This week, our class was assigned five articles that view development on a global scale and/or in an urban context. Our job was to compare these development projects or issues to observations we made in Mart, TX, a rural town in the US.
Karvelyte-Balbieriene’s article, “The Present State of the Built Historic Enfironment of Lituanian Rural Settlements and Its Potential for Sustainable Socioeconomic Development,” outlines several renovations of Lithuanian historical buildings. The authors point out five major causes that historic buildings fall into disrepair: “1) abandonment, lack of maintenance, and low quality repair works, 2) preservation problems of wooden buildings, 3) inappropriate use, 4) inaccessibility to society of the built heritage objects, and 5) ownership problems”(Karvelyte-Balbieriene 62). A few of these same factors play into the current state of the Masonic Hall, which is badly in need of repair in Mart, TX. Specifically, “lack of maintenance and low quality repair works” have allowed the 100-year-old building to slowly become nearly uninhabitable.
Yet many of the root causes of the current state of Masonic Hall differ from those outlined in this article. While a chart shows than many of the Lithuanian historic sites have been used as storage, Mart’s Masonic has continued to function as a meeting place for Masons. The Masonic Hall is owned by the Masons and belongs to them, tax free, so “ownership problems” as such are not an issue. Perhaps, though, the real “ownership problem” that Mart’s Mason Hall faces is that the owners happen to be black and mostly low-income. The white folks in Mart have their own Masonic Hall across town. Perhaps if the black and white Masons of Mart would embrace the true Masonic brotherhood and join together in one group, then the citizens of the town at large might take a greater interest in ensuring that this historic site be preserved. The fundamental difference between the Lithuanian historic buildings and Mart’s Masonic Lodge is the existence of deep-rooted racial divisions within the town of Mart.
Iqtidar Ali Shah’s article, “People’s Participation in Rural Development Projects in the North-West Frotier Province of Pakistan: A Comparative Review and Analysis of Sarrhad Rural Support Programme and Integrated Rural Development Project,” compares a government-run rural development in Pakistan with a similar program headed by an NGO. In the government project, Shah explains, “traditional institutions were given due importance in the development of their area/village,” while in the NGO projecat, “traditional institutions were ignored in development activities of their area/village”(179). Similarly, in the government project, “Religious leaders were given due importance especially in the cohesion of the organization and support in women development activities,” while in the NGO project, “socio-cultural environment studied at Religious leaders were not considered important for strengthening of the organization and women development”(179). In other words, the government project included and traditional and religious institutions in their development planning and initiatives, while the NGO-led project failed to do so. Given that the article repeatedly refers to the NGO-led project as having an “activist” bent, I am curious as to whether the organization excluded traditional and religious Pakistani institutions because they disagreed with some of these institutions’ socially conservative values. In Mart—as is the case, I would imagine, in Pakistan and in many developing areas around the world—“traditional institutions” are intimately linked with religion. By working with the institutions that already exist in Mart—the black churches, the Masons, etc.—our group can strive to integrate our work into the existing community network, instead of trying to alter or work around the existing structure of the town.
K. J. Shinew, T. D. Gloverm, and D. C. Parry’s article, Leisure Spaces as Potential Sites for Interracial Interaction: Community Gardens in US Urban Areas,” outlines the ways in which a community gardening project can bring community members of different backgrounds together, citing a case study based in St. Louis as an example. The authors posit that “by working towards the construction of maintenance of a community garden, residents who belong to different racial, ethnic, and class-based groups address collective concerns, such as crime and urban decline, together”(339). Yet the heavily segregated history of Mart, as well as the very real racial tensions present in the South, mean that inter-cultural dialogue is a significant challenge. What, if anything, are the “collective concerns” of the black and white citizens of Mart? Does any dialogue between the groups exist right now, and how might that dialogue be built upon through the shared creation of a community garden? How might the garden’s geographical location in the town affect the makeup of the volunteer group interested in working on the garden?
V. Jostein and M Villa’s article “Books, Branding, and Boundary Objects: On the Use of Image in Rural Development,” discusses the process of re-branding that took place when Fjaerland, a small rural Norweigan town, was transformed into a “book town,” a place for tourists to stop and browse a strip a twelve bookstores in town. The authors pose that Fjaerland is a “place where image construction through the branding processes has had an effect on how the place is perceived. At the same time, locally, there is a sense of optimism and positive local mobilization”(160). In other words, the project is successful because it involves the support of the entire community. Could the development of the co-op help to “re-brand” Mart as an arts community? If so, how might we ensure the buy-in and support of the entire community? How could we encourage the kind of dialogue that would be required in order to get the entire community on board?
Chinyere G. Okafor’s article, “Global Encounters: ‘Barbie’ in Nigerian Agbogh-mmuo Mask Context,” problematizes the popularity of the Barbie image and the way in which it is redefining standards of beauty in Nigeria, causing young women to undergo difficult and often physically harmful lengths to attain a similar appearance, resorting to means such as chemical hair straightening products, skin lightening creams, and eating disorders. Okafor compares the problematic Barbie image to Agbogho-mmuo, a traditional Nigerian mask and idealization of Nigerian womanhood. “In performance, Agbogho-mmuo epitomizes societal views of femi-
nine personality: communal, moral, good body shape and features, nurturing,
gentle, vigorous, and dynamic”(Okafor 40). Okafor posits Agbogho-mmuo as a more realistic, holistic, and culturally relevant ideal image for Nigerian girls and young women to idealize and emulate.
How does the Barbie complex translate to a segregated rural community like Mart? I would guess that the influence of white standards of beauty is even more prevalent in the community, since the community itself is situated within the American context. In our global economy, prevailing white standards of beauty surely affect women of color globally, regardless of geographical location. The question is, do the young black women have mart have an Agbogho-mmuo—do they have a symbol of their own traditional ideal of black womanhood to strive toward? How can our work with the young women of Mart, through the Sisters of Nia program, help to cultivate such an image?