From strain theory to the capacity to aspire: A contribution to the cultural political economy of development

Timothy MacNeill, Christopher O’Connor, Tyler Frederick, and Esther James-Charles

Ontario Tech University

ABSTRACT

The idea of the capacity to aspire (CtA) has recently been used in attempts to incorporate cultural and psychological factors into political and economic theories of community development. When integrated with capabilities and capital assets approaches, CtA can be used to explain psychological and cultural development traps, but may be incomplete in its formulation. Through a theore-tical discussion and a case study in a post disaster situation, we show that the integration of strain theory can make CtA more meaningful, nuanced, and powerful in its framing of community development processes. We suggest that this integrated theory offers a more thorough understanding of the cultural political economy of development, and a richer trajectory for future research and practice than does CtA theory alone.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 20 November 2018 Accepted 6 January 2021

KEYWORDS

capabilities approach; community development; disaster relief; psychology and development

Introduction

The political economy of international development has experienced a “cultural turn” since the beginning of the 21^st century (Radcliffe & Laurie, 2006, p. 231; MacNeill, 2020). This does not mean that international political economists and development theorists have not thought about culture before, rather that they have begun to think about it differently. As (Rao & Walton, 22004) have explained, culture has traditionally entered development theory only as “a primordial trap, a mystical haze, or as source of hegemonic power” (p.3). Little thought has been given to culture as a relationally evolving resource that helps human actors to comprehend and move through a complex social world. Nor has much time been spent in understanding culture as a source of aspirations, or as an agency-adjusting marker of identity.

This tendency to view culture in a simplistic and static way began to change with the publication of Culture and Public Action (Rao & Walton, 2004) – a collaborative work that was the result of an uncommon working group of anthropologists and economists who were all interested in more meaningfully inviting culture into discussions of poverty and develop-ment. Perhaps the most important result of these interdisciplinary conversations were the conceptual foundations of a theory of the capacity to aspire, which promised to address the long overlooked place of aspirations in development processes, as well as the relation of cultural, material, and political structures to these aspirations (Appadurai, 2004; Ray, 2006).

Despite its recognized importance in understanding poverty and development, how-ever, development studies literature has made only preliminary attempts to understand the capacity to aspire (Besley, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to contribute to our understanding of this capacity by integrating insights from strain theory into the emer-ging theoretical model of the capacity to aspire. Strain theory, a robust and thoroughly researched area of criminological and sociological thought, has great relevance to this topic. Its integration into development theory can unlock new understandings of the ways in which aspirations relate to development, stagnation, innovation, corruption, and concerted political action – all vitally important elements in addressing poverty in the 21^st Century.

In this paper, we will first explore how emerging thought on the capacity to aspire has begun to augment our understanding of development processes by integrating culture into the capabilities approach. We will then incorporate the substantial theoretical insights and empirical understandings of strain theory into the capacity to aspire, produ-cing a novel and useful contribution to the cultural political economy of international development. We will end by discussing the implications that this theoretical contribution has on international development theory and practice and provide an example of how such insights can be incorporated into fieldwork.

The capacity to aspire, capabilities, and assets

Mainstream theories in international development studies have viewed culture in three main ways. First, modernization theorists have depicted culture as primordial tradition that submerges rationality and suppresses entrepreneurial behavior. In this view, devel-opment can be stimulated by removing cultural tradition to reveal an underlying latent human rationality, or by changing culture to eject progress-resistant traits (Harrison & Huntington, 2001). More critical approaches have viewed culture as ideology. Thus, culture is depicted as colonial or neocolonial hegemonic domination that privileges the needs of Western elites. This stimulates a mimicry amongst the poor, which is detrimental to their own autonomy and development, reproducing colonial exploitation (Fanon, 1952) Fanon). Finally, post-development approaches have privileged cultural relativism, in the most extreme cases, denouncing development as Eurocentric discourse and elevating other, indigenous, alternatives above Western-style economic development (Escobar, 1995). This relativistic turn precipitated a crisis in development thinking by evaporating the very idea of development. Most post-development thinkers, however, abandoned the extreme rejection of development, opting instead to sustain an implicit rejection of modernity while retaining the idea of development as a move toward some-thing better, without requiring a clear definition of what this better state would be (Pieterse, 2000).

The capabilities approach to development, originally articulated by Amartya Sen (1999), went some way to mitigating the relativistic dilemmas contained in development thinking and policy. Sen framed poverty as a lack of the capability to pursue the life that one has reason to value. The premise of the theory is that humans have functionings toward which they aspire, such as owning a home, material wealth, having a full stomach, or inner peace, but these are not assumed to be universal at all times. Functionings, this implies, are not to be subjectively imputed by development theorists or practitioners, but by the people and communities that may be the subject of development interventions.

