Critical Discourse Studies

ISSN: 1740-5904 (Print) 1740-5912 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcds20

Development aid and disease discourse on

display: the mutating techniques of neoliberalism

Jean Claude Kwitonda

To cite this article: Jean Claude Kwitonda (2017) Development aid and disease discourse on
display: the mutating techniques of neoliberalism, Critical Discourse Studies, 14:1, 23-38, DOI:
10.1080/17405904.2016.1174139

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2016.1174139

Published online: 27 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 146

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcds20

Download by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries] Date: 30 January 2017, At: 21:41
CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2016.1174139

Development aid and disease discourse on display: the

mutating techniques of neoliberalism
Jean Claude Kwitonda
School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The objective of this essay is to explore the ascendency of discourse Received 19 March 2015
in the practice of international development and communication. Accepted 21 December 2015
Two cross-currents in the contemporary discourse of international
KEYWORDS
development, namely development aid and the notoriously Development aid;
variegated concept of neoliberalism, have coalesced in a discourse neoliberalism; discourse;
crisis. This is due largely to competing understandings of global communication
neoliberalism as either a hegemonic project, policy and
program, a state form, or governmentality. I will argue that the
complexity of development aid and the process of social change
in general cannot be reduced to a single understanding of
neoliberalism. However, considering neoliberalism as discourse
provides a more encompassing framework. This frame has
considerable advantages for understanding processes of social
change and development aid. The paper will also show that the
framework is attuned to the mutating techniques of neoliberalism
and discuss the potential of this framework for guiding
participation in international development.

Introduction
There is no doubt that the work of international development is a practical endeavor in
which international partners are anxious to get things done (Cornwall, 2007). Hindsight,
however, indicates that discourse, an aspect that is often considered abstract and see-
mingly less relevant to practical issues, might be at the heart of the difculties facing
the practice of international development. This discourse challenge is often described
as a theoretical crisis by contemporary international development and communication
scholars (e.g. see Escobar, 2000; Storey, 2000; Waisbord & Obregon, 2012). As Waisbord
(2008) and Wilkins (2000) observe, the term development is perceived as a reection of
a patronizing ideology of modernization. The concept suggests, for example, that in
order to develop, people in the Third World need to act and think in modern, western
ways (Wilkins, 2000, p. 2). Thus, development and related concepts are so vexing that
some commentators aim to write their obituary. For example, Moyo (2009) describes
development aid as dead aid. Some have even attempted to replace development with
revolutionary phrases such as sustainable de-growth (Gudynas, 2011; Martnez-Alier,
Pascual, Vivien, & Zaccai, 2010). Intriguingly, and perhaps through its discursive

CONTACT Jean Claude Kwitonda jk815908@ohio.edu

2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
24 J. C. KWITONDA

reinvention, the term development keeps reappearing, compelling some to describe devel-
opment as a zombie concept that is alive and dead at the same time (Gudynas, 2011,
p. 442). Mainly because of this criticism of the development enterprise, terms such as
empowerment or country ownership are favored as ways of increasing participation and
mitigating the top-down orthodoxy associated with traditional development. But why
would discourse be so important in such a practical eld?
The chief objective of this essay is to explore this question. To answer the question, one
has to consider the context that animates the pushes and pulls of international develop-
ment discourse. I argue that the notion of neoliberalism is responsible for these tensions
and that techniques of neoliberalism motivate the debate and resulting discourses. Fol-
lowing Springers (2012) recent framework, which considers neoliberalism as discourse,
especially his admonition that the current neoliberal moment is that it is just that, a tran-
sitory moment on its way to becoming something else (p. 142), I will argue that a critical
look at the mutating techniques of neoliberalism fosters fairer and more informed partici-
pation by stakeholders in international development.
My argument proceeds through ve steps. In the rst two sections, I review the sources
of the framework used in this article (i.e. considering neoliberalism as discourse). Here I
also introduce the alternative meanings of neoliberalism. In the second step, I track the
ascendency of neoliberalism and the contested concept of participation in international
development discourse. In the third step, I present a case study that instantiates neoliber-
alism and its techniques within the context of international health interventions and
related aid. In the fourth step, I reect on the importance of discourse in assisting inter-
national development stakeholders to conceptualize and participate in social change
with more developed critical consciousness. Finally, I conclude and suggest future
research directions.

The many meanings of neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a variegated concept (McCarthy & Prudham, 2006; Springer, 2012).
However, most scholars agree on four understandings of neoliberalism commonly used
in the social sciences (Ward & England, 2007). Although the four understandings
assume different viewpoints with regard to neoliberalism, they are clearly relevant to
the concerns and debates that surround the practices and consequences of international
development and related aid.
One line of thinking understands neoliberalism as an ideological hegemonic project
(Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Klepeis & Vance, 2003; Sastry & Dutta, 2011, 2013). This
view tends to focus on issues of power and its origins. In the context of development-
related aid, for example, Eade (2007) observes that we are powerfully reminded how
deeply the concepts and language of international development are embedded in North-
ern Europe and North American donor culture and the multilateral agencies that they
largely control (p. 467). Rooted in the Marxist lineage, this understanding of neoliberalism
has a fundamental concern with the origins (and apparent willing consent in the accep-
tance) of a coherent program of ideas and images about the worlds problems and sol-
utions (Ward & England, 2007). According to Ward and England (2007), political,
economic and cultural dominance is exercised through the formation of networks of
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 25

capital (organizations, elite actors etc.) that are in geographically different but socially con-
nected parts of the world.
A second understanding of neoliberalism sees neoliberalism as policy and program. This
view focuses on issues such as privatization, deregulation, liberalization, depoliticization
(see Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Klepeis & Vance, 2003; Martinez & Garcia, 2000; Springer,
2012; Ward & England, 2007). Ward and England (2007) indicate that such policies use
strategies such as private ownership in lieu of state ownership. In international develop-
ment, the shift from state ownership to privatization and deregulation policies has
often been carried out through the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank (e.g. through Structural Adjustment Program (SAPs)).
A third view sees neoliberalism as state form. This understanding focuses on transform-
ations from where the nation state starts to where it ends (Fourcade-Gourinchas & Babb,
2002; Ward & England, 2007). Ward and England (2007) explain that the transformations of
state boundaries may also involve relationships between society, civil society, markets and
the state. Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb (2002) add that global nancial forces shape the
transition and adoption of neoliberal models but emphasize domestic dynamics in the
sense that national peculiarities (p. 568) are often decisive in shaping the rationale for
the transition. In international development, the rationale may be spurred by agencies
engaged in transnational development work (such as civil society, International Non-Gov-
ernmental Organizations) whose work may create a growing recognition around the
world that the policies they are associated with work better than statist ones (Four-
cade-Gourinchas & Babb, 2002, p. 535).
A fourth line of thinking considers neoliberalism as governmentality, an understanding
often associated with the French philosopher Michel Foucault. The concern here is with
how relationships between people (or in the present article, relationships between
donor countries and recipients of development aid) can be envisioned with the goal of
doing what is known as coordination at a distance (Ward & England 2007). Thus, concepts
of helping through empowerment are central in this understanding. This line of thinking
envisions (an eventual) self-reliance in the sense that neoliberal governmentality aims
at transforming recipients of welfare and social insurance into entrepreneurial subjects
who may be motivated to become responsible for themselves (Ward & England, 2007,
p. 13). In other words, the aim is to facilitate the creation of responsibilized (neoliberal) sub-
jects (Rose, 1996) through technologies of self that, according to Ren (2005), may be used
by neoliberal subjects for self-formation.
Evidently, the work of international development and related aid are enmeshed in
these alternative meanings of neoliberalism, making discourse particularly important.
In particular, discourse is seen as being part and parcel of the various concerns sub-
sumed by the four lines of thinking about neoliberalism. It is also important to note
that each understanding tends to be deployed solely because such use may have con-
venient persuasive or political effectiveness (Barnett, 2005; Cotoi, 2011). This article
follows Springers (2012) exible framework that takes into account the four understand-
ings of neoliberalism and which is attuned to the need of comprehensively grasping the
techniques of neoliberalism. This frame is particularly relevant to the current (mutating)
moves of neoliberalism especially in its discursive context of international develop-
ment through which we see efforts to claim participation by and from different view-
points of neoliberalism.
26 J. C. KWITONDA

Participation and its discursive context

As a (contested) concept, participation can be traced back to the cold war when the USSR
and the USA (and its allies) represented two alternative and competing modernization pro-
jects (see Gowan, 2006 for a detailed account). Because the USSR represented commun-
ism, the USA embarked on its grand strategy of internationalism, anti-communism and
power projection around the world, a move that gave the American state (and its allies)
a new mission and identity that of defending and extending the Free World in the
ght against Communism (Gowan, 2006, p. 10). There are reasons to believe that inter-
national development reects the legacies of the cold war in which discourse plays an
important role.
Consider, for example, Leals (2007) account of the emergence of the concept of partici-
pation which enters development discourse soon after what he calls the shock treatment of
SAPs administered to the developing world by the World Bank and the IMF. These particu-
lar institutions are well known for their provision of SAP loans that were clearly conditional
on the adoption of neoliberal policies (e.g. capitalism). The results were often worsening
economies in countries that practiced SAPs precisely because of their top-down, blueprint
requirements that were often against the interests of recipient countries.
Leal (2007) observed that, in the wake of the failures of traditional development, the
(bottom-up) concept of participation emerged as a rival and alternative approach to the
top-down policies that the IMF and World Bank represented. Rooted in the radical peda-
gogy of the Brazilian and Marxist educator Paulo Freire, participation clearly threatens the
project of a capitalist, anti-communism world order. Leal (2007) says that, in the 1970s,
Freire started his tours in the developing world to advise revolutionary socialist govern-
ments (e.g. Tanzania and Guinea Bissau) that were eager to redesign their educational pro-
grams. Furthermore, largely because of Frerian popular education, resistance movements
started to develop in other parts of the global south, such as Nicaragua, El Salvador and
Guatemala, and academic conferences on Participatory Action Research started to gain
global popularity. As Rahnema (1990) observes, such (communist) developments were
simply too serious to be left unchecked.
Interestingly, however, the development cold war started to be fought through a
language game. Rather than frontally opposing the idea of participation (Rahnema,
1990), the capitalist world order agenda had to renew and reinvent its discourse (Leal,
2007, p. 540) while keeping the status quo by co-opting the concept of participation (Chos-
sudovsky, 2002; Leal, 2007). For example, with participatory concepts such as empower-
ment or country ownership, the World Bank has been able to transform state
boundaries by destatelizing the work of development. In other words, the co-optation
of the concept of participation by the World Bank help(ed) to remove the meddling
state and replace it with the (capitalist) freedom-as-free-market ideology (Gowan, 2006)
and (ostensibly) empower the grassroots (Leal, 2007).
In sum, the game of discourse is clearly a vital problematic behind the alternative mean-
ings of neoliberalism and the latters relationship to the practice of international develop-
ment. More importantly, within the context of international development, the different
understandings of neoliberalism seem to converge and compete over participation. As
a grassroots perspective, the participation paradigm asks the fundamental question of
whose reality counts (Chambers, 1997). For example, those who see neoliberalism as a
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 27

state form may see less state intervention as a way of empowering the grassroots. This
seems to be a relevant concern especially given that most postcolonial states have argu-
ably proved to be more undemocratic than colonial governments in most settings of the
global south. That is, such undemocratic states can also constitute top-down and oppres-
sive apparatuses.
Similarly, those who see neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideological project are also con-
cerned with its top-down modus operandi. Because of this, there is concern that top-down
procedures often do not encourage participation from the grassroots in determining pro-
blems, identifying solutions, and assessing results (Waisbord, 2008, p. 509). Conversely,
those who see neoliberalism as governmentality might believe that the perspective res-
onates with the ultimate goal of development aid (i.e. through empowering beneciaries)
as it seeks to promote self-reliance by creating entrepreneurial recipients of welfare.
Although these understandings of neoliberalism converge on the aspiration of partici-
pation, Springers (2012) recent synthesis shows that their different conceptual expla-
nations compel neoliberalism researchers to use the abovementioned understandings
in isolation as if they have no point of similitude (for a more detailed review see Springer,
2012). Springer also maintains that the act of privileging one understanding over the other
is not encompassing enough to engage neoliberalism as a concept. To overcome this chal-
lenge, Springer proposes considering neoliberalism as discourse.
With respect to development aid, there is no doubt that neoliberalism can be a top-
down, hegemonic project serving the ideological interests of the capitalist world order
(Leal, 2007) whereby external interests displace indigenous cultures, knowledges and
interests (e.g. see Dutta, 2004, 2006). Although Springer (2012) does not describe such
understanding as misguided or wrong, he also cautions that by constituting an external
and supposedly omnipresent neoliberalism, we neglect internal constitution, local variabil-
ity, and the role that the social and individual agency play in (re)producing, facilitating,
and circulating neoliberalism (p. 135). Issues that necessitate social change (e.g. political,
economic or social exclusions based on gender, class, religious afliation, sexual orien-
tation, etc.) are not exclusively external; they are everywhere, including within indigenous
cultures.
In addition, scholars who have analyzed the failures of development aid identied
depoliticization (i.e. not engaging non-economic issues in communities of practice) and
an exclusive focus on economic indicators as some of the main causes (e.g. Waisbord,
2008). In other words, when efforts are not directed to non-economic issues such as struc-
tural violence, there is a risk of actually aiding violence (see Uvin, 1999) instead of aiding
positive social change. This concern is especially challenging for organizations that
depend on donations in order to carry out the work of development as they need to
appeal to concerns that inescapably reect the culture and concerns of donors culture
(Eade, 2007). But perhaps more important is the resulting challenge of identifying when
the rhetoric of securing development aid has ulterior motives or is for felt needs (or
both), since neoliberalism has discursive ability to change strategies. But neoliberalism
is a phenomenon that is hard to grasp as different people deploy the concept in quite
different ways for different purposes (Cotoi, 2011). Some observe that neoliberalism is
entering its zombie phase (e.g. Peck, 2010) while others believe that the continuity of neo-
liberalism has to be acknowledged (e.g. Springer, 2015). This challenge is compounded by
the fact that some scholars argue that neoliberalism does not even exist (e.g. see Barnett,
28 J. C. KWITONDA

2005). As such, there is need to illustrate the challenge. In the following section, I present a
case study that does not only reect what Springer (2012) calls the current (mutating) state
of neoliberalism but also the importance of discourse in securing development aid.

The case of Malaria: Blood, Sweat and Tears

Ward and England (2007) explain that the hallmarks of neoliberalism are states (e.g. as in
an event that involves several countries), networks (such as long chains of institutions, dis-
cursive support, etc.) and people (i.e. neoliberalism is an embodied process). The exhibit
called Malaria: Blood, Sweat and Tears has a number of stakeholders that reect these sys-
temic features of neoliberalism. The most prominent stakeholder, Adam Nadel, is an
award-winning American photographer. He was commissioned by the second stake-
holder, Malaria Consortium International, a non-prot organization based in London,
England. The third main stake holder, Vesterguaard Frandesen, is a Danish manufacturer
of disease control textiles which also happens to be the sponsor of the exhibit (through
Malaria Consortium International). The exhibit was called Malaria: Blood, Sweat, and
Tears, to remind publics that malaria is transmitted through blood, that its victims tend
to sweat, have fever and that malaria causes tears and mourning as it claims many lives
in settings where it is endemic (Rosenberg, 2014). The exhibit has had a variety of
global audiences with ever-changing captions and contexts of display. It has so far
been displayed in at least 10 countries around the world.1 In addition to the network
between states and organizations, the exhibit involves people who were photographed
in Africa and Cambodia.
According to Adam Nadel, the exhibit sought to educate the public about the complex-
ities of malaria eradication in order to mobilize them to continue international support to
combat the afiction. Public education is carefully coupled with the need to mobilize
donations because when Lapinski (2012) wrote in The New York Times, she cited Adam
Nadels comment that the motive was not to just make people feel terrible so theyll
donate money. However, since the sponsor of the exhibit is Vesterguaard Frandesen,
the general context of the exhibit invokes the view of neoliberalism as a hegemonic
project that functions to expand the corporates prots and, by extension, global capital-
ism and the free-markets ideology. This is suggested in Vesterguaard Frandesens own
presentation and its role as the sponsor of the exhibit:
The company operates under a unique humanitarian entrepreneurship business model. This
prot for a purpose approach has turned corporate social responsibility into its core business.
Vestergaard Frandsen was founded in 1957 and has since evolved into a multinational leader
focused on helping to achieve the UNs Millennium Development Goals. (2008, p. 3)

