orthodoxy

so I was sitting in my seminar class (Globalization and Cities in the South) thinking about my prof's use of the word 'orthodoxy'. He used it in reference to the "World Bank doctrine" which is essentially the promulgation of the ideology free-market capitalism through the "third world development" perspective, making markets more easily accessed by western corporations while seeking to improve the living conditions of the people in the area. I will not comment on my opinion of this.

He then went on to describe the form of "development" which my program promotes: a rejection of this "orthodoxy" for more "organic" "grass-roots" development and then used a bunch more words that seemed more 'touchy feely' or even what I would call 'wishy washy'... it just doesn't seem to mean a whole lot when you think about it and try and put it on paper.

But "wishy washy" is the term I've used to explain some of my friends' more emergent perspectives. When they talk about things it seems to be evasive and not really a solid answer.... it dances around issues. It began to freak me out this connection I was making.... post-modernism and post-colonialism is producing people like my devs classmates who are proponents of relative truth and these more post-colonial(ish) perspectives on development. Post-modernism and the post-church movement have been producing people like a few of my friends, some of whom don't believe that the new testament is God-breathed or pretty much reject the way the Church is functioning right now (which isn't exactly stellar, i'll admit, but I would caution against throwing the baby out with the bath water) and they are trying something different.

orthodoxy and post-modernism. the "unholy trinity" of the world bank/imf/world trade organization and grassroots development. campus for christ and _. reformed theology and brian mclaren. these tensions have characterized my time at Queen's. It's kind of shocking and disturbing that I would compare C4C with the WB seeing as I have been indoctrinated to loath the WB. But there definitely are similarities:

• they are not afraid of being clear about what they are and what they aren't.
• they follow steps and trajectories that are clear and distinct
• they believe that if it works one place it will/can work everywhere
• they use the "excuse" that since they've been around since the 50s that gives them some weight or validity

this creeps me out! if this time next year I'm blogging about why the world bank is good and free-market capitalism is wonderful and facilities economic and social development through the trickle-down effect ... do us all a favour and finish me off. please.