Capabilities are the resources that people can draw on to achieve their desired functionings. Sen has been apprehensive about supplying a universal set of capabilities or functionings, but others have insisted that one is possible to delineate (Nussbaum, 2011).An alternative to Nussbaum’s delineation of capabilities is to use an asset-based approach. Taking inspiration from Pierre Bourdieu, this involves framing capabilities as distinct classes of resources, or capitals, that people and communities can use to achieve the functioning that they have reason to value (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). Again, capability-enhancing capitals can be delineated in multiple ways, and may also appear as functionings, but following MacNeill (2017), they are commonly listed as follows:

Natural capital: access to the services of nature.

Physical/built capital: buildings, roads, infrastructure.

Political capital: The ability to impact the rules that govern one’s life.

Cultural capital: The ability to practice traditions, and not subject to discrimination. The evaluation of capital assets within the capability approach allows practitioners and theorists to engage in a robust, multidimensional political economy. The framework allows for the examination of material deprivation and the way that access to multi-dimensional resources might impact outcomes. In addition, it gives space to the analysis of plutocracy, corruption, environmental degradation, discrimination, mal-education, social exclusion, and a host of other dimensions beyond the standard economic analysis of poverty and underdevelopment, without presuming a priori a subjective meaning of development. The approach allows room for a cultural political economy of develop-ment – one that integrates culture meaningfully with economic and political elements – through the inclusion of cultural, human, political, and social capital. However, since the approach is purposely blind to functionings, the way that these are culturally formed tends to be unexamined. Furthermore, the depiction of culture as a capital asset can lead to impoverished, simplified, analyses of the way culture relates to the political economy of development (Rao & Walton, 2004).

This need not be the case, as Sen (2004) has argued, culture can enter the capability approach in a number of ways beyond that of a resource. First, culture is integral to value formation, thus providing the basis for functionings. Second, it provides social solidarity and affiliation, which are constitutive of social capital but may also be a valued function-ing in themselves. Third, cultural expression through arts and other forms of communica-tion may be a functioning toward which people aspire, and therefore have value beyond its common use as an economically valuable commodity. Fourth, Sen (2004) argues that culture can affect economic behavior. Specifically, cultural influences can impact work ethics, responsible conduct, spirited motivation, dynamic management, entrepreneurial initiatives, willingness to take risks, and a variety of other aspects of human behavior which can be critical to economic success. Fifth, he explains that culture can facilitate or dissuade political action and engagement.

All of these characteristics of culture have relevance in that they are either capability-enhancing or functioning-forming. The last two are particularly interesting in that they describe how culture can catalyze or suppress human motivation in political, economic, and presumably other spheres. These observations have inspired a new direction of inquiry related to the capability approach – the exploration of the “capacity to aspire” and its relation to development (Appadurai, 2004). Although discussions of this capacity emerged some time ago, the concept remains under-theorized and incompletely investigated.

The two foundational contributions to our understanding of the capacity to aspire have been (Appadurai, 2004) and (Ray, 2006). Appadurai (2004) introduced the concept as a “metacapacity” that can animate all capabilities and argue that its nurturance is “the only way that words like participation, empowerment, and grass roots can be rescued from the tyranny of cliché” (p. 82). One might have a reasonable stock of capital assets, for example, but it is the capacity to aspire that encourages that multidimensional assets are put to productive use in enhancing functionings. The capacity to aspire, furthermore, is “unequally distributed” as Appadurai (2004) explains:

[T]he better off you are (in terms of power, dignity, and material resources), the more likely you are to be conscious of the links between the more and less immediate objects of aspiration. Because the better off, by definition, have a more complex experience of the relation between a wide range of ends and means, because they have a bigger stock of available experiences of the relationship of aspirations and outcomes, because they are in a better position to explore and harvest diverse experiences of exploration and trial, because of their many opportunities to link material goods and immediate opportunities to more general and generic possibilities and options (p. 68).

Ray (2006) has introduced three important concepts as he incorporated Appadurai’s (2004) ideas into a conceptual model of the capacity to aspire. First, the aspirations window refers to the functionings that an individual views as being possible in their society. Second, the aspirations gap is the distance between the functionings to which one has reason to aspire and their access to the resources (capitals) that would allow them to achieve those functionings. Third, aspirations failure can occur when the aspirations gap is either too large, inducing frustration, or too small, offering little perceived pay-off for effort. Like Sen (2004), Ray (2006) argues that the setting of functionings and norms of action in pursuing such functionings are culturally established. He also accepts that such things can also be a product of lived experience and personal knowledge of constraints in capital assets.

