by Macarena Montero Lobos
This is PART III of the “Exploring Latin American contributions to education” series. All parts consist of a blog conversation and a video intervention. This part starts off with a conversation between Macarena and Stephen McCloskey.
If you haven’t read Part I and II and the introduction, start here.
Stephen McCloskey has been the Director of the Centre for Global Education in Belfast since 1995 and serves as the editor of the journal Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review. Educator, writer, editor, project manager, and activist, Stephen works in the international development sector in various fields, including youth, community, minority ethnic, and formal education sectors in Europe. Since 2011, he has been involved in developing educational projects in the Gaza Strip and Palestine. In 2015, he co-edited the book “From the Local to the Global: Key Issues in Development Studies”. Currently, Stephen is researching Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Syria. See more at Stephen McCloskey | openDemocracy.
During our conversation, Stephen McCloskey articulated a clear perspective on the development sector in Europe in general, and Ireland in particular, acknowledging that much remains to be done. His principal criticism lies in the lack of radical intervention by Non-Governmental Development Organisations (NGDOs), specifically their failure to address the root causes of poverty and inequality, thereby affecting true transformation.
The Centre for Global Education, which he directs, along with Financial Justice Ireland, published a research report in 2022. This report indicated that while most NGDOs participating in the study recognise the global economic system as responsible for contemporary social, environmental, and cultural injustices, their programmes do not necessarily address this vision comprehensively. Instead, the development sector predominantly acts on the consequences of these issues in a fragmented manner, lacking a systemic approach. In this context, NGDOs declare their opposition to poverty and social inequality but do not strongly address (or completely omit) their relationship with the neoliberal system.
Alternatively, Stephen, along with other organisations, advocates for Educational Development in Europe. Inspired by Freire’s critical pedagogy, this approach seeks to foster awareness and prompt action concerning the global system among the inhabitants of their own country, not only individually but especially collectively. With this, international development from the Global North aims to take responsibility for its actions and their impacts on the rest of the globe.
The conversation with Stephen helped me broaden my understanding and organise ideas about my country that I could perceive. In Latin America and Chile, from where I come, the view of the Global North as a model to follow is deeply ingrained, constantly denigrating our own identity and rendering invisible our natural, social, and cultural richness. We know more about France’s history than our neighbouring countries and remain blind to the vast knowledge generated in our region. Furthermore, we blame our Indigenous roots for our social issues, labelling as ‘savages’ those communities that have built a society with a different system of values from modern societies.
When I arrived in Ireland to study International Development, I expected to encounter avant-garde proposals inaccessible in my country. However, I realised there is not only a lag in debates and interventions in national and international development (for instance, in understanding community participation), but my primary references are becoming Latin American actors and proposals. This should not be misunderstood as creating a new hierarchy in reverse. By saying this, I intend to share an honest reflection on my journey of consciousness and revaluation of what it means to be Latin American, and how this identity has been affected by industrialisation and globalisation processes led by the so-called “developed” world.
Therefore, in observing the work of the international aid sector, while I note undeniable dedication and commitment, I also agree with the aforementioned report that the focus on overseas intervention, as if the problem is “over there” while “everything is fine here,” perpetuates a vision of the Global South as deficient and immature, reinforcing a paternalistic view that ultimately favours “underdevelopment.”
In light of this, I wonder what the world would be like if Europe’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) dedicated a greater percentage to domestic interventions and educational development, with the primary focus of transformation on those in power. Until this occurs, there remains much to be done. The Irish Development Education Association (IDEA) developed the ‘Code of Good Practice for Development Education’, which, through 12 core principles, outlines the expected outcomes of an organisation engaged in educational development, both in its outward educational practice and inward organisational practice. This code promotes an ethical and political approach in adhering to NGDOs, recognising the “root causes of local and global injustices and inequalities in our interdependent world.” This agreement is significant as it forms part of the Global Citizenship strategy of Irish Aid and Dóchas through their Development Education Working Group. However, key organisations have yet to sign it.
Finally, I recall Professor Paul Garret’s observation on how social workers in Europe use terms such as ‘transformation,’ ’emancipation,’ and ‘participation’ without truly meaning them, and I apply this to the field of international development. It leaves me questioning whether development actors genuinely seek radical change (a term derived from Latin, meaning ‘to go to the roots’) and if privileged groups are truly willing to relinquish their advantages in the construction of a more just world.