Ìdàgbàsókѐ: An African Notion of Organic Development Ethics

Introduction

Intense controversies are surrounding the different conceptions and definitions of development. This is because development is a topic that is considered from different perspectives by scholars of different orientations and persuasions using different models and theories. The term is a highly contested and an ambiguous idea. However, it is crucial for every group of people to define it from their contexts because of its nature as a normative cum empirical concept. In essence, what is meant by describing development as a normative cum empirical concept is that a people’s definition of development determines their model of development, which in turn determines the kind of life such people would lead. Many scholars in academia and other facets of life are particularly interested in the subject of development because it affects how everyone in society lives their life. In most cases, development is considered to be desirable and important because it determines the quality of life that people live. According to McGillivray

The term “development” is one that has many different meanings. While many overlap, some inherently contradict each other. To many people, development is either a process or outcome that is often bad in terms of its impact on people and the societies in which they live. Some others see development as both a process and an outcome, and as necessarily good. These people see development as something that should be sought after. (McGillivray, 2016, p. 21)

As a matter of fact, it is difficult to define development across different spatiotemporal situations because it assumes different meanings at different times, places, and instances. Also, in different human activities and endeavors, development is perceived through different prisms. Rist notes, for example, that:

When psychologists speak of the development of intelligence, mathematicians of the development of an equation or photographers of the development of a film, the sense they give to the word development is clear enough. Its definition is shared by everyone working within the same area. The situation is quite different, however, when it comes to the use of the word in ordinary language to denote either a state or process associated with such concepts as material well-being, progress, social justice, economic growth, personal blossoming, or even ecological equilibrium. (Rist, 2014, p. 6)

However, despite the diverse and even sometimes incongruent conceptions and definitions of development, it is imperative to note that, just like the Augustinian concept of time, its ambiguity does not make it irrelevant as a subject of discourse. As a matter of fact, its ambiguous nature makes it essential for people to define the term for themselves after engaging in rigorous and critical thinking about its implications for their existence and well-being. According to Penz et al.

[D]evelopment is a notoriously ambiguous term. It can refer to a social goal, an ideal of social well-being to which peoples, their governments and international agencies aspire. It can also refer to a complex of social and economic policies, practices and changes that lead towards achieving such a goal. Typically, economic development policies and practices promoting growth have been advocated for the development goal of reducing or eliminating poverty: economic growth would provide employment for the poor purchasing power for consumers to buy what people could produce and a tax base with which governments could provide essential services to the poor, including schooling to make them more competitive in job markets. There is no doubt that development since 1950 has accomplished much of this. Life expectancy and educational levels have increased dramatically. Nevertheless, some of the development practices serving these goals have been far from ideal. (Penz et al., 2011, p. 2)

Therefore, the notion development is of paramount significance in contemporary Africa because most of the countries on the continent are categorized either as “developing” or as “underdeveloped.” In addition, since development is intricately connected with global power play and the quality of life that can be available to the citizens of any particular country, the matter of development becomes crucial and more relevant than ever before.

Africa’s worrisome state of underdevelopment is evident in the level of poverty, infrastructural decay, and political debacle in virtually every country on the African continent. One begins to wonder why it is taking so long for development to reach the continent, especially countries that have been sovereign for over six decades already. The problem is that many of the leaders lack the necessary understanding of development ethics. This article, as a normative exercise, intends to look back to traditional Africa to address the ethical questions surrounding development, so that Africa could rise above underdevelopment, a state which many of its nations have occupied for decades. This feat can be achieved, however, only after a successful conceptual clarification of development has been achieved. Therefore, this essay considers it crucial to raise and address fundamental, ethical, and sociopolitical questions about development in the African context.

The Popular Image of Development

Development is popularly viewed in the light of a country’s level of technological advancement and economic growth (capacities). When countries are classified as developed or developing, the parameter of categorization is usually how well or otherwise the countries are faring technologically or economically. Perhaps this is the reason the most popular theories of development are economic theories. Examples include Adam Smith’s theory, utilitarianism, Ricardian theory, Keynesian economics, neoliberalism, Marxism, capitalism, welfarism, and structuralism. Therefore, many scholars, as well as ordinary people, believe that there is a necessary nexus between a state’s technological advancement and its level of development. In this regard, Rist (2014, p. 1) argues that “the strength of ‘development’ discourse comes from its power to seduce, in every sense of the term: to charm, to please, to fascinate, to set dreaming, but also to abuse; to turn away from the truth, to deceive”.