The discourse of humanitarianism and cause-related strategies in health and healing

interventions are widely believed to be techniques of neoliberalism and global capitalism.
The pink ribbon campaign against breast cancer in the USA is a typical example of gender-
related cause strategy (King, 2006). Critiques of such corporate social responsibility have
observed that such cause-related campaigns allow corporations to mute critics and to
lure consumers with the bait of altruism (Wachs, 2007, p. 929).
In one image of the exhibit, for example, we see how the discourse of gender-related
causes becomes embedded in the discourse of ghting malaria (through the use of
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 29

mosquito nets). This is suggested in a photographic image in which we see a young

woman sleeping under a mosquito net, gazing suggestively at the camera.2 The photogra-
pher skillfully uses the dark background to make the white mosquito net more visible. We
come to understand the reality of the young woman through the caption which says:
Many families due to extreme poverty, are forced to prioritize who will receive malaria treat-
ment and mosquito nets. I am not lying in my bed; this is not my mosquito net. I do not have a
mosquito net. My brother does, but I dont.

While the photo essayist (and woman in the picture) borrowed the mosquito net and
the scene, the reality they represent (e.g. gender inequalities) are real challenges in cul-
tures of the global south and beyond. Scholars such Sastry and Dutta (2013), who see neo-
liberalism as hegemonic ideology, would describe this as the gendering of interventions in
international health communication. Similarly, in the case of the pink ribbon campaign,
King (2006) would critique this as imperial charity disguised under gender progressive
images.
Further, Sastry and Dutta (2013) assert that a discourse of gender is central to neoliberal
imagination and that such market-based impetus is instantiated by global health interven-
tions such as the US Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Sastry and Dutta further
remind us of the discursive disguise of neoliberal policies carefully woven into inter-
national development discourse as well as the perennial struggle between two competing
modernization ideologies (represented by the global tension between capitalism and
communism): In this discourse, primitive traditional cultures are deemed the cause of
HIV risks for Third World women. Attention is thus shifted away from considering the
effects of neoliberal structural adjustment programs, which include the large-scale impov-
erishment of women (Sastry & Dutta, 2013, p. 30).
The critique in the above quote is sound. However, the critique should perhaps not
exclusively focus on the extra-local aspects of neoliberalism as a coherent hegemony
that diffuses downwards from ideological heartlands of western countries. As Springer
(2012) reminds us, such exclusive focus makes us neglect internal constitution, local varia-
bility, and the role that the social and individual agency play in (re)producing, facilitating,
and circulating neoliberalism (p. 136). Specically, focusing so narrowly may amount to
the depoliticization of the development enterprise, a move that is criticized in scholarship
that examines the effectiveness of international aid.
For example, Waisbord (2008) observes that, in contexts of poverty, social exclusion,
and where there are corrupt domestic elites as well as collapsed health infrastructures,
development and related aid cannot afford to ignore such structural factors. Waisbord
(2008) argues that It is hard to envision how these conditions can be corrected,
let alone overturned, without political action through which subaltern communities,
women, or indigenous populations effectively wrestle power away from dominant
groups (p. 516). Uvins (1999) critique of development aid is even more deterring
because he argues that when aid is used to exclusively engage economic issues at the
expense of problems rooted in political inequalities (such as structural violence), aid
may actually increase violence.
As an exhibit, Malaria: Blood, Sweat and Tears reects the conuence of economic, social
and political conicts that, once again, reminds us that neoliberalism can operate in or
springs up from both local and extra-local realities. For example, one of the exhibited
30 J. C. KWITONDA

images3 portrays the consequences of malaria medications that are said to be counterfeit.
In the photo, a Nigerian pharmaceutical enforcer is sitting behind a table with piles of
papers in front of him. In the photo, the discourse of a lethal disease is conveyed
through photographic techniques that Nadel uses consistently in many other pictures
that comprise the exhibit. The photographer is, for example, quite skillful in terms of
how he works with natural light (coming from outside through the window) in order to
establish the mood of mourning (and perhaps by extension, the need for humanitarian
action). We know that the man in the picture is a local director of pharmacies who lost
a daughter, as the caption says:
Its not easy; there are constant threats and powerful consequences. Death threats. We are
trying to take an innovative approach to enforcement, and some of our initiatives have
been successful. I have tried very hard to stop the trade of counterfeit and substandard
drugs. I know what these fake drugs do. My daughter was expecting a baby. She went to
the hospital, and counterfeits killed her.

