Social Engineering

“Simplification” refers to a limited scope of vision which isolates one or two variables which are of the state’s interest. This process mainly serves to organize the state into patterns which can be manageable and controlled in order to best serve the state. “Legibility” refers to the ability to manipulate and isolate regions in order to quantify resources. This may range from accounting for the number of inhabitants in an area for taxation purposes to setting up a grid system so that a region’s roads can be easily maneuverable. Legibility and simplification projects often times overlook socio-cultural factors which affect a region due to their narrow focus on their specific goals of economic and/or political control.

The engineers of ‘The German Forestry Project,’ isolate a particular area in order to extrapolate resources for the state’s interests. The forests are simplified and made legible by removing the natural flora and fauna of the location. Furthermore, the trees are standardized according to type and organized in rows for aesthetics and practical purposes. Because the interests of the developers are so limited, they fail to account for the other factors which also play a substantial role in the sustainability of trees. For example, if the trees are standardized, and a type of tree which serves commercial profit is planted in abundance, a disease which affects one of these trees is bound to affect the others. The trees get seriously affected because monocultures tend to be more susceptible to disease. Diversity leads to the sustainability of these trees as they are able to withstand various adversities. Because diversity is disregarded, the project proves to be a failure as the second generation of trees show limited growth and sustainability. Scott finally points out that when the perception of “nature” transforms to “natural resources,” it is bound to get exploited and misused.

The Tanzanian villagization example reflects the other inadequacies of simplification and legibility projects. In this circumstance, state officials attempt to relocate masses of people under the disguise of better farming conditions and medical services among other reasons. Although this project was done under the mask of helping locals, its primary purpose was to set up communal farming in order to satiate the state’s desires. This project proved to be futile and unsuccessful for various reasons. The pilot projects which were set up initially in order to test if the system could be self-sustaining, consisted of ideal conditions. These pilot projects received abundant funding for schools, clinics, clean water, as well as tractors for farming. When the villagers actually moved in, these new villages strongly contrasted with the picturesque image of the pilot villages. These villages lacked clean water and an education system. Furthermore, villagers were not provided with tractors and fertilizers as promised and were expected to farm in poor soil conditions. Many locals began to feel resentment as they felt that they were worse off than their previous condition. Additionally, when Nyerere realized that people were not voluntarily moving, he set up a coercive strategy through which people were moved forcefully. This built further resentment as individuals who had lived all their lives in a particular location were being moved without their permission. The locals rebelled by taking flight, smuggling and engaging in unofficial production and trade which all served to further weaken the infrastructure. In conclusion, the failure of this project was due to the weakness in infrastructure along with the ignorance of the developers towards the locals.

Scott suggests that the inherent problem with all projects is that simplification and standardization leads to a synoptic vision which does not account for all the other factors that affect a location. Furthermore developers are ill prepared for change and test their pilot projects in isolated and optimistic conditions which do not give accurate representations of realistic outcomes. One of the other reasons of failure is that often times developers view local farmers as “backward” and do not account for their wishes. Furthermore, these projects only account for short term goals and do not keep the long term consequences in perspective.

2. “Techne” specifically refers to the tangible and formal methods of acquisition of skills, by which results and processes are standardized and can be adaptable on a larger scale. This method relies heavily on factors of measurability and legibility. “Metis,” the more holistic approach, stresses the importance of experience and the access of knowledge through intangible means. “Metis” is unique to every individual’s own life and practical experience. In an agricultural setting, an individual may devise his or her own method of farming and assess needs according to specific locations and resources. These assessments are done in a manner which produce successful results for one farmer, but may not necessarily meet the needs of another farmer. For example, Scott mentions that the local edition of the Farmer’s Almanac may suggest planting corn after the first full moon on a particular date. However, because the locations of different parts of the world with respect to the moon are relative, a farmer in England cannot rely on these same methods.

An example of the “techne” approach can be clearly seen in the contract farming of chickens. When chicken farmers are faced with the problematic situation of disease and unhealthy conditions in chicken fryers, some farmers approach contract farming. Through this process, the farmers are expected to produce a certain number of chickens who meet specific standards. Additionally, farmers are required to buy a building which can be carefully monitored using standardized methods of feeding and medicating the chickens. This deduces the farmer’s role as it does not give him any initiative to act on his own accord. The intentions of setting up these farms serve more for the purposes of fitting a grander scheme of production and efficiency model rather than the needs of the farmer.

The risk of loss and poor yield allows a farmer to fully invest his powers in attaining the best possible conditions. However, by accepting these chicken farm contracts, the farmer is put more at risk as he is no longer in control of even his own chicken farm. His resources are allocated according to a standardized system controlled by a large contracting company. In this scenario, it can be observed that the modernization of farming may be leading to more efficient technologies. Nevertheless, these benefits may not necessarily be allocated to individuals who produce the output.

Scott sees the gravest problem in development projects as the undermining of the importance of “metis” in state projects. He suggests that a project which incorporates “metis” into “techne” approach would create a more efficient process. “Metis” and “techne” exist in a dichotomous relationship which asserts the need of balance and appreciation of both of these constructs. “Techne” provides the technology and organization needed for a large scale project, where as “metis” is more able to control long term sustainability.

3. The book establishes the integral role of the state in trying to implement simplification and standardization projects. Scott not only addresses the inherent problems with state projects, but he also addresses potential ways a state could go about implementing successful plans. Scott’s main argument is convincing and revolves around the idea that states undercut the knowledge and intelligence of the locals which leads to the very failure of these projects. Scott also points out that the state may not be dedicated to improving the lives of the locals, even though they may have some intention to do so. I find the relationship between intent and outcome fascinating as it seems a regular trend that although developers want to do “good” their results may not necessarily indicate these intentions. Scott writes about the relationships between the state and the locals and often times his perception of intentions deal more so with the state’s need of control rather than its desire for providing service. Nevertheless, circumstances produce complexities as often times the façade of altruism can be misleading and ambiguous. The overall theme of Scott’s work establishes that the officials perceive a region through the spectacles of their own experiences. It is an enlightening process of looking at development because it addresses the potency of the developer’s schema in the way he or she goes about attaining progress. The inadequacies in these projects may suggest that developers have a narrow perception of the world before even going into a project which inadvertently dictates their actions. This skewed perception blurs the vision of the state officials along with the developers, leading to a false notion of knowledge and expertise. This reading among others has not only made me aware of the many inadequacies within the system, it has also made me appreciate the complexities of the state. One would be naïve to see this situation as a black and white matter because so many convoluted relationships dictate state politics and economy that substantial change cannot be implemented without mass internal changes within the infrastructure of these governments.