CULTURE AND MENTALITE CONSIDERATIONS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Glenna H. Graves, Ph.D. Morehead State University 502.863.1283 // [email protected]

ABSTRACT Regional and community development work more democratically, and more effectively, when based in an understanding of local culture and mentalite. Development planning must begin with a careful examination and integration of these factors. Mentalite is a set of values (world-view), and is a descriptive factor in social science analysis like gender, race and ethnicity, culture, religion, or class. Mentalite is oven overlooked, subsumed by the concept of culture. My paper describes the rural, premodern mentalite found across cultures and throughout the world, and points to specific strategies linking mentalite to inclusive regional and community development. Attention to the rural premodern mentalite, alongside the urban modern mentalite, offers an opportunity to bring the best of both perspectives into the work of civic revitalization. The premodern mentalite offers a base for extrapolating specific approaches for getting people involved in community issues, and social and economic development- all from their own orientation, perspective, and vision.

INTRODUCTION "Tradition is a vast reservoir" (Atal and Pieris, 1976: 85). The most significant factor in imagining, designing, and implementing democratic and effective development is knowledge, consideration and integration of that cultural group's social values. Those of us involved in development efforts must go beyond the notion of cultural sensitivity--albeit cultural differences are challenging enough--and ground the work of community development in an understanding of social-relational value systems--that is, mentalite (Clark, 1993; Henretta, 1978). The admonition to focus on mentalite is based on the recognition that conventional development has been a failure (Atal and Pieris, 1976; Kothari, 1988; Godelier, 1991; Hettne,

1990; Alexander, 1994; Mehmet, 1995; Hettne, 1995, Norgaard, 1996; and Leclerc, 2005). We are far from meeting the Millennium Development Goals (Held and McGrew, 2002: 77 and 86). The "three essential criteria of development" have not been met: reduction in poverty; increase in employment; and reduction in inequality (Alexander, 1994:57). Further, it is clear that there is something terribly wrong, socially and psychologically, in many marginalized communities in deeply traditional societies across the developing world, particularly with young people, with the issues of drug and alcohol abuse, violence and suicide (Kothari, 1988; Norgaard, 1994; Mehmet, 1995; Picciotto and Rist, 1995; and MacDonald, 2006). Appalachia, the mountainous area in the eastern part of the United States, where I am from, has similar social problems (Zeller, 1968; Williams, 1993; and Abramson and Haskell, 2006; and Gaventa, 1990; Stephenson, 1995; Keefe, 2005). Social scientists and development specialists are turning to the value systems in local cultural contexts for insight in how to achieve democratic, humane, and long-lasting community development in the face of such failure (Banuri, 1990; Heyd, 1995; Kothari, 1995; Hill, 1995; MACED, 1997; Mehmet, 1995; Norgaard, 1996; Scott, 1998; Graves, 1998; Inglehart, et al, 1998; Groves and Hinton, 2005). This paper is based on research about Appalachian society, including: oral history research; literature searches; participatory research; and survey instruments, (Graves, 1993; Graves, 1994; KATF, 1995; KAC, 1996; Graves, 1996; Graves, 1998a; 1998b; Graves, et al, 2002; and Graves, 2004). This paper is informed by the work of scholars on the broader issues of the complexity of intercultural communication, the cultural roots of problems in international development, and the dynamics of power and powerlessness (Hall, 1959 and 1976; Scott, 1998; and Gaventa 1980). Despite the attention of scholars to issues of cultural sensitivity in international development there is still a great "lack of fit between the ways development agencies think and work and the actual worlds of those they're supposed to assist" (Earthscan, 2005: 2). The purpose of this paper is to address this lack of fit. My paper contributes to community development literature by discussing mentalite as an additional factor of analysis (that is more specific than culture) in social science generally and especially to community development planning and implementation. This paper is a discussion of power. The crux of why this approach to development has not yet succeeded is that those who have power have not conceded it, and those who do not have power have not taken it in a pro-active way. The intention is to urge implementation of concrete actions in building inclusive development projects, where local people feel like they do fit in, and in fact, are the wellspring of decisions and action. The paper discusses the term "mentalite," and describes the rural, premodern mentalite found across cultures throughout the world, and outlines my thesis and arguments regarding the usefulness of the concept of mentalite. The paper also notes examples from fields outside community development, as well as development projects across the world where a consideration of mentalite was integrated into professional practice and social policy. Lastly, the paper offers practical strategies that draw on the premodern mentalite to achieve inclusive community engagement in development projects in Appalachia, and around the world, particularly in terms of reconfiguring power relationships.

