struggle and the church (resolving problem that public policy fails to address)

 According to David Mosse “there is a critical view that sees policy as a rationalizing discourse concealing hidden purposes of bureaucratic power or dominance, in which the true political intent of development is hidden behind a cloak of rational planning” This is the type of policy implementation that stalls that process of getting things done. The suspiciousness (like the postmodern hermeneutic of suspicion) that this approach takes contains the very type of critiques that are married to (you guessed it) the academy.  No one is trusted to affect the changes that policy (born in the academy) has for a particular population according to such a critical view.  There is another approach to policy making, the instrumental view. Still, both views “divert attention away from the complexity of policy as institutional practice, from the social life of projects, organizations and professionals and the diversity of interests behind policy models and the perspectives of actors themselves” Where it really counts, in the communities, it seems that neither of these approaches addresses the point of the real issues like poverty.  Mosse also insists that “success is fragile and failure a political problem, hegemony has to be worked out not imposed; it is 'a terrain of struggle’” So as the struggles go on the poor and homeless are underserved or not given incentive and help to get on their feet. As long as the academy treats these problems, there will be limited solutions put in place. It is high time for the church (or churches) to carry more of this load and be creative and open to new and old ideas that can be implemented while the “terrain of struggle” continues to fail those in need of appropriate help.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Let's spread MISINFORMATION

21st century prophecies

Dirty words