The conception of development as technology- and economy-based and -driven means that the indices for development are characteristically not taken to be human-related. The view or conception of development as a fundamentally technological and economic issue has thrived for so long. As a result, many governments have constantly disregarded how people’s lives are affected in their pursuit of development. This has led to forceful and insensitive displacement, dislodgement, and relocation of people from their ancestral homes or lands; for example, Penz et al. note that:

Development has uprooted people not only from homes, but homelands to which they may have been tied by old ancestral bonds. Sometimes it is highly visible. The removal of people to make room for roads, railway lines, industrial plants, harbours and urban expansion and redevelopment has been evident in centres where decisions are made and where those who portray social changes to the rest of society—including journalists, academics, activists—are typically located. It can be far less visible when it occurs in the more politically peripheral places where dams, canals and mines are developed, or where people are cleared from forests, either for logging or for conservation. Less visible still is displacement brought about without such interventions as eviction or forcible resettlement, for instance, when development policies or processes undermine livelihoods or render habitats unlivable or unsafe. (Penz et al., 2011, p. 1)

In other words, wrong conceptions of development have caused untold suffering to many people around the world and justified grave violations of people’s fundamental human rights, especially in Africa. The zealousness to “develop” cities has made authorities inflict untold hardship on many citizens.

Although there has been a temporal evolution from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age in recent years, the image of development has not shifted away from technological and economic prowess. This is because, in this digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) or information and communications technology (ICT) drive the economy of developed and prosperous nations.

Most people in traditional African societies lived in communities, and the level of bonding among people in different compounds within each community was cordial, congenial, and sometimes fraternal. However, since the introduction of the idea of development as technology or the economy, things have changed in terms of relationship and cooperation in Africa. Due to the odious impacts of slave trade and colonialism, many Africans have been urbanized and, therefore, seem to care less and less whether and how others fare as long as the goals of technological advancement and economic development are realized.

Much more than countries and societies in other parts of the world, many of the African nation-states have been grappling with the problem of underdevelopment for many years. Different theorists and scholars have weighed in on how to engender development in Africa. However, despite the volumes that have been written on both development and the paucity of it, very little has been done to change the deplorable condition in which many people live on the African continent. Warburton observes, for example, that:

The issue of underdevelopment in Africa is a perplexing quandary, which spans several generations and several personalities. There seems to be no isolated answer to the question of African underdevelopment, but the explanations could be sought from within three significant historical experiences: (i) colonialism (ii) failed colonial states; and (iii) a debt crisis. (Warburton, 2005, p. 1)

Looking critically at the three indices of the menace of underdevelopment in Africa identified by Warburton (2005), the last two, in my opinion, are offshoots of the first index. It is important to note that while I do not intend to essentialize Africa, the colonial experience is indelible. This is because, after several years of colonial rule, the damaging effects of the experience, especially on the African psyche (again, I am aware of the collective singular employed here), are still omnipresent. Psychological and epistemic colonization which accompanied actual possession of African lands persists up to this day to perpetuate the margin of global relevance to which Africa has been sidelined as a result of colonial domination and subjugation.

In many African states, both the economy and politics reflect their deplorable state of development; for example, the living conditions of many indicate a level of poverty that, given the abundance of natural and human resources available on the continent, is virtually unimaginable.

Another popular conception of development is how much an individual possesses in terms of investments, assets, and property. This worldview has introduced many vices into contemporary African societies. The following section will examine how the popular image of development crept into the consciousness of Africans and how it has formed the basis of Africa’s underdevelopment.

The Crisis of (Under)development in Africa

Many countries in Africa have been categorized as “developing” for decades. It is particularly disheartening that Africa is believed to be a different world or a “sub-world”—Third World. As a matter of fact, even when a supposedly non-derogatory designation of Global South is used to refer to Africa, the term is used to imply the “unfortunate” other of the ideal continents.

It is important to ask when Africa became undeveloped. In other words, is it the case that Africa has always been undeveloped, or it became undeveloped at some point in history. Before Africans were enslaved and colonized, they did not see themselves as undeveloped people. However, in the wake of colonization, the colonizers, in a bid to justify their unfortunate project, argued they went on a civilizing mission.

According to them, African peoples were uncivilized savages that needed the illumination of civilization, which could only be provided by the allegedly altruistic scheme of colonization. This was the justification projected as the reason for colonizing the African people, although the real reasons behind colonizing Africans were both economic and strategic/military might. Being a continent rich in mineral resources, Africa was invaded by the colonizers for exploitation of cheap labor, natural resources, and the like; for instance, “the rising demand in industrial countries for tropical food, raw materials and minerals was one of the main economic reasons for colonization in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and this, of course, implied rural, not urban development” (Elkan 1975, p. 656). In other words, not only did the colonizers not come for the purpose of “helping” the people of Africa to develop the continent, but they also did not do this despite it being their main argument to support colonization.

Although there was intense opposition, and deadly conflicts determined the outset of the colonization process, the colonizers, because of their superior lethal weapons, subdued Africans, and centuries of painful subjugation began. The struggle was exacerbated by the division of the African continent among the colonial powers. This was the genesis of Africa’s marginalization.

To avoid the backlash and continued struggle which colonial domination attracted, many African countries were granted independence in the mid-twentieth century. However, while Africans were given political independence, economic independence, which would have contradicted or thwarted the colonizers’ interests in Africa, was withheld. In other words, colonization had two strands—political and economic. While the political rein was given to the colonies, the economic rein was retained by the colonizers. This has been the apparatus put in place to ensure that Africans are perpetually in subjection to the imperialists. Without economic independence, the political independence received by the colonies is hollow, indeed meaningless. The dependence of the African continent on their erstwhile colonizers continues unabated.

Having given African states an “independence” that is devoid of true freedom from subjugation and marginalization, the colonial hegemons changed the term describing the continent of Africa from uncivilized to underdeveloped. Also, the modus operandi of control changed to providing financial aids to the continent, even though conditions that do not encourage development are simultaneously put in place.

This has many undesirable outcomes and places many difficult demands on Africa; for example, the “assistance” given in the form of financial aid compels African nations to take orders from their former colonizers and their allies, even when such orders are not in their best interest. The aim of giving financial aid is arguably not to fully develop the undeveloped regions but to put them in a perpetual state of subjugation and servitude.

Another ill that comes out of receiving aids from the so-called advanced economies is that certain policies are foisted on Africans which make their benefactors enjoy the larger share of the proceeds from the abundant natural resources in the continent. In fact, “development has consisted of ‘bad’ change and ‘bad’ outcomes through the imposition of Western ethnocentric notions of development upon the Third World. This is the ‘post-modern’ conceptualization of development” (Sumner & Tribe, 2008, p. 14).

It is important to note that the discourse on the impacts of colonialism on Africa is a controversial one, which has generated opposing positions even among African scholars. Some African scholars (Rodney, 2018) argue, for example, that colonization is responsible for Africa’s underdevelopment. The submission of most of the Afrocentric scholars who hold this view is that Western ideas are all evil and should be jettisoned without any consideration. In my view, this is an extreme position. However, there is another extreme position of some other African scholars, referred to as “Afrosceptics” by Horsthemke. On the one hand, these scholars (Igwe, 2012; Waruiru, 2022) believe that colonialism is in Africa’s past and should be left there. In other words, Africa’s current woes have no connection with the continent’s colonial history. The scholars also argue, on the other hand, that if there is anything that could be ascribed to the colonizers, they were Africa’s benefactors rather than exploiters. This, for them, is because, raising the question of how developed Africa was before it was colonized

The answer is that they did not know how to write, read, plough, or make a wheel. It is not hard to prove that Africa was not in an equally advanced state before colonialism and the slave trade.…If Africa was not economically wealthy before colonization, then it is not fair to blame colonization for its current poverty. (Igwe 2012, pp. 7–8)

