Centering the Outliers: Reconsidering Models of Development

Akhila Kumaran delves into the pitfalls of understanding certain communities merely as ‘outliers’ to Kerala’s so-called development model.

Akhila Kumaran

An important aspect that struck me growing up in Kerala was the contradiction in my surroundings. As an Economics student, the ‘Kerala model’ was often an important part of the syllabus. But there were numerous red flags that marred this idea of Kerala as a model state—for example, the land struggles by the Adivasi community in Kerala. If land equality had been achieved then why were Adivasi communities still fighting? Another important contradiction was the gender inequality that played out in daily life—despite features of high literacy there were fewer working women, and public spaces were often inaccessible to women. Prof. John Kurien’s 1995 article titled ‘The Kerala Model: Its Central Tendency and The Outlier’ provided the much-needed framework for me to understand exactly what was missing in the debates surrounding the Kerala model. By using the average as a measure, statisticians and economists often obscure inconvenient facets that cannot be explained by a model. This is not to state that we do not require models, but that by relying excessively on averages, we tend to place importance on a methodology that renders exclusion rather invisible. This is an indicator of the larger politics of development in our state, and has significant implications on inequality.

For example, the struggles waged by certain sections of the community tend to be regarded as an aberration rather than as a result of the development pattern followed in the state. When we use the term ‘outlier’, for instance, there is an implied ‘waiting room’ for development, as historian J. Devika argues—i.e., it is only a matter of time till development reaches the people (Devika 2013:10). Agency is taken away from the people and instead, development becomes something that is bestowed on the people by those who know better—most commonly, the state. Development then assumes a top-down approach, one that is very different from the earlier mode of public action in Kerala where people demanded their rights from the state and it was considered as the state’s duty, in fact, to meet the basic needs of the people (Sen and Dreze 1989). The agency of the people plays a crucial role in such a scenario. Most importantly, when development becomes a top-down approach, the state reduces citizens to beneficiaries. This poses a threat to the culture of democracy in India.

To further extend the concept of outlier, I think it is useful to make use of the recent work of data scientist Catherine D’Iganzio. Relying on the work of data scientists as well as feminist geographers, D’Ignazio points out that counting is an essential part of categorization. As she states, counting becomes significant specifically ‘…in relation to categorizing people and making them visible to powerful institutions’ (D’Ignazio 2021: 378). This visibility, while not always desirable, has important consequences for the communities that are rendered vulnerable. In terming the communities as outliers to the larger development paradigm, the rights of the community are often sidelined by relegating them to a sphere outside of the ‘normal’ or the ‘average’. Thus, the characteristics of the community are marked by the label of abnormality. Systems of governance will then seek to make vulnerable communities more like the mainstream as a ‘solution’ to their issues. There is inherent violence in such modes of governance. Importantly, the reasons for the communities’ vulnerability—the historical forces of deprivation and exclusion—become no longer relevant for the pursuit of social justice. As James Ferguson addresses the issue in the context of Lesotho in his work, The Anti-Politics Machine, development can become an intervention that is often technical and apolitical. 

What does this mean for communities that are rendered as outliers to the dominant development paradigm? For most communities, this means being under a mode of governance that is similar to colonial modes of control. When desirable characteristics of any mode are sought, there follows an immediate classification into those who have the characteristic and those who do not. The communities who are considered devoid of the same then become associated with imagined ‘risks’. For example, theft and criminality become characteristic of those who are uneducated or poor, two signifiers that will disproportionately apply to vulnerable communities. This calls for more surveillance, and thus, the paternal gaze of the state is directed towards these communities. This is starkly brought to light in the digital age where every piece of information is collected, analysed, and stored. Such measures against ‘outlier’ communities are justified using scenarios of future ‘progress’ in terms of economic growth or social improvement. The historical processes behind how development seemed to elude these communities get buried under the new policy regime of efficiency and productivity. 

How do we then consider building a better model? Perhaps we can begin by acknowledging the suffering of those who have been marginalised and re-centering their priorities. There is much to learn from the struggles waged by the Adivasis, the fight against erosion in our coastal areas, and other numerous everyday struggles of the working class and the poor which have set forth better definitions and practices that we can collectively build upon. In this regard, environmental movements, specifically in the global south, present issues of intersectional identities (class, caste and gender) and illuminate the need for more imagination in building back a socially just world. 

References

• Dreze, Jean, and Amartya Sen. 1991. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford University Press.
  
• Kurien, John. 1995. ‘The Kerala model: Its central tendency and the outlier.’ Social Scientist (1995): 70-90.
• Devika, Jayakumari. 2013. ‘Contemporary Dalit Assertions in Kerala: Governmental Categories vs Identity Politics?’ History and Sociology of South Asia 7, no.1 (2013): 1-17.
• D’Ignazio, Catherine. 2021. ‘Outliers’ in Uncertain Archives: Critical Keywords for Big Data. Edited by N. B. Thylstrup et al., 377-387.
  

About the Author: Akhila Kumaran is currently pursuing a PhD at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She identifies as a feminist and enjoys storytelling in all forms and colours. 

Please follow and like us: