May 2004 - CiteSeerX

A R T I C L E

Mainstreaming Religion in SustainableDevelopment- A Causal Layered Analysis

Sanne Agnete TikjoebCopenhagen Business SchoolDenmark

.47

Journal of Futures Studies, May 2004, 8(4): 47 - 60

Abstract

The paper deconstructs "sustainable development" by using Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) as a criticalfutures research framework. It does this in the context of understanding the issue of mainstreaming religion inleading International Development Institutions (IDI). The goal is a set of strategies for transforming IDI's vis avis their current model of sustainability. The result, brought about by applying the CLA framework in an upwardmotion, reveals how religion could be introduced as a cross-cutting issue in the present development framework;advocating the ability of religion to eradicate poverty; level genders, save the environment, conduct good gover-nance, and promote private sector development. Thereby, a former controversial issue is mainstreamed to a levelof public acceptance.

Introducing the Use of Causal LayeredAnalysis

The paper sets out to deconstruct the concept ofsustainable development (SD). Working through thefour layers of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), the analysisunveils the political, scientific, and discursive aspects ofSD to finally disclose the myths beneath our under-standing and use of the term. Then, in an upwardmotion, using the same four-level typology of CLA, find-ings at the root of a deconstructed understanding of SDare utilised in the generation of new myths, theories,strategies, and policies of an expanded concept of SD.

The Strategic Case

The motivation is for mainstreaming the contro-versial issue of religion in the current developmentframework. Previous research1 has pointed to an imbal-ance between IDIs financial engagements with religiousinstitutions and their public communiqué on this mat-ter. With growing media attention on this gap, IDIs areforced to stay in the offensive and seek strategies toreveal what might be called a "secret partnership".

Most IDIs are agents of national governments,funding their work through government subsidies.Revealing a state-church cooperation in a foreign policysetting challenges our belief in secular hegemony, and anegative response from the public can be expected.

Journal of Futures Studies

48

Anticipating this situation is critical in maintain-ing credibility around IDIs and their continuedactivities. A timely smooth act of mainstreamingreligion into the present development frame-work could steel momentum from critics.

Mainstreaming is a recognised practicewithin IDIs.2 When new dimensions of, goalsfor, or strategies to development needs beincorporated into their existing framework, acomprehensive process is initiated. Brokendown in steps mainstreaming includes prelimi-nary research, policy formulation, alignment ofresources, and finally, forming partnerships.Applied to the present case, the act of main-streaming will occur in a backwards movetowards researching and formulating crediblepolicies capable of justifying financial engage-ments, and transforming IDIs partnership withreligious actors from "secret" to "necessary".

Applying CLA to the Case

As described by Sohail Inayatullah, andwhich this paper hopefully helps testify to, CLAcan be used in a variety of settings and in a vari-ety ways. To a student, CLA is best used as acritical futures research framework with conclu-sions derived at logically and theoretically.3

The biggest challenge lied in choosing theright forum that would allow religion to appearas "necessary". That forum would likely be in aproblem/solution context. Looking to find aproblem that religion could solve materializedthrough a trial-and-error process. First, it had tobe a problem related to a concept well situatedwithin mainstream development framework.The thought was to let a strong concept pullthe issue of religion into the present develop-ment discourse. Second, the concept should fallwithin the category of a cross-cutting issue. Ifthe concept was strong enough it will allow forreligion to become a strategic solution ratherthan an "uneasy" end in itself.

Sustainable development holds the quali-ties mentioned above, and it represents a cur-rent problem among IDIs. As IDIs experienceincreasing difficulties in proving project and sec-

tor sustainability, creative solutions are neededto overcome public aid-fatigue as a conse-quence of disappointing monitored results, andto secure continued donor support as theincreasingly popular practice of results-basedleadership places further demand on provingsustainability.

The paper applies the 1987 Brundtland4

definition on SD as "eeting the needs of thepresent generation without compromising theability of future generations to meet theirneeds." The definition is still widely accepted. Itimplies an important shift from an idea of SD asprimarily ecological, to a framework that alsoemphasizes the economic and social context ofdevelopment. At the SD Gateway5 the definitionis referred to in business terms as the TripleBottom Line. The simple illustration belowshows the overlapping nature of the three SDspheres.

Figure 1 Spheres of Sustainable Development

The ideal behind CLA is to disrupt presentknowledge categories and seek deeper layers ofour consciousness so as to free ourselves ofblinded understandings and envision betterfutures. Yet the present may still evolve aroundthe litany and social science level of the oldworld, in which politics and strategy rule ourvisions according to positivistic standards,demanding us not to think too far outside thebox. The intention in this paper is to combinethe two stands: To use post-structuralism as acritical method to deconstruct SD, and to strate-gically apply the findings to a present scheme ofknowledge.