DEFINITIONS OF MENTALITE Stating the definition for mentalite is problematic. The history of mentalites concern peoples' "visions of the world." Not readily translatable into English, the term connotes a range of mental attributes and structures that the word "mentalites" only inadequately conveys (Clark, 1993: 387). Oftentimes the term "cultural values" is misunderstood as the same as mentalite. The values of a particular mentalite are distinctive because they mark a shift from one era to another, as from an agrarian past to an industrial era, or to a service economy era. I do not mean geographically specific or ethnically specific cultural practices such as suttee, female genital cutting, etc. The historian James Henretta used the terms "consciousness," and "world view" as referring to the "widely accepted values, goals, and behavioral norms" and "social values" of people living in agrarian communities (Henretta, 1978: 20- 21, 32). We do often see the term "world view," with and without the hyphen. Another scholar refers to the "attitudes, values, and perspectives of historical groups and individuals," and "mental worlds of people traditionally left out by historians-the obscure, the poor, and socially marginal" (Clark, 1993: 387). Let us consider this as a definition for "mentalite": Mentalite is "the consciousness of [people], the mental, or emotional or ideological aspects of their lives," their "motivations, values and goals" (Henretta, 1978: 3). However, it is clearer by far to discern the meaning of mentalite by comparing and contrasting dual value sets.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMODERN MENTALITE The most significant new element I add to rethinking community and economic development is to look beyond the concept of cultural sensitivity, to include an analysis of mentalite, that is, as noted above: a cultural group's value system or world view. The value systems to which I refer are (A) the premodern mentalite, that is rooted in a rural past and is in contrast to the (B) industrial and modern value system, and (C) the emerging postmodern value system (Clark, 1993; Henretta, 1978; Wallerstein, 1974; and Wallerstein, 2000). These values constitute the premodern mentalite across the globe (Eller, 1982; Ake, 1988; Banuri, 1990; Graves, 1993; Wilson, 1994; Dia, 1994; Eberle, 1995; Jones, 1995; Stevens, 1995; McKinney, 1996; Graves, 1997; Inglehart, 1997; Borge, 1999a and 1999b; Graves and Rojas, 2000; Weinstein, 2005; Keefe, 2005; Maloney, 2005; and Eggers-Pierola, 2005). Let us distinguish between premodern and modern values. The tenets of a premodern mentalite (or worldview), include placing a high premium on the following:

GENERAL MENTALITE VALUE SETS: PREMODERN 1. personal relationships/trust 2. small-scale social units, family, farm 3. family and community over self 4. family works together 5. cooperation and reciprocity 6. holistic perspective on life and labor 7. rural life 8. time inexact, time with people valued 9. status and egalitarianism: character, personality, age, skill, leadership, family background 10. character honed, valued 11. task-oriented work, no boss 12. thrift 13. home-centered rituals of life: birth, childhood illness, courtship, marriage, widowhood, illness, death 14. local-centered life, importance of place 15. change- good/bad/neutral 16. the indirect, nuance

MODERN impersonal interactions/distrust factories, organizations focus on the individual family works apart competition compartmentalization of life and labor urban life time exact, time valued status: money

achievement, success scheduled work, boss buy strangers, money, not at home

national markets, mobility, fame change is imperative, positive, and inevitable direct, in-your-face approach

THESIS Regional and community development work more democratically, and more effectively, when based in an understanding of local culture and mentalite. Public policy development must include a careful examination and integration of these factors. Mentalite is a set of values (worldview), and is a descriptive factor in social science analysis like gender, race and ethnicity, culture, religion, or class. Traditional values (more accurately the values of the premodern mentalite), are extant alongside the modern and emerging postmodern mentalites, and mark shifts in social change (Clark, 1993; Parsons, 1959; Wallerstein, 1974; Henretta, 1978; and Wallerstein, 1995). Mentalite is often overlooked, subsumed by the concept of culture. Attention to the rural premodern mentalite, alongside the urban modern mentalite, offers an opportunity to bring the best of both perspectives into public policy making for civic revitalization.

