much of this is familiar from the ‘cultural rights’ enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights: the right to nationality (article 15); to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 18); to participate freely in community cultural life (article 27); and duties to the community, including to respect the rights and freedoms of others. What is distinctive is the overwhelming emphasis on choice and the individual, and the tendency to elide

CULTURE AND RELIGION

‘culture’ with ‘lifestyle’. This needs to be subjected to far more critical discussion. While the power relations of cultural conservatism do gain some recognition, there is no general examination of ‘individual choice’ (and, for example, its implication in global marketing) in the way that Sen cautioned against taking ‘subjective preferences’ in intra-household bargaining on their own terms.

There is partial recognition of the materiality of culture, in discussions of its impact on poverty and in leading to the relative deprivation of being unable to participate in social life in accordance with local norms (UNDP, 2004, p14). The language of exclusion also links it to the social and political. Cultural exclusion is said to take two forms: ‘participation exclusion’ – discrimination in education, employment, politics, etc; and ‘living mode exclusion’, which ‘denies recognition of a lifestyle that a group chooses to have’ (ibid.).

As mentioned above, the report’s analysis of ‘culture’ owes much to recent theorizing of identity. It usefully draws attention to the multiplicity of identities that any individual has, thereby contesting approaches that apply a single label to an entire national, ethnic, cultural or religious group:

Typically, each individual can identify with many different groups.

A person may have an identity of citizenship (for example, being French), gender (being a woman), race (being of Chinese origin), regional ancestry (having come from Thailand), language (being fluent in Thai, Chinese and English, in addition to French), politics (having left-wing views), religion (being a Buddhist), profession (being a lawyer), location (being a resident of Paris), sports-affiliation (being a badminton player and a golf fanatic), musical taste (loving jazz and hip-hop), literary preference (enjoy- ing detective stories), food habits (being a vegetarian) and so on. (UNDP, 2004, p17)

The problem with this list is that it mixes up the socially significant (class, gender, ethnicity) with the trivial (liking badminton or hip-hop). This takes away from the serious points it could potentially make. The report admits that the choices are limited – you cannot choose to be a Sumo wrestler if you are not one – but goes on: ‘Within the range of the memberships that you actually have, you can choose what priority to give to one membership or another, in

a particular context’ (UNDP, 2004, p17). In reality, however, there are some aspects of our identity – such as, for most of us, gender, age, ethnicity and perhaps class – which we cannot change. We may be able to choose how we represent them by how we dress, use make- up, style our hair, etc., but we do not, crucially, have power over how others read them, and how they act towards us as a result. While, for privileged people in particular, these basic identifiers may not appear to be of particular importance much of the time, when caught on the wrong side of town at the wrong time of day, they can suddenly become all that you are seen to be. Even

TOPICS

in ordinary times, as West and Fenstermaker (1995) argue in their paper ‘Doing difference’, women may be treated equally but are always ‘at the risk of’ a gender assessment, just as people of colour are always ‘at the risk of’ racial assessment. These basic forms of social difference may affect the way that you play badminton or how your choice of music is perceived, but they operate at a very different level, and should not be equated with such contingent preferences. The critical issues concern freedom from discrimination or victimization and the right to respect and equality of opportunity, regardless of one’s gender, age, sexuality, disability or racial/ethnic/religious community. And while this affects the life chances of individuals, it cannot simply be analysed at an individual level.

Other parts of the report are more useful. Recognition of the plural histories of tolerance and democracy is an important ballast against Eurocentric views. The discussion of multicultural institutions is valuable, although it would be good to see more discussion of the Indian experience of caste reservation, and the ways in which policies to address disadvantage can often end up re-enforcing the very identities they recognize. However, as the closing statement of the overview makes clear, the main thrust of the report is

a robust assertion of liberalism: ‘Individuals have to shed rigid identities if they are to become part of diverse societies and uphold cosmopolitan values of tolerance and respect for human rights’(UNDP, 2004, p23).