Mainstreaming Religion in Sustainable Development

49

Causal Layered Analysis of theConcept of "SustainableDevelopment"

The following section provides a causal lay-ered analysis of the concept of SD. The analysisis laid down in two opposite movements: Thecritical in a downward motion toward a decon-structed understanding of the concept; and thestrategic in an upward motion toward defininga role for religion in development work.

Downward Motion - a Critical AnalysisIn maintaining a clear view of the analysis,

each layer is organised around what the prob-lem and solution is, who can solve it, and thecontext of these. At each level what was for-merly presented as a solution is now ques-tioned as a problem. The hands of responsibilitychanges accordingly, so does the context.

The Litany LevelFirst SD is made problematic, and at this

level it translates into Earth's state of unsustain-ability being presented as a matter of fact.(Un)Sustainable development and (un)sustain-ability are usually regarded as two distinct con-cepts: Politicians often use them to their liking,while their differences are widely discussed inacademic circles. Still, there tends to be generalagreement on referring to (un)SD as humanactivity, and to (un)sustainability as state ofnature.

The political development discourse sur-faces the threats that a state of unsustainabilityposes to our planet and human life. Typical for-mulations are: "By the year ... so and so manypeople/children will live with/ suffer from/ diefrom/ ... (aids, eye-disease, poverty, hunger,unfair trade-relations, working with chemicals,child labour, etc.)" or "In so and so many yearsman will have caused/ destroyed/ ... (the ozonelayer, species, rain forest to diminish, vanish)."This creates a politics of fear, and opens for aset of simply communicated answers that IDIsare able to provide.

Expressed in triple bottom spheresanswers often mentioned to the sustainability

challenge are: Reduce pollution, freshwatershortages, global warming, forest destruction,species extinction, rich-poor gap, poverty, over-population, immigration, poor sanitation, aids,corruption, etc.; and promote development ofglobal economic infrastructure, the rule of lawand democracy, access to information, educa-tion, markets, medical care, etc. The importantpoint here is not to give a precise account ofthe issues in question, only to flash headlines.

Responsibility is usually pushed aside bythe general public and placed with institutions.Problems as well as solutions are defined on aglobal scale. What is interesting at this level isthe way SD is presented as a response to a stateof "unsustainability". This tells the story ofnature being saved by human intervention. HadSD been suggested as a response to "unsustain-able development", it would have told the storyof an attempt to correct earlier mistakes.However, in the current light, by taking respon-sibility for global concerns, IDI's convey theimage of coming to global rescue.

The Social Science LevelWhat was presented as a solution at the

litany level is now discussed in greater technicaldetail. Questions are still placed within thetriple bottom spheres: What environmental reg-ulations are needed, and how to implementthem and on to whom, (governments, compa-nies, groups?); what economic adjustments arenecessary to extend global trade networks andeconomic infrastructure, to change consump-tion patterns, to promote a fair distribution ofgoods and economic return, to increase privateinvestment, to eradicate poverty, etc.; and whatsocial aspects should be considered to succeedin introducing democracy, improving the healthsituation, increasing awareness on matters ofgender, rights, birth control, etc.

Solutions to these concerns could beoffered in a three-legged response, two of whichwork to reinforce each other. One is strategic,another evaluative, while the third is in chal-lenge to the two first. The strategic considerswhat actions are necessary - at a technical level -to anticipate the above questions. Over theyears, answers to unsustainability has been


50

debated along the lines of: Means and ends;top-down or bottom-up; state, market, or civilsociety; import or export substitution industrial-isation; modernisation or leap-frogging; partner-ship, democracy, gender, basic needs, humanrights, capacity, empowerment, enabling envi-ronment, civic engagements, principles of own-ership, etc. It is characteristic that the conceptu-al development taking place for decades hastended to encompass and integrate more andmore crystallised theories adding to the com-plexity of the development practice. Yet whilethe arguments stay true to the current frame-work of knowledge, effective sustainable devel-opment policies are in growing demand. Thesecond leg of the response works to close thisgap.

The only way to recognise a sustainablesolution from an unsustainable one is by moni-toring results. The second leg evaluates imple-mented strategies to prove and improve on SDpractice. More often than not, though, monitor-ing activities post-project realisation only con-tinues for another two to three years: (1) Justlong enough to prove a "lasting" effect -although today it is generally understood thatthis is not always the case; and (2) as a resourcedemanding activity, means are often not allocat-ed to continue monitoring efforts long afterproject finalization. With a growing need forproving results that stem from SD activities thesupport industry of monitoring has developedto ensure delivery on demand, yet positiveresults are not guaranteed to materialize.

With two blind courses it is perhaps timeto rethink the SD concept. The third leg of theresponse initiates this step at the next level.

While policies such as participation andownership has been introduced as a way tomake sustainability everybody's responsibility,institutions still carry the ability to monitor andcommunicate results. Consequences of unsus-tainability are still defined on a global scale, butsolutions are now embedded in local environ-ments. Interestingly, at this level SD is suggest-ed as an answer to both unsustainability and tounsustainable development, since monitoringactivities seek to improve on previous practice.

Discourse/Worldview LevelThe third leg of the response challenges

the SD concept by inviting contributions fromunconventional sources to open a rethinking ofSD. Looking for answers only at a social sciencelevel risks creating the illusion that it is possibleto be sustainable without challenging the verysystem that makes us unsustainable. But whatsystem(s) makes us unsustainable? To give ananswer one must look towards knowledge cate-gories that uphold the very levels of litany andsocial science - and then look to their alterna-tives.

- SD as Political Ideology

Friedmann6 wrote that "development hasnever been a scientific concept, it has alwaysbeen ideology." The same could be said aboutSD. The SD concept gained widespread politicalacceptance during the '90s, upon its introduc-tion in the Brundtland report, and is presentlyadvocated by those who promote growthand/or development as well as by those whooppose it.

Originally the hobbyhorse of radical envi-ronmentalist on the far left wing, SD has growninto being the tool in obtaining political consen-sus. Today there really are no political alterna-tives to SD - in fact SD as political ideology is analternative in itself. With SD gaining greaterfootage every day, even if increasingly ques-tioned by the academia (next section), it isdeveloping into a complete political ideologywith principles of economic organisation com-parable to those of free market mechanismsand state-led planning. While some wouldargue that SD is a natural synthesis of these, orof right and left wing politics, others see SD asessentially distinct from the traditional politicalcontinuum.

It could be argued that SD holds a com-plete worldview, which argues for a certain setof policies, whereas both free market mecha-nisms and state-led planning hold a set of prin-ciples, which determine the end goal.7 This dif-ference is what makes SD subject to endlessdebate, and also what gives it tremendous


51

potential as a new, progressive ideology.Already, elements of free market mechanismsas well as dimensions of state-led organisationare visible in the emerging SD ideology, yet thispaper takes the stand that SD is qualitatively dif-ferent from traditional political ideologies: In itsvision, production mode, and global outreach.Western politics are often criticised for a lack ofvision, for being based in a practical approach ofrealism. To this end SD offers a return to a poli-tics of vision. Further more SD's productionmode is essentially green and favours natureover man. It is borderless, and neglects nationalinterest to embrace Mother Nature.

And SD is possibly different on one otherstand: The notion of partnership. A partnershipincorporates the ideal of an informed democra-cy with a sense of comradery in requiring theactive involvement of and cooperation from thepublic. With these differences in mind it is likelythat SD will depend upon an equally differentdimension of governance - besides logic, ration-al thought, scientific proof, and authority.Identifying this dimension could be crucial inturning SD into a powerful ideology.

- SD as Scientific Concept

While SD makes sense politically, this isnot always the case academically. Commonly,researchers have written about what theywould like development to be - development asproject,8 rather than trying to understand whatit is - development as process.9

Hans Holmén10 of University of Linköpingoffers insight to why SD is not always possible,probable, or preferable - to use a futuresmethodology. Holmén argues that various sus-tainabilities are difficult to combine and someseem not to be at all compatible. The followingparagraphs built on Holmén's ideas.

Flooding, earth crakes, draughts, etc. canhave devastating effects on local economies andcause social upheaval as a direct or indirectresult. The Brundtland report supports not only"ecological sustainability" but talks of "ecologicalstability" to anticipate these events. We wish tocontrol nature, and when we cannot, we sud-denly find ourselves in a state of "poverty".

Environmental changes are taken for negativeand are often blamed on human intervention.Theories of macro history seem forgotten. Anexample: Global warming will eventually open asea route between Asia and Europe 30-40%shorter than the present one via the Suez chan-nel.11 This will extinguish some species and alterhuman livelihoods. Yet it is also likely to fosternew economic and social ties, and animal life -including man - will most likely adapt to thenew living conditions. As such, ecological devel-opments are doomed to happen at the expenseof social and economic sustainabilities, but areequally potential in letting new environmentsarise.

Upon the oil crises in the '70s and thetough economic times that followed in the '80s,sustainable economic growth without riskssounded appealing - but possible? In the west-ern world it has been possible to maintain rela-tive security while cultivating growth prospects.Though from a global perspective this kind ofSD often happened at the environmental andsocio-economic expense of the developingcountries: Poverty has increased, also inabsolute terms. In addition, the transitionalchanges needed in the developing world areunlikely to comply with SD policies. Instead, abreak down and reformulation of social valuesand institutions can be expected.

When it comes to social sustainability theperspective changes - to this end it is also aquestion of whether or not sustainability ispreferable. Are social systems always worth sus-taining? Social sustainability is often portrayedas a balance between man and nature, betweencultures, and any change of values or customs isseen as a loss of cultural heritage. Social institu-tions embedded in traditions of shifting cultiva-tion, cast-system, patriarchy or female circumci-sion form part of our cultural legacy too, butshould they be sustained? The answer is boundto be controversial. Yet so is a transitionbetween systems: It will always be accompaniedby much frustration and social tension and thereformulation of values is a natural way to adaptto new realities.

To sum up, Holmén argues that the SDassumption that development carries no envi-


52

ronmental, economic, or social costs is not real-istic. In need of new ways of dealing with theconsequences, solutions could be taking shapeat deeper levels of our consciousness.

- SD as Discourse

Concluding on the former sections sug-gests an alternative discourse on the SD con-cept. This could evolve and be applied in differ-ent ways. An immediate response would be toseparate the use of the two terms. In this waydifficulties in delivering scientific proof for theeffect of SD would be overcome - advocatingdevelopment in due course and sustainability indue course. As mentioned above, the two termscombined have high political value, but troublewith creating credibility around the concept asmonitored results are falling short of statedgoals, opens for a separation of terms, whichcould eventually help it regain credibility.

A change of discourse may also be trig-gered by a semantic analysis of SD. By disclos-ing hidden logics that causes our understandingof the term it may open for different modes ofknowledge, and provide for alternate uses.

A quick look in the dictionary would revealimmediate internal complexities and promptseveral questions: How is it possible to sustainand develop at the same time? What to sus-tain? What to develop? And who is to decide?The answer changes with the interpretationsgiven to a deconstructed understanding of SD.Either IDIs develop to sustain. Or they sustain todevelop. The first interpretation provides themost obvious power perspective. It leadsthoughts to critical development theories onrecolonisation and underdevelopment. It con-notes on development as a zero-sum game.Raising it to a social science or litany level it cre-ates a politics of fear as it implies using develop-ment as a means to conduct security politics.The latter invites the opposite understanding. Itaspires to create synergies, to make develop-ment a win-win process. Expressed in businessterms, a comparison to modern asset manage-ment theories12 springs to mind as it impliesthat one plus one is three.

While IDIs would certainly identify with

the latter interpretation, political leaders arebeginning to admit to the use of developmentinstitutions as an arm of national security poli-cies. This point to a grain of truth in both inter-pretations. Both interpretations work to elimi-nate the presence of risk stemming from envi-ronmental, social and economic sources.Typical of a world obsessed with control, butwith increasing levels of complexity and interde-pendence, is this at all a realistic goal?

To anticipate this dilemma perhaps focusshould be given to expanding our knowledgeparadigm and go beyond the positivistic tradi-tion. Ensuring sustainability of future genera-tions in empirical terms while attempting toeliminate the element of risk, all the while navi-gating in a world not in our total control...could be a certain disappointment. As itbecomes increasingly difficult to maintain credi-bility around this approach, introducing a valuedimension to the discourse, study and policiesaround the SD concept could provide the kindof guidance in sustainability work which lackswhen empirical evidence falls short. Generatingnew mythical stories are crucial in triggeringsuch developments.

Placing SD in a greater context of political,scientific, and discourse alternatives reveals thepotential of SD as political ideology, and theproblem with striving for sustainability in timesof change, as well as the obstacles in the pres-ent discourse to justify the concept. At thislevel, both problems and solutions in rethinkingthe concept are found locally among membersof the intellectual community. Solutions may beglobally inspired, but apply to local thinking.

Myth/Metaphor LevelAt this deepest level of myths and

metaphors, the ideals of SD are questioned asmyths constituting unsustainability. SD is aproduct of western culture. While every cultureis likely to have a philosophy on the SD con-cept, SD as applied by IDIs is undoubtedly awestern idea. The following paragraphs willextract the myths behind the three spheres ofthe SD concept, and challenge them by goingagainst the one way we try to reach them.

Behind each of the three spheres of SD lies


53

a myth on how the world would be if they weresustained. The myth behind ecological sustain-ability: The environment is our garden, ourmother nature, our Eden. In an environmentthat never changes, in a garden unspoilt, we willlive in harmony forever. Eden will persist, andwe will never have to part from paradise again.The myth behind social sustainability: Our sociallife is our culture, our identity, ourselves. Socialsustainability would indicate that our culturehas survived and our sense of identity is intact.Social sustainability appeals to our instinct ofsurvival. The myth behind economic sustainabil-ity: Economics is power. Economics arearguably the most powerful means knowntoday. A sustained economy with sustainedgrowth is a myth for sustained power.Economic sustainability also appeals to aninstinct of survival as it sustains social status. Tosum up, at a mythical level SD strives for powerto ensure our survival in order to live in eternalharmony.

Behind each of these myths lies an evengreater myth. One of the greatest narratives ofmodern western culture is that of controllingthe course of events. In a SD context this makesus believe that in a linear fashion we are headedtowards a world of ideal sustainability. It alsomakes us believe that we are unsustainablewhen we do not see this happen. SD and unsus-tainability are two sides of the same coin. If SDis questioned as a concept, it is necessary to dis-regard the perception of the future as de facto"unsustainable" as well. Turning the problem180º spells: The future is sustainable! Could thisbe a problem? Experience tells us that not manythings stay the same: That the only "sustainable"element in life is that of unsustainability. Thiscould indeed become a problem. It would callthe future essentially uncontrollable, it wouldcall the efforts of IDIs pointless; and it would callfor what will not change over time.