ANCILLARY ARGUMENTS The paper makes four key arguments concerning culture, values and community development. The first contention is that premodern values are not particular to one geographic

area, but are found all across the world. The premodern mentalite is at work around the world in various cultural contexts that is markedly different than the modern and postmodern one in which many of us live, as professionals and academicians. There are many differences between someone who is Appalachian (to whatever degree they are traditional or modern) and someone who is BriBri in Costa Rica (again to whatever degree they are traditional or modern), but the similarity vis a vis mentalite, or value-system, is remarkable. Mentalite serves as a factor of analysis in social science, just as culture is a factor. In short, cultures differ widely, but mentalites are broadly shared across cultures. Secondly, I argue that even a slight degree of adherence to a premodern mentalite (value system) is quite significant. Do not assume a society, community or individual is premodern- it is a matter of vestiges, a continuum, and diversity within societies, communities, and individuals. We all have virtually the same set of beliefs and perspectives we think important, but we prioritize the elements in that set differently, hence, different values, different mentalites. A little different ranking of a certain element, and differences emerge, and one is marked. An individual or a culture is marked as different from the modern mainstream mentalite, even with only vestiges of the value system. One scholar, focusing on poor people's access to social services and medical treatment, talks about "the Appalachian 'difference'," that something indefinable to many people, but shows up in encounters with non-Appalachians in social service and medical contexts (Keefe, 2005). Third, I argue further that the bias against premodernity among modern people, including popular culture, the media and in academia has hurt the confidence of many people in premodern cultures. It is easy for people in developing societies to fall into the internalization trap where being premodern to any degree, is viewed negatively (Friere, 1970). The literature is vast on the problem of internalization vis a vis premodern cultures and social policy (Kothari, 1988; Mehmet, 1995; Norgaard, 1994; Eberle, 1995; Gilbert, 1995; Picciotto and Rist, 1995; Stevens, 1995; and Keefe, 2005). One scholar writes: Many traditional peoples in the vicinity of westernized peoples have gained respect by shifting cultures. Many of those who did not shift, or shift fast enough, have been driven to alcohol or suffered other difficulties trying to balance between two worlds (Norgaard, 1994, p. 60). My fourth argument is that the bias toward modernization in community and economic development is pervasive, and is the most insurmountable problem (Wallerstein, 1974; Atal and Pieris, 1976; Kothari, 1988; Banuri, 1990; Schonhuth, 1991; Evers, 1991; Mehmet, 1995; and Earthscan, 2005). This bias exists despite the rhetoric about cultural sensitivity, and easily crowds out all considerations of what particular communities want. Deborah Eade, editor of the journal DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE, writes: "The language of aid, with its emphasis on participation, partnership, transparency and accountability often masks the very paradigm of development it profess to critique" (Earthscan, 2005:2). It is a difficult task for community development specialists to defer to the community. After all, it may not be at that person's discretion, or ability, to redefine the dynamics of how

grantors do community development. But, if there is to be change, it must come at the level of the individual. People must change their "personal ways of working" if there is to be the kind of development we have been promised (Earthscan, 2005: 1). Social research, policymaking, project management, training, and systems development are fraught with value issues. Development project personnel would have to constantly evaluate their actions. Are they responding to all the sectors, actors, and institutions in the community, or only the most modern ones? Are they contributing something of value to the community that the community wants? It is easy for community and economic development experts to usurp the local community's power and make matters worse (Graves and Crowther, 2000). Sensitive intervention in community and economic development efforts requires intimate knowledge of the community's situation, from their perspective, not others' assumptions. Who decides on the priorities to address? What does "doing good" mean? Monitoring one's impact becomes essential. What is required is an awareness and systematic confrontation of one's own value system (whether from the community or not) with the community's value system. Do not jump to assume you know what success is (Scott, 1998). Do not assume you are in charge, as it is the duty, responsibility and right, of all to help the community. Everyone must be a part of resolving, or accommodating, differences in mentalites between any outsiders and insiders. Do not assume you are an insider, as the definition is not up to you (Graves and Crowther, 2000).

PRECEDENTS There is interest in understanding and utilizing traditional values as a diversity issue in contexts other than community development. These contexts include the fields of: public health and medicine; education; psychology and counseling; business; and organizational studies (Keefe, 2005; Nind, 2005; Eggers-Pierola, 2005; Vargas-Reighley, 2005; Taulbert, 2006; Bloch, 2005; Parkinson, et al, 2005; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2004; Hooker, 2003; Ferraro, 2006; Reynolds, 2006; and House, 2004). Community development projects based on the elements of premodernity in local culture are already in place across the globe, including: Navajo communities in the U.S. in improving educational retention and creating small businesses; in indigenous communities in Canada in fostering community leadership; in Appalachian Kentucky, in writing social policy guidelines, community organizing, and educating young people; in Costa Rica in implementing child abuse prevention programs and organizing indigenous groups; in Guatemala in analyzing medical aid mission programs; in Zimbabwe in local communities' desperate efforts to address the AIDS crisis; and in Russia in devising new models for the care of orphans (Graves, 1997; RETAIN, 1997; Mayer, 1999; Crary, 1999; Purvis, 1999; Four Worlds, 2001; MacDonald, 2006; Graves and Crowther, 2000; QUNO, 2000; and Schoofs, 1999). These successes point the way forward.

PRACTICAL STRATEGIES What can we extrapolate from this set of premodern values that would be of significance in engaging people into community development and civic work? Assumptions collapse, essential

policy directives emerge, and many practical strategies become obvious. The valuing of personal connections, the scale of things, the way time is configured- these and other elements, and the way they overlap, lend themselves to rethinking many aspects of development work. Let us turn to projects in the field and the strategies, large and small that have been incorporated into development activities. Community development work in Appalachia reveals some ideas on what works best for breaking down the barriers to citizen participation, and reshaping the dynamics of power (Graves, 1994; KATF, 1995; KAC, 1996; MACED, 1997; and Keefe, 2005). All the suggestions suit a premodern mentalite, but, of course, some of them do not suit every cultural or geographical circumstance. Cultural considerations are another matter-- and are crucial, too, to negotiate, particularly in gender dynamics, issues of time; interpersonal communication, eye-contact protocol, issues of personal space, etc. (Inglehart, et al, 1998; Hooker, 2003; House, 2004; Bloch, 2005; Keefe, 2005; Hall, 1983; Sen, 2002; Scott, 1998; and Reynolds and Valentine, 2006).

FOCUS ON MENTALIE: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS/TRUST "Trusting relationhips cannot be bought or recruited from the outside; they must develop over time and through experience" (MACED, 1997) And, of course, there are no admonitions that can substitute for knowledge of, and genuine respect for, a mentalite or culture different from one's own. Be familiar with the literature on confidence, social disabilities, and biculturalism (Baumeister, 2005; Parkinson, 2005; and Vargas-Reighley, 2005). Make all your strategies and attempts at inclusion known openly. State the intention: to get people to come and feel their views are welcome. There cannot be any subterfuge. Know the degree to which you and the community can act autonomously in the context of the power the people and institutions have who fund the project. Be candid about the power dynamics in development work. This means being aware that despite conscientious attention to democratic inclusiveness it is unlikely that power will be redistributed much initially, and perhaps not much at all. All documents will be open public records, posted, and perhaps copies of key documents handed out; and funding is transparent. "Insiders" should take the role of hosts, and "outsiders" should take the role of guests and defer to people in the community in development decisions. "Outsiders" should state openly that they see themselves, too, as non-residents, as "outsiders" to some degree. Put opportunities in place for informal and personal interaction in planning for everyone’s participation. Speak in academic terms, as you normally would-no need to hide your expertise and insights as an outsider. No publicity of any kind. There should certainly be no pictures of children, or of people receiving aid.

