Development

Abstract

Development originally referred to a process of unfurling or untangling, and the word now encompasses every aspect of the fabric of modern medicine. From embryology to career progression; from prognosis to service provision; from child psychology to global health; development is seen as a guiding principle within the politics and practice of contemporary medical work. Yet the word maintains an uneasy status, since much of its normative power and organisational force is predicated upon older meanings, long rendered redundant by advances in biology and medicine.The first English uses of development occur in the late 18th century, where it signifies the revelation of a latent power or the fulfilment of some inner plan. This usage drew upon a much older Aristotelian understanding of conception, which had envisaged the process as the imposition of a form (provided by the male seed) onto the amorphous matter of the female.This faith in the masculine powers of organisation did not last long. At the beginning of the 19th century, the German poet and philosopher, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) argued that development involved the local deviation of plants and animals from an ideal form. This process of metamorphosis was not dictated by any ingrained plan, rather it was driven by circumstance. This new understanding of development as the accumulation of local adaptations rather than the fulfilment of some preordained scheme was, of course, epitomised in the work of Charles Darwin (1809–82) who emphasised the random forces of environmental selection as the motor of transformation. In Darwin's view, development was less a process of unfolding, and more one of repeatedly testing the cloth for its fit with the environment.The Darwinian sense of an environmentally driven process robs development of much of its evaluative potential. We are not progressing along some ascending ladder, but reacting to local events. Such a reassessment fits quite well with the new uneasiness over the imposition of western ideals of development on indigenous peoples. Yet the defence of such interventions as a process that allows people to fulfil their own latent potentials may receive some succour from genetics. Current models of DNA as a programme that regulates the pattern and process of growth return us to the old idea of development as the unfolding of a predetermined plan. Development originally referred to a process of unfurling or untangling, and the word now encompasses every aspect of the fabric of modern medicine. From embryology to career progression; from prognosis to service provision; from child psychology to global health; development is seen as a guiding principle within the politics and practice of contemporary medical work. Yet the word maintains an uneasy status, since much of its normative power and organisational force is predicated upon older meanings, long rendered redundant by advances in biology and medicine. The first English uses of development occur in the late 18th century, where it signifies the revelation of a latent power or the fulfilment of some inner plan. This usage drew upon a much older Aristotelian understanding of conception, which had envisaged the process as the imposition of a form (provided by the male seed) onto the amorphous matter of the female. This faith in the masculine powers of organisation did not last long. At the beginning of the 19th century, the German poet and philosopher, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) argued that development involved the local deviation of plants and animals from an ideal form. This process of metamorphosis was not dictated by any ingrained plan, rather it was driven by circumstance. This new understanding of development as the accumulation of local adaptations rather than the fulfilment of some preordained scheme was, of course, epitomised in the work of Charles Darwin (1809–82) who emphasised the random forces of environmental selection as the motor of transformation. In Darwin's view, development was less a process of unfolding, and more one of repeatedly testing the cloth for its fit with the environment. The Darwinian sense of an environmentally driven process robs development of much of its evaluative potential. We are not progressing along some ascending ladder, but reacting to local events. Such a reassessment fits quite well with the new uneasiness over the imposition of western ideals of development on indigenous peoples. Yet the defence of such interventions as a process that allows people to fulfil their own latent potentials may receive some succour from genetics. Current models of DNA as a programme that regulates the pattern and process of growth return us to the old idea of development as the unfolding of a predetermined plan.