In closing, it may be helpful to reflect upon Inga-Britt Krause’s (1998, p2) description of how, when beginning psychotherapy with clients from different cultural backgrounds, there is a common experience of paradox. At first, there is an easy personal connection, but then this is followed by a gulf of unknowing. It is perhaps this sense of unknowing that development academics and practitioners need to rediscover. Rather than thinking of the culture of others as a lens, it may be equally useful to become more aware of how ‘our’ higher order, intermediate norms, positions within social structure and political economy, institutional cultures, disciplinary persuasions and professional techniques themselves act as lenses, condition us and, in turn, pre- shape our understanding of other lives.

Questions

11.1 How, as a development worker, would you respond to a context in

which most men claim that it is inappropriate for them to share household tasks with women?

11.2 Is the human development and capability approach, with its focus on

freedom, a culturally embedded approach to development?

11.3 How do you see globalization as reducing and/or emphasizing cultural difference?

CULTURE AND RELIGION

Notes

1 See the topic of ‘Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development’ under the heading ‘Urban Development’ in the ‘Topics’ section of the World Bank website at www.worldbank.org. 2 See for example www.survival-international.org.

Readings

Appadurai, A. (2004) ‘The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition’,

in V. Rao and M. Walton (eds) Culture and Public Action, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?, Macmillan, London Das, V. (2000) ‘The act of witnessing: Violence, poisonous knowledge, and

subjectivity’, in V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Ramphele and P. Reynolds (eds), Violence and Subjectivity, University of California Press, Berkeley

Good, B. J. (1994) Medicine, Rationality and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Huntington, S. P. (2000) ‘Foreword: Cultures count’, in L. E. Harrison and S. P. Huntington (eds) Culture matters: How values shape human progress, Basic Books, New York

Inkeles, A. (1969) ‘Making men modern: On the causes and consequences of

individual change in six developing countries’, American Journal of Sociology, vol

75, no 2, pp208–225 Krauss, I. B. (1998) Therapy Across Culture, Sage, London Leigh Pigg, S. (1992) ‘Inventing social categories through place: Social representations

and development in Nepal’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol 34, no 3, pp491–521

Li, T. Murray (1996) ‘Images of community: Discourse and strategy in property relations’, Development and Change, vol 27, no 3, pp501–528 Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Nussbaum, M. and Glover, J. (eds) (1995) Women, Culture and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford Obeyesekere, G. (1990) The Work of Culture: Symbolic Transformation in Psychoanalysis and Anthropology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Rao, V. and Walton, M. (eds) (2004), Culture and Public Action, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA; see also www.cultureandpublicaction.org/ Sahlins, M. (1976) Culture and Practical Reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organisation, University of California Press, Berkeley Sen, A. K. (1991) ‘Gender and co-operative conflicts’, in I. Tinker (ed.) Persistent Inequalities, Oxford University Press, Oxford Sen, A. K. (2004) ‘How does culture matter’ in V. Rao and M. Walton (eds), Culture and Public Action, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA Sen, A. (2006) Identity and Violence, W. Norton, New York Seralgeldin, I. and Martin-Brown, J. (1999) Culture in Sustainable Development:

Investing in Cultural and Natural Endowments, The World Bank, Washington, DC

TOPICS

Shehabuddin, E. (2008) Reshaping the Holy. Democracy, Development and Muslim Women in Bangladesh, Columbia University Press, New York UNDP (2004) Human Development Report: Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World, UNDP, New York; available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/ UNESCO (1995) Our Creative Diversity, Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2000) World Culture Report, UNICEF, Paris West, C. and Fenstermaker, S. (1995) ‘Doing difference’, Gender and Society, vol 9,

no 1, pp8–37 White, S. C. (1996) ‘Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation’, Development in Practice, vol 6, no 1, pp6–15

Cultural freedom The 2004 Human Development Report asserts the importance of culture as a