Taking the Middle Path Towards Gross National Happiness

Nearly four decades of development in non-western nationshave rendered the term ‘development’ problematic to say theleast.2 It has become painfully obvious that development hasbeen neocolonialism incognito. Many well-intended programshave been started in South America, Africa, and Asia in aneffort to bring the luxuries of industrialization to underdeveloped nations. These programs have been exposednot only to be infused with euro-centric notions of conceptslike development, progress, value, and economics, but also tohave actually impeded the health of their respectivecommunities in a number of ways.3 There is room to saythat, by and large, efforts of development have failedmiserably. Certainly there have been small victories, and insome cases, important improvements. Nevertheless, upon aclose examination of development, one becomes aware of howwell-intended efforts have only further entrenched theproblems created by colonization.What is needed is a new way of approaching developmentalong with a close exploration of why efforts, thus far, havebeen drenched in complications. One responseunderstandably, is to avoid development efforts altogether,and leave other nations alone to solve their problems on theirown terms. This is a very inviting approach, an approachthat Bhutan has been more successful with, than many othercountries. However, given the globalization that is nowoccurring at a rapid rate, it is clear that, to use Edgar Morin'sterminology, we have entered the Planetary Era.4 Thus, itwould be naive to think that Western nations can avoidexerting a huge pressure towards industrial development inthe rest of the world or that a small country such as Bhutancan or should avoid the benefits of such development.Consequently, we need to look even closer at the idea ofdevelopment and discern how this concept and itsapplications can be salvaged. How can we divorce theconcept of development from the eurocentric currents thathave permeated it for 40 years? How can we reformulatedevelopment to honor all cultures at their level of existence,be it agricultural, industrial, or informational? In otherwords, how do we achieve unity-in-diversity, how can we singa unitas multiplex? What would it look like to support theentire spectrum of development both in individuals and theircountries, without privileging one place (e.g., informational)over another (e.g., agricultural), while acknowledging theimpact that each has on the other. What would such anintegral approach to development look like?