Reciprocity is a key concept. Accept all courtesies, gifts, acknowledgements, with an eye open for a way to reciprocate.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: SMALL-SCALE SOCIAL UNITS Have small-scale projects, or see how they can be broken down into small units. It makes sense to have small groups of people, even two partners, to work together. Note, however, that these should not be "teams" in an artificial way, or organized externally. Hold small meetings. Consider planning on them being short and be ready to stay longer if that is the group's consensus. Have the meetings in natural community space, in familiar and informal settings. Maybe the meetings will include children, and maybe other people not interested or engaged. Maybe the meeting will be fluid with people coming and going. It is a good idea to meet in a similar fashion, to better get some momentum going. A series of small meetings works well.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: THE FAMILY Break that notion that giving or helping a single family is wrong. A large family often is a community center, as the family includes people we may consider "distant" family members, and fictive kin, and friends of the family. These people are often the most vulnerable (perhaps neighbor children, or the elderly, or the poorest neighbors) in the community and linked to the family for social and material support. Why isn't this group of people a community center? Community involvement might be off-putting for someone not used to focusing on themselves as individuals, but that same hesitation becomes a motivation if the goal is for one's family (Stephenson, 1995; and Roberts, 2006).

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: COOPERATION AND RECIPROCITY There is opportunity in community-level economic development for de-emphasizing competition in favor of cooperation. And one can ask what elements of a capitalist enterprise can be cooperative, if this is the community's wish. Make sure to take part in any sharing of duties in planning or hosting meetings or events, as in having the gatherings be a pot-luck, or necessitating borrowing a truck, or a tarpaulin, etc. Keep an eye out for the chance to accept something from the community or from someone, recognizing this is done in trust and the rules of modern "conflict of interest" do not always apply. Other considerations along this line include stepping back to insure the project development is interactive. It helps if it is make clear that project planning is tentative.

Avoiding conflict is a key element in the premodern value of cooperation. One has to just ask if something is amiss, indirectly (that is by way of someone else) if you are comfortable with that. Let us look at the idea of reciprocity. Ask for something in return if the "helping" seems far too one-sided. Ask for things that are easily given, such as children's artwork, inexpensive cassettes or CDs of music, or little candies. Send them to send to children and schools back home. Ask advice. Or, ask for space to use in someone's front yard for a small gathering or event. All this makes your efforts part of reciprocity. Speak of helping, or bringing material aid, as you are "glad for the opportunity," or it is immensely interesting to you, or you love the natural beauty of the area and are glad to be there. Be clear about your motives. This reinforces the idea of reciprocity too.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVES Schedule and arrange meetings and events so they fit easily into the community’s daily life. Make the start and ending time of meetings and events open. Repeat and review parts of meetings so no one misses much of what took place. Make the "work" of community development as social and pleasant as possible.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: RURAL LIFE Make accommodation for the rural situation, that is, consider transportation issues. Consider the agricultural calendar in the arc of the development plans.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: TIME Connect with a person for that second or so before speaking. Acknowledge that you tend to talk fast, if you do. Respond slowly. Be clear about how much control you and the community have over the pace of the project. Could it be a positive thing if the pace is intentionally slow? Might that engage more people, as opposed to putting them off? How long will you be in the community with the project? Do you envision keeping a connection with the people you have met? How so? Communicate or indicate that to them.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: STATUS AND EGALITARIANISM The issue of egalitarianism is about power. Deference to the community is essential. Recognize the natural leaders of the community, rather than only the official leaders. Leadership