Ward and England (2007) reminds us that, as an embodied process, neoliberalism

involves people (necessarily). The exhibits use of the pharmaceutical enforcer embodies
and thus reminds us of the idea of market competition. At the very least, one can argue
that the image of the mourning man lies somewhere between the competing discourses
of pharmaceutical companies that want to manufacture and sell medications in both the
north and global south. Let us consider, for example, two different perspectives that rep-
resent competing discourses related to the production and sales of drugs.
On one hand, if we see the discourse surrounding the production of drugs from Bates
(2008) perspective, one can blame the mans ordeal on local/global south dynamics: while
these countries can produce good advanced ingredients and nished products, lax regu-
lation and poor rule of law means that myriad counterfeit actors remain (p. A15). On the
other hand, if one adopts Sastry and Duttas (2011) perspective, one can blame Bates
analysis as an instance of hegemonic discourse from above: structures of knowledge pro-
duction, regulation, and the health care industry in the Anglo-Western mainstream come
together to rap the knuckles of the errant Third World that otherwise could not be con-
trolled (p. 442). In other words, the discourse (produced by the man and his story)
becomes like common infrastructure of seemingly different understandings of neoliberal-
ism through which both local and extra-local dynamics are evoked. In this, we are
reminded of Springers (2012) argument that neoliberalism cannot simply be reduced to
mutually exclusive top-down or bottom-up explanations.
An exclusive focus on neoliberalism as top-down hegemonic ideology runs the risk of
failing to appreciate the possibility of local participation either through resistance or
informed participation. This view is reected in the discourse of Malaria: Blood, Sweat
and Tears, especially in the picture4 that shows a Ugandan man, called David Kachope,
who is holding a research device (an aspirator) used to suck and catch mosquitoes (that
transmit malaria) for research purposes. In the caption, David says that he is in training
to catch mosquitoes: In order to catch the mosquito, you must expose some skin.
When the mosquito comes, it will land on the skin and you direct the aspirator and you
suck the mosquito into the aspirator. David is also quoted saying that he is excited to
be involved in the project and that he volunteered to do it because of the projects impor-
tance. The exhibit is therefore trying to establish a vision of participation at the grassroots.
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 31

Participation that invokes the view of neoliberalism as governmentality (or as coordi-

nation at a distance) is also suggested in the image5 that portrays the control of mosquitos
through the use of indoor spraying. In the picture, we see people wearing overalls and
masks to protect themselves against chemicals. They hold spraying machines that are
used to control mosquitoes through indoor spraying. The people in the photograph are
wearing dark blue uniforms which suggest that they belong to a common organization
that facilitated the indoor spraying activity.
From the bottom-up or governmentality perspective, one can argue that locals have
been enabled to engage in their own grassroots ght against malaria-spreading mosqui-
toes, an effort that may have resonance among people who live in tropical settings. The
caption of the image also suggests a reading of governmentality as state form because
it is suggested that the local governments do not participate in the indoor spraying
project: what we do is very well received by the community. But only a few local govern-
ments are doing this. I hope this program can be expanded. It is really important. Rhetori-
cally, at least, the caption is suggesting less involvement of local governments or what
Peck (2001) describes as a redrawing of state boundaries because the embrace of neoli-
beralism leads states to denigrate their own capacities and potentialities, to restructure
and cut themselves, to engineer their own reform and downsizing (p. 446). Neoliberal-
ism as state form is also suggested in the story told by the pharmaceutical enforcer; he
exposes what Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb (2002) call local institutional conditions (e.
g. local production of bad drugs or the government failing to mediate the social conict
embodied in the man and his story) that often cause the adoption of neoliberalism.
At minimum, the exhibit reects a discourse that promotes Vestergaard Frandsens
expansion of global market and participation at the same time. This is particularly
suggested in presentation of a variety of pictures of the causes of and ght against
malaria as being too difcult and simple at the same time. For example, in an image that
shows people holding spraying machines, the accompanying text reads these men
spray insecticides in homes. It is effective, but labor intensive thus expensive.6 It is possible
to speculate that the photo essayist wants to invite the audience to prevent malaria by
perhaps funding the purchase of mosquito nets because other ways of ghting malaria
are expensive and hence too difcult. Thus, the text may be seen as serving to undermine
other strategies of ghting malaria by framing them as impractical, effectively making the
funding of mosquito nets emerge as the more viable option.
Other pictures in the exhibit present a more or less similar pattern of framing the causes
and ramications of malaria (as being too difcult and simple at the same time). Consider,
for example, the picture7 that shows a young boy who is playing in the rain. Its caption says
Monsoon rains bring relief from the heat and essential water for crops, but also mosqui-
toes and malaria. This caption links malaria to a natural phenomenon (to suggest perhaps
that nothing much can be done). There is yet another photograph that presents the link
between malaria and missed school days while another picture shows pregnancy compli-
cations (see link/note 7). In other words, viewed from a line of understanding that sees
neoliberalism as a hegemonic project functioning to support prots through the expan-
sion of global markets, one can speculate that, the arrangement is effective as it helps
the photo essayist (Adam Nadel) navigate material and discursive exigencies of the
exhibit as a whole.
32 J. C. KWITONDA

Viewed together, the pictures may imply, for example, that if solutions for eradicating
malaria are comprehensive and too complicated, then the use of mosquito nets comes as
a straightforward and a much simpler (and strategic) solution to these many causes of
malaria (e.g. gender inequalities, prohibitive costs of other approaches, migration, malnu-
trition, violent conicts or natural/environmental phenomena such as rain, etc.). The
exhibit further employs the discourse that invokes the view of neoliberalism as govern-
mentality in the context of aid or helping by responsibilizing recipients of welfare. By por-
traying people who are excited about gaining more knowledge and participating in the
ght against mosquitoes that spread malaria, the exhibit invokes a vision of what govern-
mentality in the context of aid might look like. The portrayal also invokes the threatening
aspects that participation raises vis--vis the freedom-as-free-market ideology.