Most of the material world we know todayis likely to change. Looking to find a solutionthat at the same time will nurture a sense ofsecurity, and give renewed meaning to the IDIswork is most likely found in the non-materialworld. When fighting unsustainability we areessentially fighting a dark destiny while believ-

ing that man eventually will conquer nature. Yetif the future is sustainable, a little room is givento a positive destiny and a more humble inter-pretation of man's influence on nature in thatwe cannot control the future. SD would be anexpression of hope rather than fear, sustainabili-ty a beautiful picture worth striving for.

Solutions at this level can sound banal. Thechallenge lies in living by them, politicisingthem. Solutions can hardly be designed ration-ally. The one capable of evoking such emotionsis likely to have power, and has not traditionallybeen an earthly figure. Myths of controlling thefuture are locally embedded; mythic solutionsare equally locally grounded, but often aspire toreach further.

Upward Motion - a StrategicPerspective

The richness of the CLA springs from theability to move up and down the layers as tointegrate different levels of analysis and differ-ent ways of knowing. Thereby alternativesappear which can translate into specific policyrecommendations when raised through the lay-ers of myth, worldview, and discourse.

The former section unpacked SD by inquir-ing into deeper levels of the concept. Now, inan upward, strategic motion using the samefour level typology of CLA, strategies are devel-oped to let IDI's overcome the challenging situa-tion described in the introduction and main-stream the role of religion in the present devel-opment framework. Instead of beginning at thelitany level, the analysis picks up where itended, at the deepest mythical level. In this wayit allows for a strategic use of the CLA frame-work and of a deconstructed understanding ofthe SD concept.

Myth/Metaphor LevelThe recognition of the future as essentially

sustainable and uncontrollable is mentionedabove as an alternative view to the problem ofunsustainability, and it suggests exploring asolution in the non-material, or spiritual, world.When applied to the case, this of course does


54

not imply a discontinuation of activities. But itdoes call for acknowledging the need forgreater given meaning attached to the work ofIDIs and the need for new mythical stories tosupport this development.

In revising their purpose, IDIs need rede-fine stated development goals. A poverty-freeworld is the commonly declared primary goal ofall development activities today. It is a humani-tarian goal shared by many, contested by few,but still it is a politically chosen goal and as suchsubject to change at any time. To prepare andstrengthen IDIs credibility in the process ofrevealing their partnership with religious agentsthey need to move beyond working for a politi-cal goal and towards fulfilling a divine task.When raised through the layers this purposewill ideally give rise to renewed public awe andconfidence in IDIs and their work.

The myth of control, of IDIs ability to steerthe course of events, needs be stretched toinclude a myth of divine nature. Practically, toinitiate new abstract, mythical stories on IDIs"larger than life" purpose, it will be necessary toengage a human being capable of evoking suchemotional changes. It would be a person withthe authority to speak on behalf of the spiritualworld, on behalf of God, and express His wishfor human progress (spiritually as well as materi-ally). These responsibilities are typically reservedto the priesthood or leaders of religious institu-tions. For the sake of IDIs credibility, anacknowledgement of their work within thesecircles will be of great importance. Togetherthey should communicate the right and respon-

sibility of IDIs to undertake the work of Godand help fulfill the divine task.

With a mythical purpose added to IDIs tra-ditionally practical or tactical raison d'être, theconcept of SD also takes on new dimensions.

Discourse/Worldview LevelIntegrating a new discourse on sustainabil-

ity from an academic position would be of theo-retical nature. A first step in this process hasalready been taken. New and more embracingdefinitions of poverty as defined by Nobel Pricewinner, Amartya Sen, has already beenacknowledged by IDIs. They agree to the impor-tance of a non-material dimension in poverty-reducing development work. This is where theanalysis picks up on the IDIs work on adoptinga non-material dimension in their sustainabilityapproach and explores how religion - as ashared value-base and source to social move-ment - can have a role to play.

Adoption of new definitions can triggernew policies. Alan Fricker of Sustainable FuturesTrust, New Zealand has worked in the cross-field of futures studies and sustainability studiesfor years. In "Measuring up to Sustainability"13 heasks not how to measure sustainability, buthow to measure up to sustainability. Frickersuggests reducing emphasis on the material,physical, external manifestations of sustainabili-ty as they merely measure sustainability, andturns to the internal manifestations of sustain-ability, the non-material, the subjective, to pro-vide an avenue to more sustainable results.Fricker's ideas are tentatively illustrated below

Figure 2 Holistic Sustainability


55

in a framework which is becoming more andmore popular; holistic sustainability:

The next step is to apply this understand-ing of the sustainability term to the previouslyexplained mainstream framework on SD (figure1). At the SD Gateway sub-categories of each ofthe three Triple Bottom spheres are listed.Under the heading of social SD sensitive issuessuch as culture, indigenous knowledge,women's capacities, etc. are discussed.Mediating the issue of religion would find its

space in this dimension as well. Practically, itwould involve stretching the idea of social sus-tainable development to include a "value-base".