position can rotate. Assumptions get in the way sometimes, for example, it is necessary to assess the project for what it is contributing to the improvement of the community. Maybe it is ineffective, and perhaps harmful. There must be lines of communication open for criticism and rethinking the plans. The inclusion of all sectors and income-levels necessitates deliberate construction of "strategies for inclusion" and for communication to not exclude people from meetings and or keep them from speaking out. Careful attention must be given to people who retain vestiges of premodern values, and so, perhaps, feel uncomfortable attending meetings or speaking publicly. The intention is that citizens "get the word out" so that notice of the meeting is intended for everyone. Some suggestions: Saturate posting of notices of meetings, and keep them simple. A single flyer will do. Build-up meeting attendance by "invitation." Personally invite people, and build "each one reach one" networks Organize radio forums. Meet as a community and release periodic reports on "indicators of success." These can be in written form or noted orally. Arrange easy parking. Arrange child-care in the next room, or down the hall so that children are welcome to the meeting and the discussion. Include break-out groups if people are reluctant to speak up Provide opportunities for people to express their views anonymously and/or provide opportunities for people to express their views without writing (a radio call-in show format, cable shows, "hotlines," and answering machines or cell phones for leaving messages. Explain why these steps are taken--to get people to come and feel welcome. Operate so that "leaders" or chairs are facilitators, and do not dominate the meeting. Have an agenda ready, with input from the community beforehand, and announce it orally, but be ready to drop it and generate another agenda on the spot. It may be that the agenda is only a starting point for a meeting and it goes in other directions. It is also important to note that age is the significant marker for status, and so, address parents first, not children. Give any material aid to the older members of the community, or the group or organization receiving you. Do not give anything to children, let their parents or older adults give to them. Even consider who lifts the materials off the truck-have the young people do this, whoever they are, insiders or outsiders.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: CHARACTER VALUED, NOT ACHIEVEMENT How the process is coming along is almost as important as its success. Good faith efforts in working on a task mean a lot, whatever the degree of success. Is that recognized, or only the successful outcome? How do you handle your mistakes and mistakes in judgment? What does that reveal about your character? Would you be welcomed back to the community again?

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: TASK-ORIENTED WORK, NO BOSS The community can break the development project into small tasks or phases. The community and will know who is the best leader (most knowledgeable, has leadership skills, etc.) for the various tasks. Making decisions should be decentralized as much as possible. Be candid about your own expertise. If the task at hand is not obvious, enlist someone's help, do not order, or give the impression of an order.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: THRIFT Wasteful spending resonates louder in struggling communities. Conversely, careful and creative management of money and resources gains community participation. Consider if there can be multiple benefits in any part of the project. Maybe there can be a saving of time, or a boost in someone's self-esteem, of a skill learned. Maybe there is a benefit in learning what does not work.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: HOME AND SENSE OF PLACE What can be done at home? Can meetings be in people's homes? Can someone store materials at their home? Talk about your own home if you wish, it will not be seen as "not professional." Comment on what you like or dislike about the place you are in-and the positives and negatives of where you come from.

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: CHANGE - AMBIVALENCE Along with the pro-active approach of communities deciding on the kinds of economic activity they would welcome, there is a related and more general consideration. The whole notion of the "inevitability of change" must be dropped. Local and indigenous people have the right to reject, slow, pace, or even reverse the rate to social and economic change in their communities. “We [in the West] want to know how to overcome resistance to change” (Hall, 1959: 7).

Endogenous development implies there is no imperative to follow any "blueprints from outside" (Mehmet, 1995: 148).

FOCUS ON MENTALITE: THE INDIRECT AND NUANCES A compliment given around about will have more impact than given directly. One given to you indirectly is high praise. Praise others through someone else. You may tend to want to praise an individual or two, but a positive comment in the collective sense, as in, “aren’t we doing a good job?” works well. You are asking, not telling, and not judging alone. Look out for subtle jokes. Often they are posed as an opposite comment. Listen carefully for an important comment made indirectly in the middle of something else, as really important messages come this way. If you pick up on it, say so right away- it is a compliment to the speaker that they were so good at communicating with you.

CONCLUSION To reiterate: an awareness of the values of the premodern mentalite point to some general considerations. The most significant premodern values, in terms of a community development project, can be tentatively proposed: commitment to community hegemony; pride in "place"; personal relationships and respectful interaction; cooperative efforts; informal leadership patterns; small-scale social groups; and communal control over the pace of the project. The ideas in this paper for improving community development have drawn upon the vestiges of the premodern value system, not to romanticize or recreate the past, but to create a present and future that is responsive to human needs, likely to be sustained, and egalitarian. This is the kind of community development that would serve Appalachia-and other parts of our struggling world well.