Reection on discourse, aid and development

Malaria: Blood, Sweat and Tears implies that the exhibit is not just a medium that aims at
educating the public about the science and ramications of malaria in developing settings
(and raising related humanitarian aid). As an international event, the exhibit also reects
different understandings of neoliberalism as an ideology, policy and program, state
form or governmentality. As such, we are reminded that we need to understand neoliber-
alism in a more encompassing way; that is, we need to consider neoliberalism as discourse
(Springer, 2012). In addition, development aid is a very complicated transaction that makes
a discourse perspective even more indispensable. In what follows, I reect on the indispen-
sability of focusing on discourse with respect to development aid as well as ways in which
discourse can be used to navigate the contested development model of participation. A
point to emphasize is that discourse is both a conceptual and critical tool that can
assist in navigating alternative models of development as well as the different understand-
ings of neoliberalism.
The alternative terms used to describe development are indicators of not only the
importance of discourse but also its potential impact in the realm of development and
related practices. This way of thinking about discourse and its practical consequences
are echoed in Burkes (1984) eloquent reminder that concepts are both ways of seeing
and of not seeing. In particular, development discourse can x the boundaries of
thought by suggesting what is thinkable and what is not (Eade, 2007).
By extension, the potential to set boundaries of thought is also reected in the different
understandings of neoliberalism. For example, understanding neoliberalism as a hegemo-
nic project can reveal its ideological techniques and their origins but the sole deployment
of this line of thinking in the context of development can obscure other processes of social
change in important ways. Consider the case of gender inequalities portrayed in the
exhibit for example. In this case, gender inequality is used as an infrastructure because
neoliberalism thrives by making people development subjects (Escobar, 1995) through dis-
course. Understanding this dependency may become an entry point for resistance. More
importantly, the sole use may obscure self-reexivity especially if we privilege the under-
standing of neoliberalism as simply and squarely an external and monolithic project. In this
regard, it is crucial to understand how neoliberalism secures hegemony (i.e. willing
consent in the adoption of coherent programs of ideas). Cols (2005) observes that neo-
liberalism is not only something that is imposed on the south by the west because
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 33

developing countries are not hapless victims or passive objects of global neoliberalism;
they are like other states, populated by classes and social forces with their own interests
(p. 78).
In the exhibit, the pharmaceutical enforcer who has to live with death threats adds to
the life of the young woman whose story reveals gender inequalities within the local
culture. The exhibit also presented an instance that invokes neoliberalism as a state
form where most local governments are said to be remiss (Peck, 2010) by not participat-
ing in indoor spraying programs. So, because of the contradictions within, and because
scholars of international aid suggest that aid should be coupled with engaging structural
networks of oppression within the local (see Uvin, 1999; Waisbord, 2008), development aid
will likely be associated with policy and programs that are conditional, something that
further invokes neoliberalism as policy and program. Clearly, such overlapping conditions
necessitate a framework that understands neoliberalism as discourse. This is particularly
true in the case of development aid because the latter is likely to involve more than
one understanding of neoliberalism at once where, for example, policy and
program along with state form approaches fall somewhere in between (Springer, 2012,
p. 137).
Furthermore, the exhibit illustrates the discursive and contested nature of participation.
The rhetors in the exhibit were able to invoke the idea of neoliberalism as governmentality
through the portrayal of entrepreneurial and participating (neoliberal) subjects. Although
the exhibit can be viewed as an instance of neoliberalism as hegemonic, top-down,
market-driven project, the rhetors have also been able to invoke a vision of bottom-up
approach through a discourse of participation.
However, because of neoliberalisms ability to discursively disguise itself, Rahnema
(1990) cautions that participation has indeed become the last temptation of saint develop-
ment. This caution is echoed in the framework that seeks to view neoliberalism as dis-
course because the framework is attuned to its current mutating technique. Thus,
Springer (2012) also emphasizes that such an outlook is about noticing what we inevitably
leave out of even the most searching and inclusive accounts of phenomena like neoliber-
alism (p. 143). The inclusive and discursive nature of neoliberalism also cautions us to be
vigilant even when we are presented with concepts such as participation.
Ferguson and Gupta (2002) make this clear when they suggest that no concept, includ-
ing participation and bottom-up approaches, is linguistically innocent and that we need to
question everything including ideas such as community, grassroots and the local,
laden as they are with nostalgia and the aura of authenticity (p. 990). This is particularly
true if we consider the struggle for the ownership of participation and the various ways
in which the concept tends to lend itself to both local and extra-local manifestations of
neoliberalism.
For example, advocates of participatory approaches seem to assume that cultures in the
global south are traditionally democratic and inherently bottom-up. However, most cul-
tures in the global south can be said to have followed a more or less similar trajectory
of power structures that do not lend themselves well to participatory (i.e. democratic or
peoples power) understandings. From absolute monarchical power, to the colonial, and
then postcolonial dictatorships, one can argue that the people in most global south set-
tings have only been coping with if not internalizing normalized top-down political
cultures.
34 J. C. KWITONDA