Low status individuals in socially polarized societies, for example, may set aspirations (functionings) lower as a result of viewing the lives of those around them and internalizing low expectations of them from other members. This results in an aspirations failure based on an aspirations gap that is too small. Aspirations failure can also be induced where individuals internalize cultural norms that attach a lower value to effort in social or personal advancement. These norms, Besley (2017) argues, can be passed on intergener-ationally, creating an aspirations trap that locks individuals, and communities into a steady-state of low aspiration, grounded in a history of inopportunity but perhaps resilient to changes in that opportunity, or changes in capital assets.

Two persistent dilemmas appear in aspirations theory – both related to what has been called the adaptive preferences problem (Conradie, 2013). First, when goals/functionings are set low, it is difficult for a researcher or practitioner to make an empirical distinction between aspirations failure and simple contentment. Second, in a world saturated with global media, it may be common for individuals to set goals unrealistically high. Very little work has been done to address these dilemmas although Burchardt (2009) has suggested that an analysis of the conditions of autonomy, or lack of autonomy, under which functionings are set, should be part of the assessment of the capacity to aspire.

Some empirical studies have attempted to test Ray’s (2006) model, others have attempted to assess if interventions can adjust capacities to aspire and to question methods for studying aspirations. Ibrahim (2011) noted that researchers rarely ask research subjects about their aspirations. Even when studying the capacity to aspire, functionings are often presupposed by the researcher. A good example of this is the work by Beasley (2017) who finds evidence that poorer people in poor countries have a higher capacity to aspire than wealthier in those countries, but that people in developed countries have higher capacities to aspire than those in less developed ones. The study presupposes economic gain as the main driver for aspirations however and never inves-tigates the truth of this assumption. (Copestake & Camfield, 2010) suggest that such biases can be corrected in fieldwork that begins with a multidimensional analysis of community and individual goals, instead of simply imputing economic ones. Hart (2016) also recognizes this error, suggesting that since aspirations are formed in social contexts, it would be prudent for development researchers to look to other disciplines to help strengthen their insights.

Dalton, Ghosal, and Mani (2014) theorize that interventions in support of aspirations may “at the very minimum, enhance the effectiveness of policies that address material deprivation” but also may “enhance welfare, without any change in material circum-stances” (p. 179). Conradie and Robeyns (2013) take up this challenge with fieldwork that shows how asking subjects to voice and discuss their life goals, especially as part of a group process, can have both “agency unlocking” and “capability selecting” benefits (p. 559). “Agency unlocking” occurs when individuals, through voicing, come to understand better the pathways between where they are, to where they want to be – increasing their capacity to aspire. The term “capability selecting” is used to describe the process by which voicing goals can shed light on the capability deficiencies that are preventing achieve-ment of functionings. Berger, McAravey & van der Berg (2017) find evidence via a South African case study of expectations that are consistently set “too high” amongst margin-alized groups, leading to expressions of frustration. They suggest that agency unlocking may not be as important as assisting marginalized groups to diminish their expectations to a level that may be attainable, thus limiting frustration and perhaps opening up a higher threshold of opportunities later.

In other studies that presuppose subjects’ end goals, Camfield (2103) has found that increased inequality in Thailand resulted in lowered aspirations for economic advance-ment amongst the poor. Chivers (2017) uses an international data set, finding that those significantly above the poverty line have a higher capacity to aspire and take more risks in pursuing economic advancement, while those closer to the poverty line take less risks and are less aggressive with their aspirations, while the very poor can engage in risky but aspirational behavior because they have “nothing left to lose” (p. 116).

A few studies have attempted to assess the efficacy of the capacity to aspire in a broader, more multidimensional, way. Appadurai’s (2004) foundational writing provided evidence of its instrumentality in community development efforts. Some empirical work has suggested that a developed capacity to aspire is a key asset to assist communities in recovering after natural disasters. Edgar, Miller, and Scarles (2018), for example, have shown that role-models can change the way girls internalize their possibilities in life, increasing their capacity to aspire and generating positive outcomes as far as women’s empowerment.

Strain theory and the capacity to aspire

Merton’s (1938) theorizing on how people relate to social structures has greatly impacted the thinking of sociologists and criminologists but to our knowledge has not been integrated into international development theories. This, we believe, is a missed-opportunity since Merton’s strain theory is especially suited to advance our understand-ings of aspiration failure and the capacity to aspire. In what follows, we first examine Merton’s strain theory and its relevance to criminology and sociology. Next, these ideas are integrated with theories of the capacity to aspire to provide an enhanced under-standing of how aspirations relate to development.