Horsethemke (2008), however, argues for a balanced perspective to addressing Africa’s problem of underdevelopment. He refers to this as “Afrorealism.” Afrorealism encourages a method of solving Africa’s current problems by considering Africa’s current realities to build an Africa, which employs extant global practices (especially, the truth and reconciliation commission [which was employed in post-apartheid South Africa and post-war Rwanda] and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development [NEPAD]) to confront its challenge of underdevelopment. Badru and Omotoso (2014, p. 93) also hold a similar view by advocating “an enriched form of Africanity: it borrows from the foreign other to enrich the African self, giving it a more robust outlook. This, of course, assumes that the borrowings are critically selective, pragmatically appropriate, and properly synthesized”. While I agree with Horsethemke that global policies and practices are useful, Although I agree with Horsthemke that Africans should not abhor or rebuff policies and solutions from other regions of the world, I am rather of the view that such imported ideas should be alternatives to be explored only when homegrown methods fail or are considered unpragmatic.

The next section will examine the importance of development ethics and some of the arguments of some development ethicists to put the issue of development in perspective. This is crucial to show that, even within the mainstream development discourse, some Western and Oriental scholars reject the popular conception of development as a predominantly economy- or technology-based issue.

The Cruciality of Development Ethics

Development ethics refers to a critical evaluation of the goals and means of development. In any worthwhile discourse on development, it is important to ask why any particular country or people seek development. Unless this reason is properly considered, such development could, at the end of the day, be pseudo development rather than real development. According to Crocker

Development ethicists assess the ends and means of local, national, regional and global development. National policymakers, project managers, grassroots communities, and international aid donors involved in development in developing countries often confront moral questions in their work. Development scholars recognize that social scientific theories of “development” and “underdevelopment” have ethical as well as empirical and policy components. Development philosophers and other ethicists formulate ethical principles relevant to social change in poor countries, and they analyze and assess the moral dimensions of development theories and seek to resolve the moral quandaries lurking in development policies and practice. (Crocker, 2008, p. 35)

Until recently, there has been very little acknowledgment of the importance of ethics to the analysis of development. Many theorists still see no connection between ethics and development because of the popular image of development as a purely economic idea, which technology makes realizable. Development has been viewed as outside the sphere of ethical concern and deliberation because it has been seen as value-neutral, which means that development commonly has a descriptive, empirical connotation. Also, traditional ethics was defined as a study of morality, but with limitation to interpersonal relations. Only recently has the horizon of ethics broadened to consider issues affecting nations and continents. Therefore, the underlying philosophies that have been guiding people’s attitudes and considerations, in relation to development, are sayings such as “the end justifies the means” or “all is fair in love and war.” In the words of Bennaars

The problematic factor appears to be ethics, which is not normally linked to development. Until recently, issues pertaining to development were predominantly studied from an economic perspective. Development—according to this well-established approach—must be analyzed in terms of a business-like strictly economic logic. During the 1970s, the dependency theorists advocated, in reaction, an entirely new, radical approach. These scholars sought to link ideological and economic issues in their study of underdevelopment, as it was typically called. Their revolutionary stand proved, in the end, to be unsuccessful. It succeeded, however, in one important point: it broadened the study of development to include non-economic variables. Presently, during the 1990s, a novel emphasis on ethical matters is noticeable. In fact, we may begin to speak of a third approach that allocates a central place to the ethical alternative in the study of development. … This theory derives its foundation from a conceptualization of ethics that centres around human personhood and human community. Such a human-centred approach to ethics and development has of late found expression in the human rights movement. (Bennaars, 1993, p. viii)

The problem of viewing ethics and development as being categorically distinct is responsible for how people have been made to suffer displacement and humiliation in the name of enhancing the development of their communal and physical environment. While many people are not particularly averse to development, the means of pursuing or engendering development, in some places, are not helping matters. This culminates in resistance from the people who are at the receiving end of the problems associated with the process of bringing about the development, which in turn results in altercation and conflicts. However, this usually stems from the fact that ethical considerations are not included in such pursuit of development. For instance

Development has also been a source of large-scale human suffering in so far as it has displaced people, evicting entire communities and denying families their accustomed livelihoods. Here is the paradox—the tension between development as an ideal and development as an actual process—with which we are confronted when development causes displacement. (Penz et al., 2011, p. 2)