Besides, there is more to the revolutionary concepts of participation than meets the
eye. For example, because most states in the global south are economically broke (or
close to being so) and are required (or forced) by development agencies such as the
IMF and World Bank to hold regular elections in order to secure aid or survive debt
crisis, Rahnema (1990) observes that governments have learned to control and contain
participation, important political advantages are often obtained through the ostentatious
display of participatory intentions (p. 202).
All these are discursive games whose aim is to co-opt the original meaning that partici-
pation derived from its original, Freirian roots. The original idea of emancipatory pedagogy
of participation as advanced by Paulo Freire was not development in its sense of reducing
economic poverty but deep social transformations of conditions that produce cultural and
political marginalization (Leal, 2007). In the words of Freire (1970), participation was orig-
inally based on praxis and the idea of critical consciousness that would eventually lead
people to be free of oppressive and dehumanizing circumstances (p. 29). Although devel-
opment per se is not an alien concept vis--vis the original/Freirian intentions, poverty alle-
viation as development was expected to follow naturally from the deep social
transformations. Thus it is now clear why participation is a threat to any exploitative
force regardless of whether its source is local or extra-local (e.g. capitalist power).
In sum, these accounts point to the fact that neoliberalism is a phenomenon that can
take advantage of both local and extra-local dynamics and that it can best be understood
(inclusively) as discourse. In its relationship to development aid, neoliberalism cannot be
understood as just bottom-up or just top-down but must be seen as a dialectical process.
This inclusive outlook on neoliberalism and social change is, after all, regarded by many as
a dialectical process (e.g. Gilbert, 2005; Papa, Singhal, & Papa, 2006; Raco, 2005). Springer
(2012), in particular, advocates the encompassing outlook of neoliberalism as being
especially useful in the sense that it can be used as a critical and resistance tool in the
process of uncovering the (mutating) techniques of neoliberalism and disassembling its
exploitative infrastructure.

Conclusion and future directions

The main objective in this essay was to understand and illustrate the importance of dis-
course in the realm of development and the politics of securing related aid. It is
through discourse that development and related concepts achieve the buzzwords
status and secure hegemony or what Gramsci (1971) called unquestioned acceptance of
ideas, policies and programs that are advanced through international development. The
cold war context outlined in this article, as well as the analysis of the exhibit, illustrates
how discourse can be useful in co-opting or purging concepts (such as participation) of
their threatening aspects.
Discourse is also useful as a critical tool. This argument derives its legitimacy from the
different understandings of neoliberalism and its manifestation in development discourse.
In this article, I illustrated that neoliberalism is a phenomenon that discursively thrives on
and springs from both local and extra-local dynamics. Thus understanding neoliberalism in
the development context requires considering it as discourse in order to perceive its net-
works both within and without. In other words, neoliberalism does not just manifest itself
as a hegemonic project, policy and program, state form or governmentality. Rather,
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 35

neoliberalism can creatively maneuver across these understandings and can discursively
mutate in its efforts to spread and establish its agenda across the globe. In particular,
the different understandings of neoliberalism in the context of development aid seem
to converge, at least discursively, on the ideal of participation. Research opportunities
are suggested by the current (contested) state of the concept of participation.
Given that the emancipatory ideal of participation has lost its original meaning, future
development researchers should try to recover its original focus. Discourse seems to be a
promising avenue in this regard, in the sense that it can help ordinary people (who are
often the target of development projects) understand what Freire (1970) called their his-
torical conditioning and levels of consciousness. For example, because of discourse (and fol-
lowing Freires stipulation), many ordinary people in developing settings may not be able
to question established buzzwords such as participation or development. They may also not
have enough discursive consciousness to critically assess the conditioning meanings of
such terms. Future development or critical discourse researchers should try to identify
how discourse can be used to raise levels of critical consciousness as a new agenda for
positive social change. As seen in this article, however, given that development often
tends to focus on economic issues and depoliticizing development projects, discursive
consciousness may appear to be an intellectual exercise or fail to garner nancial
support altogether. Yet, as seen in this article, discourse conditions development and lib-
eration alike by setting boundaries of thought and is part and parcel of what has been hap-
pening in the understanding and practice of international development and related aid.
Furthermore, the concept of governmentality is inescapably relevant to development
aid as the notion promises to motivate recipients of welfare to be entrepreneurial and ulti-
mately self-reliant. As seen in this article, however, in the absence of discursive and critical
consciousness, there is a risk of appropriating the original promise of governmentality
just as neoliberal capitalist power co-opted the concept of participation. Future develop-
ment aid researchers should consider ways in which critical consciousness can assist in the
delivery of the ethical promise of governmentality along with using discourse as a critical
tool for navigating neoliberalism not just as an ideology, policy and program, state form or
governmentality but as a whole.

Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes
1. See Nadels personal website http://adamnadel.net/exhibitions/.
2. See http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/showcase-148/?_r=0.
3. See http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/02/21/weekinreview/20100221-malaria-ss_
index-7.html.
4. http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/02/21/weekinreview/20100221-malaria-ss_index-5.
html.
5. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/showcase-148/?_r=0.
6. http://snapme.ca/where-malaria-still-kills/.
7. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/showcase-148/?_r=0.
36 J. C. KWITONDA

Notes on contributor
Jean Claude Kwitonda is a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio University. He obtained his MA in Communi-
cation and Development Studies at the Ohio University Center for International Studies. His research
interests include international communication, development studies and health communication.