Strain theory forms a core component of Merton’s understanding of people’s engage-ment with social structures. Broadly, strain theory focuses on the disconnect, or strain, between the goals and means a culture prescribes for people and the actual access that people have to those socially prescribed goals and means (Featherstone and Deflem 2003; Merton 1938). This distance between goals and means can create strain in an individual or group, which is experienced as “anomie”; a feeling of normlessness.

According to Merton, people adapt to this incongruity in several ways. First, if people accept the cultural goals and the institutionalized means to attain these goals, Merton refers to this as conformity. Second, some people accept the cultural goals provided by a society but reject the means to attain these goals. This is referred to as innovation. For example, a person who subscribes to the cultural goal of obtaining wealth and property but rejects institutionalized means might innovate by illegally acquiring materials through theft or by selling illegal drugs to earn a living. Third, some people will reject the cultural goals but remain attached to the institutionalized means of attaining those goals. This is known as ritualism. For example, a person may not equate success with obtaining wealth but they still attend school, have a full time job, and work hard. This person is going through the ritual motions even though they do not believe in them. Fourth, individuals can reject both the cultural goals of a society and the institutionalized means to attain these goals. Merton refers to this as retreatism. For example, a person may retreat or escape from society altogether through drug abuse or “living off the grid”. Fifth, it is also possible for individuals to create new cultural goals and new institutionalized means. This is known as rebellion. For example, a person advocating for shared resources over the accumulation of individual wealth could be considered a rebel (Murphy and Robinson 2008).

While there are differences between each type in Merton’s typology, criminologists tend to dichotomize them in categories that are related to either criminal or non-criminal behavior. Correspondingly, Menard (1995) argues that “most of the variation in illegal behavior appears to be accounted for by the distinction between conventional (ritualist, conformist) and unconventional (innovator, retreatest/rebel) modes of adaptation, a distinction based on the acceptance or nonacceptance of moral structures regarding appropriate means of achieving success” (159). This dichotomy may no longer suit when the object of analysis changes from crime to development. Therefore, it will be dissected in our attempt to enhance understandings of the capacity to aspire. Given that strain theory has become a key feature of sociological and criminological theorizing and has been extended, reenvisioned, and critiqued many times (Antonaccio et al. 2015; Agnew, 2010; Baumer 2007; Featherstone and Deflem 2003; Rosenfeld 1989), there is a wealth of literature that has not been referred to in this article due to space constraints. Therefore, we have chosen to limit the analysis to a discussion of the possibilities Merton’s vision of strain theory has to offer our understandings of the capacity to aspire.

The most vivid similarity between strain theory and the capacity to aspire is a depiction of a distance between culturally defined goals and the means people have to achieve these. Ray (2006) calls this the aspirations gap, which, if too large or too small, can lead to aspirations failure. Merton (1938), however, asserts that a gap between ends and means can produce a range of reactions. As it relates to development studies, this reframing the capacity to aspire via a stain theory perspective introduces a range of important questions:

• What are the culturally prescribed goals that people within a given community are meant to be pursuing?
• How is access to those goals distributed within that community?
• Under what conditions are these goals felt to be attainable/unattainable by mem-bers of the community?
• If goals are felt to be unattainable, which of Merton’s (1938) multiple responses are manifesting, and under what conditions might these varying responses appear?
• What varied relationships do people within that community have to the socially prescribed goals and the institutionalized pathways for achieving those goals?
• How do these varied responses shape the pursuit of a meaningful life within that community and interact with broader economic and social development goals?

This different way of thinking about aspirations gives us some tools for reflecting on a range of behaviors relevant to development studies. Take economic corruption for example, a behavior that is hard to place within a capacity to aspire framework because it is not so much a problem of aspiring too much or too little, but of the means through which people attempt to realize those aspirations. However, the perspective still provides a lens through which to examine “aspirational failures” by considering how people might retreat from socially prescribed goals in the face of barriers or conform to a culture of reduced expectations and discouragement. Merton’s ritualism sub-type also leaves room to recognize those communities and individuals who struggle along conventional life paths despite having the knowledge that they are unlikely to ever reach their goals.

We recommend that this lens be used as an analytic heuristic rather than as a true typology. For example, an individual or community might merge sub-types. Consider a situation in which individuals from a developing community struggle to achieve the cultural aspirations of extreme wealth exported from the West (conformity), only to eventually give up and retreat. We also recommend that researchers consider that there may be competing and contradictory cultural prescriptions.

