On Making Strange in Development Policy
The concept of “making strange” is a valuable tool in critical development studies, as it encourages a fresh, unbiased perspective on texts, ideas, and societal norms. Rooted in discourse analysis, “making strange” involves deliberately distancing oneself from familiar patterns of thought, assumptions, and scripts in order to see the underlying structures that shape them. It mirrors the idea of defamiliarization in literature, where common ideas or objects are presented in an unfamiliar way to provoke a new understanding.
In development studies, where dominant narratives often shape discussions about policy, culture, and progress, “making strange” serves as a method for deconstructing these narratives. By disrupting one’s usual ways of thinking, this approach allows students and researchers to explore the deeper meanings within a text or issue that might otherwise be overlooked. For instance, language choices, metaphors, and framing can all carry assumptions about power, authority, and identity. Close reading, guided by “making strange,” helps to uncover these hidden elements and critically evaluate their influence on development discourse. The process of “making strange” is essential because our minds naturally operate with cognitive shortcuts or scripts. These mental scripts, influenced by personal experiences or societal norms, can prevent us from seeing beyond surface meanings. When applied to text analysis, this technique allows readers to focus on nuances—such as omissions, repetitions, and euphemisms—that reveal more than the writer intended, much like reading body language.
In critical development studies, this method counters the tendency to read texts with preconceptions. The field often deals with vast, overlapping theories from various disciplines, which can make students or practitioners feel overwhelmed or rush to pre-determined judgments. Making strange slows down this process by encouraging curiosity and fostering openness to alternative interpretations. It prevents reductionism, which is the oversimplification of ideas or discourses, and promotes intellectual humility. Howard Becker’s warning that people tend to think they already know the answers highlights the need for this approach in scholarly research. A detailed, open-minded exploration of texts ensures that researchers don’t impose their biases or overestimate the limitations of an author’s ideas.
I will post more about the reasons behind this decision and what “making strange” means, in general and to me personally and professionally. For now, I advise you to consult this article by my mentor and colleague Professor Emeritus Des Gasper. And a few key publications below explain the tradition from which the “making strange” approach builds.
References
Gasper, D. (2022). ‘Making Strange’: Discourse Analysis Tools for Teaching Critical Development Studies. Progress in Development Studies, 22(3), 288-304.
Mukhtarov, F., Gasper, D., Alta, A., Gautam, N., Duhita, M. S., & Hernández Morales, D. (2022). From ‘merchants and ministers’ to ‘neutral brokers’? Water diplomacy aspirations by the Netherlands–a discourse analysis of the 2011 commissioned advisory report. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 38(6), 1009-1031.
Gee, J.P. (2011). How to Do Discourse Analysis—A Toolkit. Routledge.