Proclaiming universal truth? Learn from the missionaries.

Recently, IOB-evaluatie published an evaluation of 10y #SRHR work funded by the Dutch government (nearly EUR 5 billion). This is a large report, with underlying databases (e.g. making 368 systematic reviews available). I do not intend to reduce this rich report to a single thing, but from the perspective of #neocolonialism and #decolonisation there is one striking sub-conclusion with linked recommendation.

"SRHR projects come to a halt once Dutch funding ends, since there are hardly any stakeholders willing and able to take over (...) especially when the focus of projects was more on the rights aspect (...) especially if projects focused on key populations."

and

"Given the human-rights-based approach of Dutch SRHR policy and considering the often limited national and international ownership, possibilities to hand activities over are inherently narrow."

All investments in awareness and capacity development notwithstanding, there is limited ownership and hardly any stakeholder willing and able to take over. The answer suggested by the report?

Acknowledge that in the SRHR target countries, there is often little national ownership for the rights aspect of its SRHR portfolio, inherently limiting possibilities to hand activities over to other stakeholders. (...) make a political commitment that it intends to continue supporting SRHR activities long term. Introduce longer time frames for projects that aim to bring about cultural and normative changes.

So, interventions for which the report was not able to establish effectiveness, but only a lack of ownership should be funded long term. To be honest, elsewhere in the report (p.63), there is a suggestion that providing core funding to CSOs could promote ownership, but it remains unclear if this is about local, national or international CSOs (the literature they reference seems to focus mostly on international CSOs).

Putting on a de-neo-colonisation lens

What happens if this is viewed from the perspective of #neocolonialism? I do not want to make too grand claims, but I think this is exactly the kind of thing that Ekeocha in her book 'Target Africa' refers to and which she definitely calls neocolonialism.

My other recently quoted author, Taiwo, is critical of decolonisation, but his main focus is that African agency should be taken seriously. This seems to leave a bit more openness to come with an agenda for normative and cultural change for which there is no or limited ownership - as long as African agency (and by extension: that of other regions) is taken seriously. He might say: we are able to deal with such incoming normative and cultural agendas, weigh and contextualise them and decide what to take on board. And Taiwo might be among those who could appreciate several aspects of such agendas (at least, he is much in favour of what he refers to as modernisation).

Proclaiming universal truth does not require ownership (?)

Of course this touches on the larger question of the tension between neocolonialism and cultural relativism. Do we not hold to certain Western values that we consider to have universal validity? Are SRR not part of universal truths that should not be regarded as Western but rather as human, irrespective of the wrongly held views that many people still have regarding these rights? Is there not still some truth in Kipling's poem on the burden of [strikethrough "white man", replace by "enlightened humanity"]? (Just a few random lines with my naughty comments in brackets: Go bind your sons to exile, To serve your captives' need [rights?] / In patience to abide [long term] / And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better [no ownership],?The hate of those ye guard—The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—"Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?" [change normative views] / By all ye cry or whisper,?By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples?Shall weigh your Gods and you.) [10 years of awareness raising has not brought understanding, but truth shall prevail, just press on].

Don't read this as pure sarcasm.... it's a serious issue. I know the debates and at least some of the literature about the universality of (various sets, extensions and interpretations of) human rights.

Personally, I do not deny the existence of universal truths and values and their expression into rights, and I do not object to the global proclamation and efforts toward application of those. Also, I do not object to the proclamation and efforts toward application of truth and values that are not considered universal by everyone - i.e. when there is no local ownership for it. Even more so, for a number of years I worked as a missionary, I still sometimes do assignments for missionary organisations, I am still involved in missionary efforts, and my life may soon take a further turn in that direction.

And this is where my main point comes in: in such efforts, there is much to learn from the Christian missionary movement.

Contextualisation

Just as in result measurement the international development sector is much ahead of other sectors (at least, in my limited cross-sectoral experience), so the Christian missionary movement is much ahead in thinking about contextualisation: the question how a universal message interacts with different cultures, is reshaped and embodied in each culture and thereby grows in richness. I have about a meter of books that focus fully or mostly on that question, with Lamin Sanneh as one of the pivotal thinkers.

This is not to claim that the missionary movement did not have its full share of mistakes. Or that it has learned all necessary lessons. Far from it. Neocolonialism is present in that movement as well. But I do see a lot of reflection on the theme of contextualisation. An increasing realisation that the point of gravity of this movement is non-Western and a conscious attempt toward contextualisation in everything that is done. It is a reflection from everywhere to everywhere: African missionary efforts in the Netherlands reflect on this, as do Ethiopians who work in Somalia and Dutch missionaries in PNG. Some do better than others, and of course there is much debate on what can and cannot be contextualised; what is the absolute and what is relative; what are valid contextual expressions of the universal message, and what are forms and expressions that are no longer faithful to it. And debate about who should provide answers to such questions.

My impression is that there is less such debate in the development sector. Of course, the word contextualisation has found its way, but often that is still at surface level: different pictures in the materials we use, or using a local (or national?) language.

In the missionary sector, there are near-deniers of contextualisation: no need for new formulations, new wordings, new forms. Just copy the way we do it. We hold the key not only to the universal message, but also to universal expressions, interpretations and forms.

In the missionary sector, such deniers of the need for contextualisation are a small minority thanks to decades of explicit reflection (one could even argue: centuries). In the sector of international cooperation, I am less sure of that.

In a missionary context, on one would agree to simply accept that there is no local ownership, just because the message is relevant and important. And almost no one would find it healthy to just continue funding if there are no stakeholders who could own the message, embody it and propagate it in their own way, so that they form a movement of their own (although unhealthy dependency does exist). In fact, the whole Christian missionary movement has become a mostly non-Western effort - and rightly so.

So, in conclusion, my recommendation would not have been to accept the lack of ownership and continue funding for the long term, but to own up to the fact that part of this work is missionary in nature [but perhaps need to find a more secular version of this word], and hence there is a need to reflect deeply on the meaning, extent and models of contextualisation of the message that is proclaimed.

See also my previous article on neocolonial decolonisation to which I refer above: