AFRO-NETS> Towards a New Theory for Community Development

[Golden Munyaka <munyakag@onid.orst.edu>]

Towards a New Theory for Community Development
----------------------------------------------
 
May you kindly circulate this draft article. This first draft has no 
reference list because I will forward the final draft after getting 
some feedback from the readers. 
 
 
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Golden Munyaka
mailto:munyakag@onid.orst.edu
 
 
--
Towards a New Theory for Community Development
 
By Golden Munyaka
 
Introduction
 
Field data shows that the current models of community development are 
predominantly ?top-down? in nature and character. This is an attempt 
to propose a new grassroots model for community development. It is 
essential that any effort in this direction, not only acknowledges 
the work of other theorists but, use such work as the foundation for 
doing so. Studies by Mararike (1995, 1999) have given me a substan-
tive basis for the justification of new theory. Current participatory 
models to community development fail to define the nature of partici-
pation as a process. My new theory seeks to address this particular 
dimension in the context of participatory models. To distinguish this 
theory from others in this field, I have decided to call it the G 
Community Development theory or simply GCD where G denotes grass-
roots. However, there has been an apparent overuse of the term grass-
roots so I prefer to settle for the big G in grassroots to emphasize 
my own passion for this new theory. The GCD is build around the his-
tory of rural (and informal sector/urban poor) communities in Zim-
babwe in particular and the Southern African region in general. This 
is a tentative idea grounded in real life experiences of disadvan-
taged or marginalized communities in Southern Africa. The theory does 
not assume a universal character neither can it be generalized to 
settings outside my worldview at this time in my career.
 
The G Community Development Theory (GCD)
 
This theory assumes that there is no theory at the moment (at least 
from the context of rural communities in Zimbabwe) that leads to the 
genuine involvement of all community members in issues of social ad-
vancement and the creation of healthy and sustainable communities. 
The GCD theory assumes that the popular participation approach to de-
velopment is a political model used by ?elites? to ?mobilize? various 
resources for purposes of achieving ?hidden agendas?. The first fun-
damental principle of the proposed GCD theory is that community mem-
bers are responsible for shaping their own destiny. All members of 
the community have the capacity to determine their own lifestyles 
based on their worldviews and value systems. The CGD theory asserts 
that rural community members know what is good for them more than 
anyone else. Similarly, the so-called ?poor? have the greatest advan-
tage to improve their own situation given necessary opportunities to 
do so. The ?poor? have their own norms to define acceptable levels of 
poverty. Similarly, indigenous communities have the capacity to de-
fine ?development? from their own worldviews. According to the pro-
posed theory there are different norms and indicators of ?develop-
ment? for every community. Thus, the GCD theory refutes the universal 
notion of ?development? as we understand it in the academy today.
 
The first corollary to the GCD theory is: ?stay away from the shark? 
and ?avoid acting like the shark in your dreams and in real life?. I 
use the imagery of shark to describe the way most politicians (and in 
some cases non-governmental organizations) in Zimbabwe end up feeding 
on the sweat of poor people. In real life and Zimbabwean politics a 
?shark? is usually referred to as ?Chef? as if to validate the preda-
tory nature of the relationship between the poor villagers and the 
politician who is usually an absentee landlord who only surfaces to 
grab the ?loot? during one of the numerous ?shark-attack? encounters. 
Freire (1972) uses paternalism to describe this type of paradox in 
the political arena. Moyo (1992) coins the notion of ?the economy of 
affection? or the ?sociology of patronage?­ironically he seems to 
have the right words to describe his own role as Minister of Informa-
tion in ?troubled? Zimbabwe today. It is from this dilemma that Mbeki 
(2003) regrets the idea of affirmative action and black empowerment 
that only benefits a small group of elites who happen to be politi-
cally connected. In Zimbabwe the black elite has become notorious for 
acquisition of large estates (including commercial land) on behalf 
the ?masses? (Economic Commission for Africa, 2002).
 
The second corollary to the proposed GDC theory is that the voices of 
women should be on the forefront of community projects and programs. 
In the case of Zimbabwe, women have always been effective leaders in 
protecting social values and the sovereignty of indigenous people. 
For instance, a woman named Mbuya (Grandmother) Nehanda initiated the 
first liberation war, ?Chimurenga? in Zimbabwe in the mid-1890s ? her 
spirit has remained the sole motivator for most freedom fighters up 
to this day. In Shona culture, there is an idiom that states that the 
foundation of the family or household is the woman (?Imba mukadzi?). 
There is sufficient data to support that majority of non-farm income 
generating projects in rural communities are run by women (Interna-
tional Labor Office, 1993; Moyo, 1993).
 
Another key corollary to new theory is that communities are build 
from inside out. This guiding principle helps to illuminate community 
issues and affairs from the perspectives of indigenous people. His-
tory of initiatives on community programs shows a partial or total 
disregard of local wisdom and technologies (Appleton, 1994; Mararike 
1995, 1999; Prey, 1994). Freire (1972) explains this phenomenon as 
the ?absolutizing of ignorance?. African countries spend a lot of 
time and resources mourning about high illiterates rates among rural 
community members (Hadebe, 1998; Mpofu, 1997). The GCD theory asserts 
that local languages are vehicles of technological and economic em-
powerment. Similarly, indigenous philosophies can be used to inform 
development programs. For instance, the ?extended family? concept can 
be used to support and sustain family businesses in both urban and 
rural settings. From personal experiences, the extended family con-
cept has been used by most intellectuals to drum up the evils of cor-
ruption and abuse of power in high offices of government and corpo-
rate world. Yet in other cultures, such as in Japan, large corpora-
tions have emerged through recruitment of close family members 
(Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaw, 1999). This may be a smart strategy to 
decapitate the ugly head of corruption in formal and informal organi-
zations in Zimbabwe today. Molefi citing Mbigi (2000, p. 2) supports 
this argument by asserting that: ?There is no recorded case in his-
tory where a country has developed by imitating other countries. 
There is enough historical evidence to show the importance of crea-
tive pioneering in nation building.?
 
The last corollary to the proposed theory is that ?development? is as 
good as the social institutions that go with it. In this theory so-
cial institutions are the formal and informal organizations that sus-
tain the everyday lives of community members. These may be social 
(schools, clinics, churches, recreational centers, theatres), politi-
cal (local authorities, local government, courts, and law enforcement 
agents), economic (local marketplace, banks, insurance companies, 
transport systems to other markets, and communication networks, en-
ergy providers) and psychological (belief and value systems). Every 
community has a unique twist and mix to how these institutions are 
orchestrated to reflect the norms of social progress at any given 
time and geo-political era. According to the GCD theory community 
members have the capacity to shape these institutions in ways that 
improve their social and human condition.
 
Strengths of the proposed G Community Development Theory
 
One of the greatest strength of this theory is that it is grounded in 
the data. Regardless of any possible flaws in framing this model it 
is a significant beginning in understanding the challenges facing in-
digenous rural communities in Zimbabwe today. ?Grounded theorists 
want to understand people?s experiences in as rigorous and detailed a 
manner as possible. They want to identify categories and concepts 
into substantive and formal theories.? (Ryan and Bernard 2000, p. 
782). The other major advantage to this model is that it is tied to 
data gathered from a single case (Zimbabwe). Subsequently, the model 
as no universal implications other than that it may lead to other 
scholars working on similar models in different settings. This model 
is solely for purposes of illuminating the development of indigenous 
communities in Zimbabwe. Lastly, the proposed theory is parsimonious 
and simple. There is room for other scholars to interpret and adopt 
it in ways that suit different worldviews. For instance teachers and 
educational planners could use this model to initiate educational re-
forms. I will follow up on this aspect later on.
 
Weaknesses of the proposed G Community Development Theory
 
Like all theories, this model is an oversimplification of complex so-
cial phenomena. ?Regardless of the kind of reliability and validity 
checks, models are simplifications of reality. They can be made more 
or less complicated and may capture all or only a portion of the 
variance in a given set of data.? (Ryan and Bernard 2000, p. 782). 
Any form of theorizing is therefore a highly subjective process. The 
personal biases of theorist always end up influencing the nuances of 
the actual model. In this study I present my biases as autobiographi-
cal representations from the Shona culture. The proposed model needs 
to be tested in the field in order to minimize the personal biases of 
the researcher. Technically, data management strategies are yet an-
other major source of bias. For instance, how does one work through 
mountains of data and end up proposing a theoretical model? In this 
study I had to resort to theoretical sampling. ?We use theoretical 
sampling to develop our emerging categories and to make them more de-
finitive and useful. Thus the aim of this sampling is to refine 
ideas, not to increase the original sample.? (Charmaz 2000, p. 519). 
In my opinion, development of theory is basically reductionistic. One 
uses volumes and volumes of data to come up with a single representa-
tion in the name of a theoretical model. The process is fraught with 
errors and biases. This model was not spared from such biases.
 
 
Special Request: 
Critique this proposed model and forward your comments to:
Golden Munyaka 
mailto:munyakag@onid.orst.edu
--
To send a message to AFRO-NETS, write to: afro-nets@healthnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@healthnet.org
in the body of the message type: subscribe afro-nets OR unsubscribe afro-nets
To contact a person, send a message to: afro-nets-help@healthnet.org
Information and archives: http://www.afronets.org