Here, it is important to note the appliedunderstanding of religion as an absolute value-base; no concern is given to the study of reli-gion as a relative issue. It refers to the kind ofguidance that religion provides and to its capac-ity as a driver for social change. Charles Harperand Bryan LeBeau have made a study on thestate of religion in American society and founda trend moving beyond secularization towardsreligion re-emerging on a macro level, tentative-ly expressed as "majority moral".14 Seen in thiscontext it points to the trend of turning devel-opment into a moral concern, and backs theargument of partnering with religious actors tomove beyond political engagements and bypassscientific shortcomings. The overlap of thespheres is a reminder of the influence that anychanges in one sphere have on the others.Introducing religion in the social sphere couldmean a new era for economic activity and

renewed respect for environmental concerns aswell.

The above example is a small scale theo-retical experiment on how a new discourse onthe beneficial relation between SD and religioncould be developed within the academia.Engaging new research efforts to explore thissubject is key in letting SD fulfill its strategic rolewithin the IDIs. New theorizing on synthesesbetween science, politics, and religion15 couldprove a new matrix of knowledge, and overtime a new worldview could emerge. In the

short term, it would create renewed interest inthe SD/sustainability concept. It would likelyease the pressure on IDIs to demonstrateresults in SD as a redefinition of the concept isin the process. Potentially, it could ease the diffi-culties of the IDIs with changing the status ofreligion in development work from "secret" to"necessary". Catching momentum of this wavecould be paramount to the survival of IDIs.Politicizing the matter helps maintain thepower-grid in the hands of the IDIs.

Social Science LevelIf a new kind of understanding of sustain-

ability is to penetrate political reality, this will bea step for the IDIs to take in partnership with areligious actor. At this level it becomes almostimpossible to speak of religion in abstractterms. Affiliation to a specific religion, god,church, and priesthood begs to be identified atthis level. Yet for the sake of analysis it can beargued from several positions16 that world reli-gions have several traits in common. E.g. they

Figure 3 Extended sphere of Social Sustainable Development


56

have all identified some kind of code of ethicsas well as developed a social dimension, whichtogether guide social interaction. Further com-parative studies would equally agree to similari-ties in concepts of good and bad and suggest ashared underlying basis for belief in the holy.17

Above, the currently credible notion of sus-tainability was theoretically extended to makeroom for a religious dimension. This levelexplores how this could unfold itself politically ifIDIs were to mainstream the role of religion indevelopment practice. With a re-orderedknowledge base, the aim is a set of innovativepolicies ready to be questioned and analyzed inthe established academia. It works from theabove stretched framework on sustainabilityand is organized around sub-categories of socialsustainability provided by SD Gateway.18

Proposing a full scenario is an empirical case ofcomprehensive nature and the ideas are not inany way meant to represent an exhaustive list ofpossible policy recommendations - just shortvisions of how the future could be designed.

Poverty: This category should be givenextra attention. As mentioned, poverty eradica-tion is IDIs commonly declared goal in all devel-opment work. Thus, connecting a religious pur-pose to this dimension is essential for develop-ing credible cross-cutting policies. Differentchurches' relationship to society's poorest hasvaried over time as the idea of suffering hasbeen subject to change. Today, no political eliteof any country would assign poverty to people'sown misfortune or sinful behavior - as it wasusual in earlier times. Neither would any reli-gious institution acting on the global politicalscene. Among IDIs political supporters - andnon-supporters of the anti-globalization move-ment - a religious ethic has prevailed concernedwith a moral responsibility towards the globalmaterial well-being of all people.

Thus on a political platform it seems feasi-ble to form partnership with a church. Churchesare likely to be the institution closest to materi-ally deprived people. In a majority of societiesdifferent churches provide shelter, food, medi-cine, and education to those with limitedmeans. A partnership would help promotework from a multiple understanding of the

poverty concept; respectful of the spiritual dep-rivation that follows and causes sustained eco-nomic stagnation and degradation. The churchcan help bring IDIs closer to the poor and medi-ate between them. The partnership mightprove indispensable to halve world poverty by2015.19

Good governance: A priority with regardsto halving world poverty. A principle with rootsin a base of social values that guides what isright and wrong in economic and environmen-tal sustainability. Partnering with God wouldadd a dimension of good governance to socialsustainability. It lives up to requirements ofbeing embedded in local environments alongdevelopment principle of participation andownership. Religion as a dimension of goodgovernance calls for peace, honesty, andrespect and adds to the developmental effectgood governance has besides benefits ofimproved economic growth. It supports solu-tions to problems of good governance in issuesof conflict, corruption, and terrorism; all issueson the international development agenda.

