
































Microsoft Word - Fazzino Development.doc


 

1 
 

 

Disciplinary Progress, Progressivism, and Professionalism: Re-politicizing 

D/development paths forward  
Review by David Fazzino 
 

Anthropology and Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century  

By: Katy Gardner and David Lewis 

Pluto Press, 2015 

 

In light of two decades of changes within and outside the practice and study of development, Katy 

Gardner and David Lewis build off their earlier edition of this same book, Anthropology and 

Development, by adding a clear and accessible review of the pertinent literature published in the last 

twenty years.  They revisit old debates within anthropology between the applied and academic aspects 

of the discipline in the contemporary context of neoliberalism and its cooptation of radical critique.  

This second edition of Anthropology and Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century 

provides an excellent overview of the ideology and materiality of development. There is a clear 

discussion of the evolution of the concept of development both within and outside anthropology, 

highlighted by the decision to include a glossary (separated into two sections: 1. “Development jargon” 

and 2. “Anthropological jargon”) and a list of acronyms prior to the prelude of the book.   Many of the 

issues, debates, case studies, theories, and ethical considerations raised in this book overlapped with the 

topics I addressed this past semester in my teaching of Applied Anthropology; it is clear the book will 

make an excellent accompaniment to many undergraduate anthropology classes that seek to 

demonstrate the value of ethnography to re-politicize economic development, progress narratives, and 

neoliberalism generally.   

 

In Chapter 1, “Understanding Development: Theory and Practice into the Twenty-First Century”, 

Gardner and Lewis sketch out the history of development and the changes that it has undergone since 



 

2 
 

1996.  Amongst these changes are increasing management of development by the private sector and 

the, “rise of non-Western donor countries such as China that offer low-income countries new choices in 

relation to aid and projects.” (p. 9). Gardner and Lewis consider the ‘aid industry’ as something that is 

not going away, and hence do not put too much credence in “simply condemning aid and development 

work”, but rather focus on, “how anthropology might be used to critique, improve and suggest 

alternatives to it” (p. 18).  They trace out various theories of development from Darwin to Truman 

noting the pitfalls of ethnocentrism inherent in evolutionary perspectives in Dependency theory which 

deny agency to supposedly “underdeveloped” countries. Gardner and Lewis note that neoliberal 

perspectives have shifted much development work, at all scales, including among NGOs, towards an 

increased emphasis on auditing, managing of resources, and collecting results-driven data for donors 

(p. 36-37).  

 

Chapter 2, “Applying Anthropology”, delves into the history of anthropology highlighting key concepts 

and discussing the relationship between academic, applied, and engaged anthropology, with special 

stress on the importance of ethical issues that arise in the practice of anthropology.  Rather than reify 

the boundary between applied and academic silos, Gardner and Lewis argue that emphasis should be 

placed on, “building a critically engaged, ethically grounded form of public anthropology that can 

transcend this unhelpfully dichotomous way of thinking. (p. 47).   

 

In Chapter 3, “The Anthropology of Development, the authors first revisit their analysis of 

d/Development from 1996 and then move on to consider how, from 2000 onwards, the anthropology of 

development has shifted in order to avoid what some critics had predicted would be its inevitable 

demise.  Development, through its agents and agencies, has morphed time and time again since the 

success of the projects pursued in its name is superficial, or as the authors put it, “appearance of 

success is the actual outcome, a performance for a particular audience, for projects involve particular 

conceptual and linguistic devices which inspire allegiance and conceal ideological differences (Mosse, 

2005: 12)” (p. 107).  Gardner and Lewis also note the new directions in the anthropology of 

development that, in some instances, return to the core theoretical works of our discipline, such as 

those written by Mauss and Foucault.  

 

Chapter 4, “Anthropologists in Development: Access, Effects and Control”, considers the liberating 

potential, following Habermas (1971 [1968]), of anthropological work to reframe development in light 



 

3 
 

of three lenses: access (p. 127), effects (p. 135) and control (p. 140).  Throughout the text, but 

particularly in this chapter, Gardner and Lewis provide the reader with numerous case studies to 

support their framework for an analysis of development projects.  This chapter also includes boxes 

which indicate key questions to consider for each of the three lenses: access (box p. 134), effects (box 

p. 137) and control (box p. 140).  These lenses are particularly useful frameworks for utilizing critical 

thinking in regards to project development at all scales, further illustrating the value of anthropological 

analysis.  

 

Chapter 5, “When Good Ideas Turn Bad: The Dominant Discourse Bites Back”, highlights discursive 

shifts driven by the proponents of neoliberal ideologies who seek to depoliticize development by 

maintaining a veneer of concern over social inequality.  This terminological redefinition should remind 

us of the debates among anthropologists concerning the concept of culture after lay commentators 

increasingly hijacked its use for their own purposes. Correspondingly, some anthropologists sought to 

distance the discipline from our core concept, however as Gardner and Lewis point out, “simply 

because some agencies or organisations are misusing or abusing terms or practices does not mean that 

in other contexts they have lost their bite” (p. 151).   

 

In their final words to the reader, “Conclusion: Anthropology, Development and Twenty-First-Century 

Challenges”, Gardner and Lewis again note the synergistic potential of applied and academic works in 

anthropology. It is in this conclusion where the authors forcibly lay out their call to action for 

anthropology, stating, “While the study of ‘schemes of improvement’ and ‘Aidnography’ has been 

useful, it is time for a newly invigorated anthropology of development that places poverty and 

inequality at the centre of the enquiry.” (p.180).  Gardner and Lewis lay out the challenges we, as 

scholars, face moving forward: first, to document and explain continuing and deepening inequality at 

all scales; second, to identify, analyse and challenge the anti-politics of development; third, to 

challenge normative frameworks, for example of sexuality, gender, race, and Western secularism (p. 

181); finally, to describe alternative ways of seeing and doing, which aim to improve the wider 

wellbeing of populations but move beyond growth, development, and modernisation. (p. 182).  They 

call on anthropologists to continue our ethnographic work, whether this be in applied or academic 

contexts, to transform our approach to and outlook on development, and to move beyond the projects of 

development.  Given the various and sometimes contradictory renderings of development by 

differentially situated organizations, entities, activists, and scholars this book is a useful overview of 



 

4 
 

key debates, theoretical predispositions, and actions in the world that should be read by those who are 

active in the fields associated with development.  By introducing important anthropological works, it 

also serves as a primer and a key foundational text ideal for undergraduates but also suitable for anyone 

seeking to acquire greater familiarity with the concept and study of development.  

 

Works Cited: 

Habermas, Juergen. 1971 [1968]. Knowledge and human interests (trans.) J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon 

Press 

 

David Fazzino, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, is a 

cultural anthropologist trained in law and agro-ecology.  His research interests include environmental 

anthropology, structural violence, intellectual property rights, food and energy policy, and medical 

anthropology.  His website is: https://bloomu.academia.edu/DavidFazzino   

 

 

 

© 2018 David Fazzino 