A vital question is whether or not all of Merton’s (1938) five responses to strain can be described as aspirations failure. Conformity cannot. Those who conform to both socially defined goals and institutionally facilitated means could be described as active and assertive agents of development. If there is a roadblock to development in such cases, this must be external to the aspirational capacity of the individual. Similarly, rebellion cannot be characterized as aspirations failure. Rebels, in Merton’s (1938) typology, do not lack efficacy, they just direct their aspirational energies toward different goals – many of which may not be accepted by the normative mainstream of culture. Innovation is not, in our assessment, aspirations failure. Those who innovate, finding deviant or criminal means to achieve culturally defined goals, do exhibit aspirational qualities. If we admit the vast literature that relates increased crime with the destruction of social capital, human rights abuses, and depression of economic development, however, we have difficulty arguing that such activities promote development. Criminal activity may help individuals bridge the aspirations gap, but it likely does so in a way that is antithetical to development.

We argue, however, that the two remaining elements in Merton’s typology (ritualism, and retreatism), may be considered expressions of aspirations failure. Ritualism generally implies a lack of aspiration as individuals simply “go through the motions” but do not actually intend to change their social position. Retreatism, especially if it is through alcoholism or drug use, is the prototypical expression of aspiration failure. In this case, any energy one may have had to improve their life is abandoned or subsumed in substance abuse.

When placing strain theory into the field of poverty and development studies, we have to replace criminology’s dichotomous deviant/non-deviant categorization of responses to strain with one of our own. Since Mernard (1995) and Merton (1938) were interested in the social causes of crime, it made sense to categorize ritualism and conformity together as anti-crime responses to strain. Retreatism, rebellion, and innovation, however, imply criminality or deviance as a response to strain. When thinking in terms of the capacity to aspire, however, a new dichotomy emerges. Retreatism and ritualism signal a decline in the capacity to aspire since they represent a rejection of the institutionalized means to achieving socially defined goals in a way that the energy and desire to achieve those goals is diminished. Conversely, rebellion, innovation, and conformity signal a resilience of the capacity to aspire. Rebellion does reject institutional means and perhaps goals of a society but maintains a strong energy and desire to replace them. Both innovation and con-formity maintain socially defined goals and the desire and willingness to exert energy in achieving them.

To be consistent with strain theory, we are not applying a normative judgment on socially defined means or goals. Our assumption is simply that the capacity to aspire is an important resource for development. There is no space in this paper to fully explore evaluative judgments of the development impacts of retreatism, ritualism, rebellion, conformity, and innovation. Retreatism may or may not be socially destructive or run contrary to community development goals. Similarly, innovation may not always imply deviant, socially destructive, behavior as is often the case in criminological research. Alternatively, rebellion may not be socially progressive and even if it is defined so by some, it may be seen as destructive to others. These evaluations are important topics that could be explored in future theoretical and especially empirical research.

The main lesson here is that an aspirations gap may not lead only to aspirations failure as Ray’s (2006) theory of the capacity to aspire presumes. Such a gap may lead to any of a number of behaviors. By way of example, we will now present a qualitative empirical exploration of strain and the capacity to aspire in the context of post-disaster Dominica. This case begins in an environment where the aspirations gap has been widened sub-stantially by a natural disaster, causing strain. We seek to find evidence of a correlating diminishment of the capacity to aspire, or other possible reactions to this strain amongst local youth.

Empirical example: The disaster in Dominica

D0minica is a small, mountainous, Caribbean island nation with a population of only 74,000 people (WPR, 2018). Recent poverty data are not available for the country, but in 2009, 29% of households and 40% of individuals were in poverty, giving the country the third worst poverty record of Caribbean islands and 58^th worst globally. Dominica scored 44.7 on the Gini Index in 2015. This places the country amongst the 25% least egalitarian in the world regarding income, making it one of the countries with the lowest possibility of social mobility (Andrews & Leih, 2009; CIA, 2018). Although the largest sector of the economy is financial services, agriculture and tourism are the largest employers, combin-ing to produce 36.4% of total employment (World Bank, 2018). Due to the reliance on these sectors, a Commonwealth of Nations report classified the economy and employ-ment as “extremely vulnerable” to the impact of tropical storms (Commonwealth, 2018). By example, the report notes that three hurricanes in the 1980s and one in 1995 caused “severe damage” to the country’s infrastructure, industry, and economy. On 19 September 2017, Hurricane Maria delivered the worst natural disaster on record in Dominica. According to the UNDP (2017), 92.9% of the population suffered some sort of damage from Maria, 67% of houses sustained heavy damage, while 15% were fully destroyed. One hundred percent of crops were destroyed and the tourism industry shut down indefinitely. As a result, most educational, health, governance, and security institu-tions became either non- or low-functioning.