Gender: Another cross-cutting issue on theagenda. Women are usually those regardedmost impoverished in the community and inthe family. Also, they tend to be closest to thecommunity church. Enhancing women's partici-pation in society by way of a church can helpimprove sustainability.

Health: The threat of HIV/AIDS is over-whelming, especially in Africa and South Asia.Medical cures are rare and expensive, placing alltrust and hope of eradication in physical infra-structures can prove dangerous if results arelate. Counter-attacking the problem from a spir-itual angle could prove effective. The church tra-ditionally appeals to non-pre-marital sex andmonogamy. This would help sustain the laborforce and a much needed social infrastructure,which is often under severe pressure.

Environment: The church could also hold arole in the overlapping sphere of the environ-ment. At the heart of all the major religions,there is an environmental ethic of one sort oranother. A strong religious ethic could have apowerful influence on people's attitude towardsthe environment, and the link can be a powerful


57

ally in sustainable conservation programs. Private Sector Development: If IDI's are

partnering with a church - cooperating to dothe work of God - then all colors of their paletteof activities could be argued to have a divinepurpose. This would also apply to their interestin promoting the driving wheels behind materi-al progress; the private sector. If IDIs enter part-nership with religious institutions, pursuit ofmaterial progress is made part of our sustain-able legacy to future generations.

The recommendations fit well into the cur-rently emerging discourse on a more holisticdevelopment approach. Poverty-eradication isturned into a deity justified goal. The previouslypointed out "secret partnership" with the reli-gious community is free to be revealed and caneven be said to be an act of great foresight. Atthis level religion has been transformed intocross-cutting political recommendations on sus-tainability as an act of strategic survival. Whenanalyzed in deeper layers the policies riskoffending our common understanding, butwhen raised to policy levels they suddenlyappear acceptable. This is partly due to thechange of public opinion already happening,but could also be ascribed to the general bliss ofignorance characterizing these upper levels.

Litany LevelNo other level makes for as efficient a test

as the litany level does on assessing the publicvalidity of a policy. The workings at deeper lay-ers should have created a popular understand-ing that conducting sustainable development isa lengthy process and results are not ripe forharvest the same year, the year after, or perhapseven the decade after. Patience should prevailand with a proactive prayer we do the best wecan while maintaining faith, also when met withdisappointment. When met with opposition,making a simple reference to the "necessity" ofcontinued activities and/or the lack of a sharedvalue-base transcending development effortsshould be sufficient to shield against furtherinquiry. It is should be possible to cultivate apolitics of hope in replacing a politics of fear.Instead of presenting Earth's state of unsustain-ability as an argument for continued develop-

ment activities, IDIs now have a credible reasonfor pointing to the moral responsibility of con-tinuing development work, even when empiri-cal evaluations suggest otherwise.

This level ends the analysis on mainstream-ing the role of religion in sustainable develop-ment.

Conclusion

By way of a CLA, sustainable developmentis unpacked and reintroduced into the strategicenvironment of International DevelopmentInstitutions. For every layer, SD evolves as adeconstructed concept, free of its political, sci-entific, and discursive understanding, to finallyappear as a product of myths and fears, whichblocks its own realization.

In a strategic upward motion, this argu-ment is used to mainstream the role of religionin IDI's sustainability approach. Driving on theinsights of the critical downward analysis, theSD concept is theoretically stretched to includereligion as a values base arguing for the goodand right in sustaining development activitieseven when empirical evidence is lacking. Thisholds several advantages. It will ideally give riseto renewed public faith and awe in IDI's and thework they do as problems of unsustainabilityare overcome, and at the same time IDIs areable to disclose, even justify, their involvementwith religious actors. By teaming with religiousinstitutions IDIs are arguably doing what Godendorses, and their credibility is untouchable.Politicizing the matter makes for some interest-ing ideas, some of which are already visible intoday's development practice.

CorrespondenceSanne Agnete TikjoebCopenhagen Business [email protected]

Notes1. S. Tikjoeb, "Mainstreaming Religion in

Sustainable Development - A FuturesPerspective", 2002.


58

2. J. D. Wolfensohn, "New Gender Main-streaming Strategy", World Bank Speeches,2002.

3. S. Inayatullah, Causal Layered Analysis:Unveiling and Transforming the Future,Essay, 2003: 10.

4. G. H. Brundtland, 'Brundtland Commission',UN World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, 1987.

5. SD Gateway, 'www.sdgateway.net', A sitehosted by the International Institute forSustainable Development for the SustainableDevelopment Communications Network,funded by Canadian InternationalDevelopment Assistance. http:// sdgateway.net/topics/74.htm

6. J. Friedmann, "Empowerment", CambridgeMass, Blackwell, 2002

7. Core curricular, "Development Studies",Master Program at Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Notes

8. As Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute noted:"Imagine the economic planner of 1890attempting to plan for the needs of today.Whale oil for heating, copper for telegrammessages, rock salt for refrigeration, anddraft horses for transportation and agricul-ture would all be high on the list of scarceresources he would worry about sustaining100 years hence." The example illuminateshow difficult it is to define that project. Alook to the process reveals why.

9. Hans Holmen, "The Unsustainability ofDevelopment", International Journal ofEconomic Development, InternationalSymposium on Sustainable Development,Vol. 3, no. 1, 2100 http://spaef.com/IJED_PUB/v3n1.html

10. Ibid.11. Danish Broadcasting Company, "Danmark er

vokset", DR Online, Science / IT, November,2003 http://www.dr.dk/videnskab/minitema/is.

12. Metaphor taken from W. Baue, 'Rio +10Series: The Rhetoric of the World Summit onSustainable Development',SocialFunds.com, 2002.

13. A. Fricker, "Measuring up to Sustainability",Futures, 30, 4, 1998: 367-375

14. C. Harper and B. LeBeau, "Social change andreligion in America. Thinking beyond secu-larisation." Appearing in a recent edition ofthe online project: The American Religious

Experience, a joint university project.http://are.as.wvu.edu/, 2002.

15. Literature is growing in volume on this mat-ter. It is most easily available on theInternet, 'Science, Religion, and Develop-ment', http://www.bisharat.org/srd/lib.cfm?catnum=2, Bishárát MediaDevelopment Associates, sponsored byInternational Development ResearchCentre, funded by Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency. Bahá'i World NewsService, 'New approach to developmentcombines science and religion', 2000 www.bahaiworldnews.org/story.cfm?STO-RYID=73C. McIntosh, '"Symbolic Gardens" in Europeand the Far East', a slide lecture presentedat the Palladian Academy conference,Vichenze, Italy, January, 1997. Dr. McIntosh,author of The Rosicrucians (Samuel WeiserPublications), and member of UNESCO'sEducational Office, Hamburg, Germany,mentioned that the United Nations hadrecently sponsored a conference of its ownin which alchemy was considered as a pos-sible tool for the creation of new alloys.

16. Whether studied from a biological angle asa genome, from a sociobiogical or culturalangle as a meme, from a sociocultural angleas an evolution, from a sociological angle asa community ethic (Principia CyberneticaWeb, 'http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ Default.html', 1993), from a mythical (JosephCampell, 'The Masks of God', New York,Penguin USA, 1991) or theological (Bahái)angle as a spirituality, they all seem to agreeat a very general level on a set of sharedcharacteristics between world religions.The current movement of religious syner-gies also testifies to this, e.g. The Baha'iFaith dominant within the UN (Baha'iInternational Community, United NationsOffice: www.bic-un.bahai.org/), theyoungest of today's world religions. Atwww.bahai.org it is stated: "All religionsshare a common foundation. Aim and pur-pose are one".

17. www.theology.edu, hosted by Quartz HillSchool of Theology

18. www.sdgateway.net, hosted by IISD/CIDA 19. Suggested by UN and a common goal for all

IDIs.


59

ReferencesBaue, W. 2002. Rio +10 Series: The Rhetoric of the

World Summit on Sustainable Development.SocialFunds.com.

Brundtland, G.H. 1987. Brundtland Commission. UNWorld Commission on Environment andDevelopment.

Campell, Joseph. 1991. The Masks of God. New York:Penguin.

Danish Broadcasting Company. 2003. "Danmark ervokset", DR Online, Science / IT, Novemberhttp://www.dr.dk/videnskab/minitema/is .

Fricker, A. 1998. "Measuring up to Sustainability."Futures30(4): 367-375.

Friedmann, J. 2002. Empowerment. Cambridge Mass:Blackwell.

Harper C. and B. LeBeau. 2002. Social Change andReligion in America. Thinking beyondSecularisation.Appearing in a recent edition ofthe online project: The American ReligiousExperience, a joint university project.http://are.as.wvu.edu/.

Holmén, Hans. "The Unsustainability of Development."International Journal of EconomicDevelopment, International Symposium onSustainable Development, 3(1): 2100http://spaef.com/IJED_PUB/v3n1.html.

Inayatullah, S. 2003. Causal Layered Analysis:Unveiling and Transforming the Future, Essay,2003: 10

McIntosh, C. 1997. "Symbolic Gardens" in Europe andthe Far East. a slide lecture presented at thePalladian Academy conference, Vichenze, Italy,January.

Tikjoeb, S. 2002. Mainstreaming Religion in SustainableDevelopment - A Futures Perspective.

Wolfensohn, J. D. 2002. "New Gender MainstreamingStrategy." World Bank Speeches.


60

May 2004 - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of May 2004 - CiteSeerX