REFERENCES Abramson, R. and Haskell, J. (2006). Encyclopedia of Appalachia, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Ake, C. (1988). Building on the indigenous. In: Fruling (ed.), Recovery in Africa: A Challenge for Development Cooperation in the 90s, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm. Alexander, K.C. (1994). The Process of Development of Societies. Sage, London. Atal, Y. and R. Pieris. (1976). Asian Rethinking on Development, Abhinav Publications, Delhi. Banuri, T. (1990). Modernization and its discontents. In: Apffel and Marglin (eds.), Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Baumeister, R. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life, Oxford University Press, New York Bloch, M. (2005). Essays on Cultural Transmission, Berg, New York. Borge, C. (1999a). Interview. San Jose, Costa Rica. Borge, C. (1999b). La estrategia del cambio cultura en los BriBris de Talamanca/strategies of cultural change of the Talamancan BriBri. MA thesis. University of Costa Rica, San Jose. Clark, C. (1993). Mentalite and the nature of consciousness. In: Cayton et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of American Social History, Scribner, New York. Crary, D. (1999). Canada's Inuit to have their own territory, Lexington Herald-Leader [Lexington, KY], 1 April. Dia, M. (1994). Indigenous management practices: lessons for Africa's management in the ‘90s. In: Serageldin and Taboroff (eds.) Culture and Development in Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC. Domatov, E., et al. (2002). Community-led development in practice: humanizing institutions for children and the elderly in Russia. Journal of Development in Practice [UK], 12(2), 200207. Earthscan. (2005). Press Release, 7 September. Available at www.allafrica.com. Eberle, G. (1995). The Geography of Nowhere: Finding Oneself in the Post Modern World, Sheed and Ward, Kansas City, MO. Eggers-Pierola, C. (2005). Connections and Commitments: Reflecting Latino Values in Early

Childhood. Heinemann, Newton, MA. Eller, R (1982). Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 1880 - 1930. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Evers, H. (1991). Optimizing the use of social science know-how in development cooperartion. In: Shonhuth, M., (ed.), The Socio-Cultural Dimension in Development, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn, Germany. Four Worlds. (2001). Available at www.home.uleth.ca. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Seabury Press, New York. Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Gilbert, S. (1995). A postcolonial experience of Aboriginal identity. Cultural Studies 9, 145-149. Godelier, M. (1991). Is the West the model for humankind? The Baruya of New Guinea between change and decay. International Social Science Journal 43, 387-399 Graves, G. (1994). Premodern Values Mentalite Survey. ICCPS Publications, Georgetown, KY. Graves, G. (1994). How-to Strategies for Including Lower Income or Marginalized Women in Community Development. Paper presented at the University of Kentucky, Appalachian Women's Conference, Lexington, KY, November. Graves, G. (1996). An Introduction to the Moral Economy. Paper presented at the SUNY/Thames Valley University and College, Consortium for International Studies Conference, London, March. Graves, G. (1998a). Closing the Gap Between Insider and Outsider in Development Efforts in Appalachia. Paper presented at the Appalachian Studies Association Conference, Boone, NC, March. Graves, G. (1998). Cultural values and economic development. In: Katarelis, (ed.), Business and Economics for the 21st Century, Business and Economics Society International, Worcester, MA. Graves, G. (1993). "In the Morning We Had Bulldog Gravy: Women in the Coal Camps of the Appalachian South, 1900 - 1940." Dissertation. University of Kentucky.

Graves, G. (1999). Premodern Values: Appalachia (USA)/Valores Premodernos: Appalachia (EUA). Paper presented at the Central American Institute for Public Administration (ICAP), San Jose, Costa Rica, June.

Graves, G. and Crowther, W. (2000). Research, Practice, and policy in Rural Development in Appalachia and Costa Rica: A Focus on Culture. Paper presented at the Southern Rural Sociological Association Conference, Lexington, KY, January. Groves, L. and Hinton, R. (2004). Inclusive Aid: Changing the Power Relationships in International Aid. Earthscan, London. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Hall, E. (1959). The Silent Language. Random House, New York. Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2005). Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Polity, Cambridge, UK. Henretta, J. (1978). Families and farms: mentalite in pre-industrial America. William and Mary Quaterly 3rd series 35, 3-32. Hettne, B., ed. (1995). International Politics: Understanding Global Disorder. Zed, Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Hettne, B. (1990). Development Theory and Three Worlds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Heyd, T. (1995). Indigenous knowledge, emancipation and alienation. Knowledge and Policy 8, 63-73. Hill, S. (1995). Globalization or indigenization: new alignments between knowledge and culture. Knowledge and Culture 8, 88-112. Hooker, J. (2003). Working Across Cultures, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA. House, R. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Countries. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Inglehart, R., et al. (1998). Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-cultural Sourcebook. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Jones, L. (1995) Appalachian Values. Jesse Stuart Foundation, Ashland, KY. Keefe, S., ed. (2005). Appalachian Cultural Competency: A Guide for Medical, Mental Health and Social Service Professionals. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Kentucky Appalachian Commission. (1996). Caring Communities for Children and Families.