Such events can severely diminish people’s access to the financial, social, human, physical, political, and natural capital that mediate life chances (Pelling, 2003). Because of psychological damage and diminished parental, educational, and other institutional support, children and youth are especially vulnerable in this regard (Peek, 2008) . Youth, unsurprisingly, have been found to experience anomie, hopelessness, and depression after a negative event such as a natural disaster (Abela, Parkinson, Stolow, & Starr, 2009). Because of these factors, it makes sense to study post-disaster changes in youth psychol-ogy and behavior as a way to explore strain and the capacity to aspire.

Methodology

Between June and September 2018, we conducted a qualitative research study amongst youth aged 14–17 in Dominica, featuring individual interviews and focus groups. The study was initiated as a primarily inductive project focused on understanding how youth in Dominica were being impacted by the hurricane, with a particular focus on their involvement in crime and deviance. Although not initially designed to examine the capacity to aspire, the study was informed by a sociological strain perspective and during the analysis phases, we recognized an opportunity to explore questions related to the capacity to aspire.

In total, 129 students participated in our study (40 participated in individual interviews, 89 took part in focus groups). A focus group was held at each of the schools and ranged in size from four to 12 participants. The vast majority of participants (76% of focus group members and 82% of interviewees) identified as female. The skewed male/female ratio is an artifact of the higher propensity of females to both attend school and to volunteer for the study. Nine of Dominica’s 15 schools were included in the study. These were located in five communities; six of which were in the capital city of Roseau with the remaining being in rural areas. Geographically, this sample is representative of the youth population of the island of Dominica, since the majority live in the capital and all major geographical regions are included.

We conducted both individual interviews and focus groups with questions centered around five major themes related to the impact of the hurricane. Appendix A includes the specific wording of questions and definitions of concepts with which questions relate. The five major question themes were: what was the overall impact of the hurricane on their perceptions and wellbeing (Question 7); were there any changes in their deviant behavior and attitudes (Question 8 and 9); was there any impact on their perception, ambitions, and opportunities related to their future success (Question 10 and 11); was there any effect on their attitude toward conventional routes to success (i.e. does hard work yield success?) (Question 12 and 13); and were there any changes in their perceptions of choice and freedom (Question 14). Individual interviews lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes and were conducted in a private room at each student’s school. Focus group interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour and were also conducted on school premises.

As suggested by Lietz and Zayas (2010), issues of credibility, transferability, auditability, and confirmability were addressed using systematic planning and deliberative consulta-tion amongst team members throughout the research process. One member of the team that grew up as a youth within the school system in Dominika that was being studied, was tasked with data collection and analysis. Throughout the process, reflexivity was encour-aged, and bias considered as other team members engaged with this member to explore such issues at regular intervals throughout the process. Coding criteria were similarly developed through painstaking deliberation between members of the research team. Credibility was also reinforced through the use of triangulation via the use of both interview and focus group settings, with the same questions being asked in all settings. A large sample (by qualitative standards) was used to help increase credibility and transferability of the findings.

Findings

When asked, 31.4% of focus group members and 59.5% of interviewees felt that their opportunity to live a successful life had decreased after the hurricane (Question 11 in Appendix A). This refers to this size of the aspirations gap experienced. There is a large discrepancy between focus groups and interviews here. We do not know if this discre-pancy is the result of shared information and understanding in the focus group, or an aversion of participants to seem overly negative in group settings. We can safely estimate, however, that approximately half of participants expressed a decrease in this measure. One student exhibited a typical negative response, explaining,

I was disappointed because my mother was in the process of completing her house and she had just put up her roof like two months prior and the entire roof got damaged . . . because of that I would not have the same opportunities I had before.

Another participant claimed to feel a diminishment of opportunity simply “because of the destruction and the experiences . . . the hurricane shock me.” And another suggested that a lack of opportunity was simply a continuation of the normal lack of social mobility in Dominica, saying, “there has always been this stigma that there are no opportunities here”.

The psychological burden of the hurricane was apparent in the responses as well. When asked of their prevalent immediately feeling following the hurricane (Question 7 in appendix A), 100% of participants, not surprisingly, expressed negative feelings. The most commonly expressed negative terms were “hopelessness,” “confusion,” “worry,” “fear,” and “shock.” Some were extremely fatalistic, expressing that “Dominica was no more,” or “Dominica is finished,” for example. Despite this, a small percentage (16%) of participants also expressed positive feelings such as being “happy to be alive” or having a desire to “help people.” Thus, not only did the disaster reduce material means that participants have to achieve their goals, trauma and related stress may have (at least temporarily) reduced their psychological means to as well.

When asked if the hurricane had diminished their life aspirations, however, results were mixed (Question 10 in Appendix A). As high as 57.5% of interviewees and 63% of focus group participants claimed to have maintained the same life goals as before the hurri-cane. One expressed amplified goals, stating “I wanted to do more of psychology [education] after the hurricane to help others.” Another simply asserted, “since I was a little girl, I was set on a goal!”