Thus, some development ethicists argue that true development is about people. To put it simply, they contend that “people are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development” (Maiti 1971, p. 23). In other words, even if development should focus on the economy or technology, this should be carefully considered in relation to how people’s lives and location are impacted by the consequences of such a development process. For Sen (1999), freedom is central to the idea of development. Therefore, if people’s freedoms are not enhanced or ensured, there is no true development. In the words of Sen

Development can be seen, it is argued here, as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Focusing on human freedoms contrasts with narrower views of development such as identifying development with the growth of the gross national product, or with the rise in personal incomes, or with industrialization, or with technological advance, or with social modernization. (Sen, 1999, p. 3)

Sen argues that both positive and negative freedoms must be safeguarded to engender development. In other words, while people are not explicitly constrained or inhibited (positive freedom), there could be certain factors that limit their freedoms. Such limitations must be removed (negative freedom) in order for development to be ethically defensible. In his view, there are a number of such limitations, which include poverty, denial of the opportunity to participate in the political process, among others. Therefore, for him

Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states. Despite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers – perhaps even the majority – of people. …In still other cases, the violation of freedom results directly from a denial of political and civil liberties by authoritarian regimes and from imposed restrictions on the freedom to participate in the social, political and economic life of the community. (Sen, 1999, pp. 3–4)

Looking critically at the points of development ethicists, especially the position of Amartya Sen, many African countries are still far from being called “developed.” However, one of the grave problems that Africans have been battling since they came in contact with the colonizers is their obsession with foreign blueprints and paradigms. This problem is due to mental colonization that the continent has suffered, which is the most formidable of the weapons of colonization employed against the continent. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine what development meant in the days of our African ancestors before their colonial experience.

Ìdàgbásòkè: An Ethic of Development in Africa

Among the Yorùbá people of West Africa, development is called ìdàgbásòkè. This also refers to growth in chronological age. Among the Yorùbá, however, chronological age is not as important as developmental age. This is because the Yorùbá believe that as one grows older, the person is required to display signs or traits of wisdom and maturity that the young and inexperienced mostly lack. That is why the people say: Tí a bá n dàgbà, a má n yé ogun jà ni (When people grow older, they [should] desist from fighting or causing troubles).

The moral traits of development, growth, and maturity, which developed people should exhibit, according to the Yorùbá, include ὶwà rere (good/appropriate character), ὶwà pẹ̀lẹ́ (gentle character), ὶwà tútù (peaceful character), ọgbón (wisdom), and sùúrù (patience). These traits are the indices of development among the Yorùbá. This means, therefore, that development is not measured by how affluent a person is. Among the Yorùbá, the notion of development is holistic. A human being, apart from being a constituent part of society, is also microcosm of society. Therefore, the qualities that characterize a developed person also characterize a developed society, community, or country. A developed person is expected to possess and display all the traits of development and not just one or two of the traits, and this also applies to the larger society. Therefore, a person who has all the traits of development is referred to as Ọmọlúàbí.

Ìwà rere (good or appropriate character) occupies the center of the social existence of the Yorùbá. The Yorùbá show their children the path of good character from childhood. They have various sayings, proverbs, adages, folklore, tales, and fables by which they teach children the importance of good character. For the Yorùbá, good character is superior to opulence and beauty. Hence, they say ὶwà rere lèṣọ́/lọ̀ṣọ́ ènὶyàn, (which means that good character is the adornment or treasure of a human being). The Yorùbá also say ọmọ tí a kò kọ́ ni yó ò gbé ilé tí a kọ́ tà (a child that is not trained or taught good character would sell off the wealth amassed by the parents). As a matter of fact

The ultimate aim of the Yorùbá moral code is to inculcate in the citizenry the elements of ideal character (ὶwà). Hence, the popular saying: Ìwà l’òrìsà – bí a bá ṣe hù ú sí ní í fi gbe ni sí (good character is like an òrìsà (deity) – the more we cultivate it, the more it favors us). In other words, since good character generates admiration and love, it paves the way for success in life. It also adds to the beauty (ẹwà) of a person. (Lawal, 1996, p. 26)

Ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́ (gentle character) and ὶwà tútù (peaceful character) are also important signs of development and maturity among the Yorùbá. A morally developed person must not be rash or vengeful. Many people who hold the erroneous conception of development believe that an indicator of development is a well-equipped armory with different kinds of destructive and deadly weapons that can annihilate the entirety of humanity within minutes. This worldview is inconsistent with the Yorùbá idea of development. For the Yorùbá, a developed world is a peaceful world. Ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́ is related to a person’s destiny. Without ὶwà, especially ὶwà pẹ̀lẹ́, good destiny that brings good fortune cannot be realized. This is because “destiny is personified as ὶwà, character, and it is the development of ὶwà pẹ̀lẹ́, good character, gentle character, which is the moral responsibility of every Yorùbá man or woman” (Murphy, 1992, p. 3).

Ogbọ́n (wisdom) is another important attribute or indicator of development. Like the virtue of phronesis in the virtue ethics of Aristotle, the Yorùbá people also attach importance to practical wisdom. Ọmọlúàbí must know how to handle every situation in such a way that difficulties are surmounted. Hence, the Yorùbá rate wisdom higher than strength or power. According to them, ọgbọ́n ju agbára lọ (wisdom is greater than strength or wisdom surpasses power). The Yorùbá sages also say the following to underscore the importance of ọgbọ́n as a sign of development:

Ọgbọ́n ọlọ́gbọ́n ni kì í jẹ́ ká pe àgbà ní wèèrè … (The person who can learn from others [especially the elders] will avoid a lot of embarrassment). Ọgbọ́n pẹ̀lú u sùúrù la fi ń mú eerin wọ̀lú (The most difficult tasks can be accomplished with wisdom and patience). (Owomoyela, 2005, pp. 138, 190)

The last attribute to be considered in this essay, which the Yorùbá believe is vital for development, is sùúrù (patience). The Yorùbá associate patience with development and maturity. Hence, they say àgbà tó ní sùúrù, ohun gbogbo ló ní (An elder that possesses the virtue of patience, possesses everything, that is, every virtue and every valuable). Sùúrù (patience) is one of the key hallmarks of ọmọlúàbí.

As a matter of fact, a developed person is expected to cultivate the virtue of patience before any other virtue. This is because patience is the platform that helps to sustain the other virtues. Obviously, this viewpoint is contrary to the popular analysis of development, which sees aggressiveness, hegemony, and bullying as the characters of the powerful and developed. Many of the conflicts and wars that claim many lives and property today are embarked upon because many people lack sùúrù.

In all, all the attributes that have been discussed as found in ọmọlúàbí pertain to the model of development which the Yorùbá approve of not only for persons but also for societies. In other words, the qualities examined in this article should not be seen as synonymous with the stages of moral development identified by Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan; rather, they should be seen as the Yoruba (African) paradigms, parameters, and model of development. The question is: going by the indices of development which have been analyzed, how many of the countries that are famous as developed countries are actually developed?

Conclusion

This essay has looked at the traditional conception of development, which holds that development is engendered, measured, and enhanced exclusively by technology and the economy. The traditional conception of development also views development and ethics as concepts in different unrelated categories. The essay also examined the position of development ethicists that the goal of development should be how to enhance people’s freedoms and remove the factors that prevent people from maximizing their freedoms. It took a cursory look at the genesis of Africa’s underdevelopment and the main reasons why the continent has perpetually remained underdeveloped. At the latter part, the essay analyzed what development meant in traditional Africa. The analysis reveals the nexus between development and morality. As a matter of fact, a person must develop ìwà rere, ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́, ìwà tútù, ọgbón and sùúrù, before they can claim to be ọmọlúàbí. Hence, development is about cultivating the moral traits of ọmọlúàbí.

To sum it up, the main argument of this essay is that in order to address the problem of underdevelopment in Africa, Africans must look inward and ask important questions. It is very crucial for contemporary Africans to critically analyze their conceptions and models of development. It is vital to consider how the imported paradigms have made development elusive and how to reintroduce the traditional values of ọmọlúàbí (ìwà rere, ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́, ìwà tútù, ọgbón and sùúrù) to build a developed continent, where there will be peace.