Thing Development Must Be Guided By Human Development

By: Stephen Ainsah-Mensah

When did it suggest itself to us that development must not be confined to the mere development of things? This question appears irresistible the more we see the massive development of things without a corresponding development of the people. Then, when this occurs, producers appear restless, very agitated and press to make sure that their products are consumed by adopting any means necessary. It should be noted that “the people” means as many as possible of the people and not anything to the contrary. But, then, the modernization of a society, the beauty of developed fashionable things is all it takes to reconstitute the personality of people who care to observe them. What follows this state of affairs is the relentless activation of acquisitiveness – as if life without acquisitiveness is woefully incomplete. In line with the general structure of human behaviour, the predominance of developed fashionable things in the consuming market provokes a new form of consumption behaviour that refashions human personalities in such a way that the modern human is claimed to be a product of materialism. The common consensus happens to be this: you are developed because of your high level of acquisitiveness or your wealth - or both. Unfortunately, your acquisitiveness rocks the fabric of your moral fibre to the extent that there might be a moral deficit to your personality even as your materialistic appeal tends to be puffed up. One can discern a paradox here.

As much as moral values and, in general, the cultural index tends to depreciate in relation to the advanced development of physical things, it can be deduced that the human factor of development has been cavalierly supplanted by non-human ones. Suppose we ask: what is the purpose of the development of things, we are pressed to provide an answer that nullifies the initial claim or resolve that things merely have to be developed. Of course, we cannot say that things have to be developed for their own sake; for that will be a mockery to those who strive and make certain of the development of things. Furthermore, it does not make sense to say that humans just go about to develop things that have no direct bearing on their own development but just for the sake of developing things. The thesis of the development of things may follow different lines of reasoning according to the social-economic principles of the initiators of development.

There are some people who may say that the development of things should take place without any cautious consideration of its relationship to the development of the people. Just go about to develop things and people who use the things will be able to effect human development through this means. It is not a question of what kinds of people could be developed; the whole process of human development comes about unprompted through the use of developed things. Some people directly use the developed things but some do not; and even those who do not could be developed through their interaction with those who do in different kinds of ways. But it can be seen that this way of developing things could equally promote an unrestrained development of things since the human factor is not taking into any serious consideration in the process of development. Yet, unrestrained production calls upon the producers to be as innovative as possible; for new, more viable products have to be available in the market in order for consumers to be enticed to go for them. What goes on with time may be wastes both in production and consumption – and more of them.

Advocates of this theory of development may insist that it is better to create massive surpluses than to restrict production. The latter may cause scarcity and, thereby, price hikes, which may, eventually, strangle the economy. But the issue to address is whether the surpluses referred to here are really about essential products for life’s progress or are about overly luxurious products. For example, what has the massive surpluses of flashy cameras got to do with human progress? How do unduly expensive flashy cars cause human progress? Will it not be better, one may ask, to channel money spent on such products on more pressing needs? What is more, the craze for expensive, flashy products signals a bizarre rush to overwork oneself, so that sufficient money could be had to acquire them. Unless this acquisitive intuition is checked, it could exclude humaneness as a fundamental component of the human character. The idea that we humans are degenerating into forms that debase individual and collective conscience is partly born out of this problem.

Thus, we can see that the hypnotic effect of advanced technological products - on potential or actual consumers – brings trouble to bear on an otherwise social and economic stability. Do a perceptual and mental excursion of a technologically advanced society, and you will be bound to infer that unless the moral and social alertness of the society is granted a prominent or adequate priority, excess stress is a predominant trait of many a people. Heightened materialism grips the man who repeatedly observes state-of-the-art technological products. Mere perception of such products transmits images of the products into the psyche of the individual. There begins the battle to reform the structure of the psyche in order to incorporate materialistic forces that have invaded it. The invigorated mental and emotional capacity of the individual arises from this spectacle, but it is also a scene for a new human spiritedness that shapes moral drives in ways that are far more egoistic than cooperative. Societies may become progressively class-based because of this particular reason; for if I am far more interested in satisfying my materialistic cravings than anything else, why, for heaven’s sake, should I be preoccupied with short or long-term objectives that are intended to improve the lives or ameliorate the sufferings of others?

Some other theoreticians – or even some pragmatists, people who are keen on addressing the practical success or failure of specified issues – may opt for a different approach to the development of things, which is of this form: develop many things only if it can be envisaged or appraised that most people, irrespective of social-economic status, will actually benefit from those things. But this viewpoint does not exclude the case of developed things that serve the interest – mostly – of a certain group of people such as the well-to-do. The point, however, is that priority is not given to this particular issue. Developing schools and hospitals are not just for development’s sake. All kinds of people ought to be able to access the schools and hospitals. If, however, moderately rich or very rich people are the ones who can mostly access the schools and hospitals, then, according to the expected supposition, the developments are bad. The developments will give more room to accentuate a class-based society, and, hence, produce unintended tension between the rich and the have-nots.

I am not necessarily in favour of the egalitarian approach to establishing the development of things; but I believe that it offers some kind of hope, of optimism, for those who do not have the monetary ability or, simply, the means to access social-economic services or goods. An uncritical endorsement of this mode of development may, however, provide a recipe for the spread of laziness and the stifling of creativity. Suppose I am neither rich nor poor, but have sufficient money for a minimally decent level of living. I have a child I want to train in a good school I know of. Regrettably, I do not have enough money, at least at this time, to do so. I, therefore, use all of my mental sophistication and bodily effort to secure an extra income through extra jobs in order to send my child to the school I want. I succeed in doing so. With the development of schools that grant equal eligibility to all kinds of students irrespective of their parents’ income level, I am content with my initial income level, an income that qualifies me as neither poor nor rich. I moderate the use of my mind and body in the doing of things instead of allowing myself to go into some kind of extremes to meet some set goals.

While extremes may engender soaring innovative spirits, they may also wear down the individuals, impair the health. Moderation, on the other hand, usually calms the emotions, reduces the risk of energizing the mind to an uneasy level. It is, indeed, a question of what priorities a society has at a given moment; and since I am in favour of the principle of balance, I tend to subscribe to the view that extremes, if they are intended for use for short-term, gap-fixing developments are okay. In the long term, prioritized development of things in relation to human development - that are less than extremes - are to be favoured.