In contrast, 30% of interviewees and 27% of focus group participants claimed to have adjusted their aspirations downward (closing the aspirations window), or at least down-graded their sense of their ability to achieve their aspirations (widening the aspirations gap). These participants used terms emoting a downgrading of expectations from life. Such participants were more vocal in interviews than focus groups. One claimed, “Dominica does not have the facilities to help me achieve my dream.” Another claimed, “the teacher told me after the hurricane anything I want to be is not available,” and suggested that it would be difficult to pursue formerly held goals. More personally, another offered that, “the only inspiration I was getting [in life before Maria] was to write about what I was experiencing but I didn’t want to write about [hurricane Maria] because I didn’t want to remember so I stopped writing”.

We cannot ascertain if such sentiments indicate a lowering of aspirations (closing the aspirations window) or a lowering of the belief in these participants’ abilities to attain their goals (increasing the aspirations gap). We can say, however, that the majority of partici-pants did not lower their aspirations, while some (less than 30%) may have adjusted their aspirations downward, or just realized it is more difficult to realize their aspirations. Ambiguity in these findings stems from the difficulty in discerning changing aspirations from changing means to achieve aspirations in responses to explicit questions about aspirations. Nonetheless, we can say that aspirations seem to have been resilient to the shock for the majority of participants, despite many believing that their means to live a successful life had declined.

To clarify, we asked further questions about personal efficacy, which we take to indicate the capacity to aspire (Questions 12 and 13 in Appendix A). When asked if they had believed that hard work will lead to success before the hurricane, 82.5% of inter-viewees and 76.5% of focus groups participants responded affirmatively. Fifty-four per-cent of focus groups participants and 72% of interviewees did not change this perception due to the hurricane. Eleven percent from focus groups and 5% of individuals in inter-views believed this less strongly for life after the hurricane but, surprisingly, 35% from focus groups and 23% of interviewees reported having a stronger sense of personal efficacy after the hurricane.

The difference between focus group and individual answers here, and in combination with responses to Question 10 (addressed at the beginning of this section), leads us to believe that focus groups may have had the empowering effect that we hoped this method would imbue. Compared with those interviewed individually, focus groups participants were less likely to feel their life opportunities had diminished and were more likely to report an increased sense of self-efficacy after the hurricane.

Generally, however, answers to the questions discussed thus far in this section imply that although the gap between goals and means had been widened substantially by the natural disaster for most, and nearly 40% felt their ability to achieve a successful life had declined, relatively few expressed a loss in personal efficacy. In terms of our integrated theory, the aspirations gap was widened by the hurricane for most youth, and the strain caused by this is tangible. Response to this strain was not prevalently a diminishment of individual capacities to aspire however.

Since its focus is aspirations failure, analysis based on the theory of the capacity to aspire would stop here. The finding would be that the aspirations window had widened, but this did not have a meaningful immediate impact on the capacity to aspire. The sense of self-efficacy in the sample was resilient and the challenge posed by the disaster may have fortified the resolve of many to engage in hard work toward their goals. The synthesis of strain theory into the concept, however, allows us to consider alternative impacts of widening aspirations windows.

As an exercise in this, we designed a question to detect changes in deviant behaviors such as antisocial innovation and non-conforming rebellion (Questions 8 and 9 in Appendix A). To detect this, without imposing our own subjective views of development or deviance, we asked participants if they or their friends had been involved in activities that would hurt others or that society would not approve of before the hurricane. We then repeated the question for after the hurricane. Regarding activities before the hurricane, 17.5% of interviewees and 13.4% of focus group members responded affirmatively. When reflecting on the period after the hurricane, 65% of interviewees and 55% of focus group members reported such behavior. This is approximately a 400% increase in socially deviant behavior.

If we consider that development is represented by the achievement of a set of socially defined aspirations through socially acceptable means, it is clear that the hurricane inspired behaviors that are corrosive to development. The most commonly mentioned activities were:

• Going out or staying out late to socialize without parents/adult permission
• Throwing rocks at people swimming in the river
• Lying to parents
• Looting, breaking and entering, and destroying other’s property
• Smoking Marijuana (illegal in Dominica)
• Prostitution
• Having sexual intercourse (perceived as deviant behavior by most youth)

From a capital-assets view of development, these reactions to social and material condi-tions after hurricane Maria are anti-development in that they undermine the social capital in the community. If we assume that social standing/inclusion and material well-being are likely to be primary goals of a meaningful life in Dominica, none of these actions represent a rejection of culturally defined goals. Staying out late to socialize and even bullying behaviors could be interpreted as attempts to increase social standing amongst peers. Looting, stealing, prostitution, and lying could be interpreted as innovations to achieve social standing/interaction or material goods – all things that are likely to be elements of socially defined success. Therefore, it is likely that these behaviors are forms of innovation in the circumstance of a widening aspirations gap. Some of these behaviors, such as smoking marijuana and having sexual intercourse are more difficult to interpret without individual psychological evaluation.

