Socialism without liberation: Land Reclamation Projects in Guinea-Bissau

One of the outstanding aims of most liberation movements has been to increase the economic well-being of their people, Guinea-Bissau being no exception in this respect. How far has the new Nation State succeeded in fulfilling this aim? A comparative analysis of the implementation of land reclamation projects during colonial and post-colonial times reveals astonishing similarities: especially the centralization of development efforts in the hands of administrators disconnected from the grassroots, lack of target group analysis and misconceptions about the aims and needs, as well as the resources, of the population involved in the development efforts, on the part of the administration. The effects of this negative conditioning process of 'development' over many years on the chances of cooperation between peasants and the administration are still largely unknown. Any development planner who wants to encourage the local population to take their future into their own hands, would have to take account of this negative conditioning process

Kiyang-yang, a West-African Postwar Idiom of Distress

In 1984, a healing cult for young barren women in southern Guinea Bissau developed into a movement, Kiyang-yang, that shook society to its foundations and had national repercussions. “Idiom of distress” is used here as a heuristic tool to understand how Kiyang-yang was able to link war and post-war-related traumatic stress and suffering on both individual and group levels. An individual experience born from a traumatic origin may be generalized into an idiom that diverse sectors of society could embrace for a range of related reasons. We argue that, for an idiom to be understood and appropriated by others, there has to be resonance at the level of symbolic language and shared experiences as well as at the level of the culturally mediated contingent emotions it communicates. We also argue that through its symbolic references to structural causes of suffering, an idiom of distress entails a danger for those in power. It can continue to exist only if its etiology is not exposed or the social suffering it articulates is not eliminated. We finally argue that idioms of distress are not to be understood as discrete diagnostic categories or as monodimensional expressions of “trauma” that can be addressed