Project paper for the Children and Families Working Team. University of Kentucky Appalachian Center, Lexington, KY. Kentucky Appalachian Task Force. (1995). Communities of Hope. Project paper. University of Kentucky Appalachian Center, Lexington, KY. Kothari, R. (1988). Rethinking Development: In Search of Humane Alternatives. Ajanta, Delhi. Leclerc, J. 2005. "New Jesuit Mission: No Human Development Without Real Governance." Available at www.troughout.org. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2004). From Generation to Generation: Maintaining Cultural Identity Over Time. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Lewis, D., and Mosse, D., eds. (2006). Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, CT. Maloney, M. (2005). Evaluating a rite of passage program for adolescent Appalachian males. In: Keefe, S., (ed.), Appalachian Cultural Competency: A Guide for Medical, Mental Health, and Social Service Professionals. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. MacDonald, G. (2006). Tragedy at the top of the world. Globe and Mail [Canada] 18 March. Mayer, S. (1999). Community Philanthropy in Central/Eastern Europe: Practical Guidelines for Meeting Local Challenges, Mott Foundation, Flint, MI. McKinney, G. (1996). No longer the land where time stood still. The Berea Alumnus (Winter), 5-8. Mehmet, O. (1995). Westernizing the Third World: The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories. Routledge, New York. Mountain Association for Community and Economic Development (MACED). (1997). Communities By Choice: An Introduction to Sustainable Community D evelopment, MACED, Berea, KY. Nind, M. (2005). Curriculum and Pedagogy in Inclusive Education: Values into Practice. RoutledgeFalmer, New York. Norgaard., R.B. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, New York. Parkinson, B. (2005). Emotion in Social Relations: Cultural, Group, and Interpersonal. Psychology Press, New York. Parsons, T. (1959). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Free Press, New York.

Picciotto, R. and Rist, R., eds. (1995). Evaluating Country Development Policies and Programs: New Approaches For a New Agenda. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Purvis, A. (1999). Homeland for the inuit. Time (May 3), 36-37. Quaker United Nations Organization (QUNO). (2000). "Changes afoot at UNDP." Newsletter (May). QUNO, New York. Retention in Education for Today's American Indian Nations (RETAIN). (1997). Sharing the Vision. RETAIN, Tempe, AZ. Reynolds, S. and Valentine, D. (2006). Guide for Internationals: Culture, Communication, and ESL. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schonhuth, M., ed. (1991). The Socio-Cultural Dimension in Development. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn, Germany. Schoofs, M. (1999). Africa responds. Village Voice (November 23), 61-66. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Sen, A. (2002) Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny. Asian Development Bank, Manila. Stephenson, J. (1995). Courageous Paths: Stories of Nine Appalachian Women. New Opportunity School for Women, Berea, KY. Stevens, A. (1995). Private Myths: Dreams and Dreaming. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Taulbert, C. (2006). Eight Habits of the Heart for Educators. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Vargas-Reighley, R. (2005). Bi-cultural Competence and Academic Resilience Among Immigrants. LFB Scholarly Publishers, New York. Wallerstein, I. (1995). The end of what modernity? Theory and Society 24, 471-488. Wallerstein, I. (2000). The Essential Wallerstein. The New Press, New York. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World System. New York: Academy Press, 1974. Weinstein, J. (2005). Social and Cultural Change: Social Science for a Dynamic World. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Williams, J. (1993). Appalachia. In: Cayton, M., et al, (eds.) Encyclopedia of American Social History, vols. I, II, and III. Scribner, New York.

Wilson, S. (1994). Families and Children: The Common Wealth of Kentucky. Research Center for Families and Children, Lexington, KY. Zeller, F, and Miller, R. (1968). Problems of Community Action in Appalachia. Research Series 4, Office of Research and Development. University of West Virginia Appalachian Center, Morgantown, WV.