References
Barnett, C. (2005). The consolations of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 36, 712. Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.08.006
Bate, R. (2008, July 19). Stopping killer counterfeits. The Washington Post, p. A15.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism.
Antipode, 34, 349379. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444397499.ch1
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the rst last. London: ITT Publications.
Chossudovsky, M. (2002). The globalization of poverty: The impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms.
London: Zed Books.
Cols, A. (2005). Globalization and international relations. In D. Johnston & A. Saad-Filho (Eds.),
Neoliberalism: A critical reader (pp. 7080). London: Pluto Press.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing development discourse. Development
in Practice, 17, 471484.
Cotoi, C. (2011). Neoliberalism: A Foucauldian perspective. International Review of Social Research, 1
(2), 109124. Retrieved from http: //www.irsr.eu/issue02/07_Cotoi_p109-124.pdf
Dutta, M. (2004). The unheard voices of Santalis: Communicating about health from the margins of
India. Communication Theory, 14(3), 237263.
Dutta, M. (2006). Theoretical approaches to entertainment education campaigns: A subaltern cri-
tique. Health Communication, 20(3), 221231.
Eade, D. (2007). Editorial. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 467470. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/25548243
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. (2000). Place, power and networks in globalization and postdevelopment. In K. G. Wilkins
(Ed.), Redeveloping communication for social change: Theory, practice and power (pp. 89102).
Oxford: Rowman & Littleeld.
Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmen-
tality. American Ethnologist, 29, 9811002. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.2002.29.4.
981
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect:
Studies in governmentality (pp. 87104). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Fourcade-Gourinchas, M., & Babb, S. (2002). The rebirth of the liberal creed: Paths to neoliberalism in
four countries. American Journal of Sociology, 108(3), 533579. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.
1086/367922
Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Herder and
Herder.
Gilbert, E. (2005). The inevitability of integration? Neoliberal discourse and the proposals for a new
North American economic space after September 11. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 95, 202222. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00456.x
Gowan, P. (2006). Triumphing toward international disaster. Critical Asian Studies, 36(1), 336.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1467271042000184562
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen Vivir: Todays tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441447. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.86
King, S. (2006). Pink ribbons, Inc.: Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES 37

Klepeis, P., & Vance, C. (2003). Neoliberal policy and deforestation in southeastern Mexico: An assess-
ment of the PROCAMPO program. Economic Geography, 79, 221240. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00210.x
Lapinski, V. (2012, April). The many faces of malaria. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://lens.
blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/showcase-148/
Leal, P. (2007). Participation: The ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in
Practice, 17, 539548. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780440095.008
Martinez, E., & Garcia, A. (2000). What is neoliberalism? A brief denition for activists. CorpWatch.
Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id = 376
Martnez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the
context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69(9),
17411747. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017
McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2006). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 35,
275283. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.07.003
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. New York,
NY: Farrar Staus and Giroux.
Papa, M. J., Singhal, A., & Papa, W. H. (2006). Organizing for social change: A dialectic journey of theory
and practice. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Peck, J. (2001). Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in Human Geography, 25,
445455. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913201680191772
Peck, J. (2010). Zombie neoliberalism and the ambidextrous state. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 104110.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362480609352784
Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities.
Antipode, 37, 324347. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00495.x
Rahnema, M. (1990). Participatory action research: The last temptation of saint development.
Alternatives, XV, 199226. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40644681
Ren, H. (2005). Modes of governance in neo-liberal capitalism: An introduction. Rhizomes, 10.
Retrieved from http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/introren.htm
Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-guring the territory of government. Economy and
Society, 25, 327356. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149600000018
Rosenberg, D. (2014, November 5). Putting a face on malaria. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/
blogs/behold/2014/03/14/adam_nadel_malaria_blood_sweat_and_tears_examines_the_
devastation_of_the.html
Sastry, S., & Dutta, M. J. (2011). Postcolonial constructions of HIV/AIDS: Meaning, culture, and struc-
ture. Health Communication, 26, 437449. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.
2011.554166
Sastry, S., & Dutta, M. J. (2013). Global health interventions and the common sense of neoliberalism:
A dialectical analysis of PEPFAR. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6(1), 21
39. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2012.740682
Springer, S. (2012). Neoliberalism as discourse: Between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian
poststructuralism. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 133147.
Springer, S. (2015). Postneoliberalism? Review of Radical Political Economics, 47(1), 517. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0486613413518724
Storey, D. (2000). A discursive perspective on development theory and practice: Reconceptualizing
the role of donor agencies. In K. G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping communication for social change
(pp. 103118). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld Publishers.
Uvin, P. (1999). Development aid and structural violence: The case of Rwanda. Development, 42, 4956.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1110060
Vesterguaard Frandesen. (2008). CSR 2008. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/
system/attachments/206/original/COP.pdf?1262614174
Waisbord, S. (2008). The institutional challenges of participatory communication in international aid.
Social Identities, 14(4), 505522. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630802212009
Waisbord, S., & Obregon, R. (2012). Theoretical divides and convergence in global health communication.
In The handbook of global health communication (pp. 933). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
38 J. C. KWITONDA

Wachs, F. L. (2007). Pink ribbons, Inc.: Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Gender and
Society, 21(6), 929931. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27641025
Ward, K., & England, K. (2007). Introduction: Reading neoliberalization. In K. England & K. Ward (Eds.),
Neoliberalization: States, networks, peoples (pp. 122). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wilkins, K. G. (2000). Introduction. In K. G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping communication for social change:
Theory, practice and power (pp. 14). Oxford: Rowman & Littleeld.