Exact categorization of behaviors according to the typologies of strain theory is not the purpose of this research. The main point from these observations is that although a widening aspirations gap did not induce a reduction in the capacity to aspire, it may have inspired other socially undesirable behaviors. Many such behaviors may, in fact, be fueled by an undiminished capacity to aspire to achieve socially defined goals. The means by which the capacity to aspire has been implemented may, however, threaten trust, normative rules, social cohesion, and other elements of social capital in the community. This implies that there are circumstances in which the capacity to aspire may be anti-thetical to community development (if development is defined as an increase in capital assets).

It is not clear if such antisocial behavior is the result of the expanding aspirations gap that hurricane Maria brought to Dominica, or a simple decline in the social monitoring of youth. In a follow-up question (Question 14 in Appendix A), we asked how many youth felt they had more freedom after the hurricane. As high as 92.5% of interviewees and 78.5% of focus group members said yes. This implies that increases in antisocial behavior were the result of diminished monitoring of behavior. From an examination of the qualitative responses to this question, however, a more complex picture emerges.

Some answers to the freedom question implied that increases in antisocial behavior were the result of less supervision. Statements like “we felt we could go out and stay longer,” or “we could go to the river in the morning, in the afternoon, and going into sunset and my mother and father would not have problems,” imply reduced monitoring. Other statements like “there was nothing to do, if you are with friends outside or playing, your parents didn’t mind, at least you are doing something productive,” imply that increases in deviant behavior also stemmed from a lack of other, socially acceptable, options. One participant expressed this concisely and clearly when asked why they felt freer to engage in antisocial behavior: “there was nothing else to do after the hurricane.”

This implies antisocial behavior stemmed from an extreme reduction of socially approved means that people had to achieve socially acceptable and available goals.

Some reported that antisocial behavior stemmed from psychological damage due to the disaster. This could be described as a reduction of the human capital required to achieve goals – a widening of the aspirations window. For example, a participant explained, “some of them were traumatized and did curious things as if like they need counseling.” Another continued this line of thought by saying of delinquents that “it was as if they were vex with Maria.” In local vernacular, this implies that they were trapped in a relation of frustration and anger with the hurricane.

This empirical evidence suggest that there can be different responses to an aspirations gap beyond aspirations failure. These varied responses, which include revolution and innovation, are characterized here as deviant behavior. Decisions on whether deviant behavior is good or bad in a certain context would involve analysis that goes beyond the scope of this study, however. Such decisions would require either ethnographic inquiry into locally relevant definitions of development or a justified imposition of externally pre-formulated measures of development such as asset equality or economic output. It may be beneficial, therefore, for future research on aspirations gaps to include evaluative measures related to development outcomes.

Having said this, our fieldwork does suggest there are some instances in which deviance may be interpreted as positive. Local gender roles often require young women to stay at home to assist in domestic chores more than young men do and there are norms against young women going out for leisure at night. Since 77.5% of our sample were women and a large proportion of these reported increased freedom to leave the home due to decreased parental monitoring, this could be viewed as positive deviance.

Furthermore, although such behaviors are not properly defined as deviant, 85% of participants reported to have improved academically after the hurricane since less dis-traction with other activities meant more time to study. Many also reported spending more quality time with family and helping their community after the disaster. Thus, although the hurricane seems to have increased the aspirations gap, this did not neces-sarily decrease the capacity to aspire. In fact, as we noted above, we did not detect a clear change in the capacity to aspire in the field study. Such behaviors could also be inter-preted as positive “conformism” where they emerge as a response to an increased aspirations gap.

Discussion

The main lesson from this case-study is that, although a diminishment in the capacity to aspire is a possible outcome of a widened aspirations gap, it is only one of a number of possible outcomes. In this study, we did find evidence that youth were experiencing strain and there was an understanding by many that life chances have been negatively impacted by the disaster. Despite this, we found very little evidence of decreased capacity to aspire amongst disaster-effected youth in Dominica. We did find evidence of other behavioral changes however, as a large number of youth began to engage in behavior that society would disapprove of – what criminologists would define as deviant behavior. We did not seek to analyze the exact psychological mechanisms behind the deviant behavior in which youth had become involved. However, it was clear that, in this context, deviance was a much more common response to a widening of the aspirations gap than was a diminishment of the capacity to aspire.

This finding does not suggest that theoretical and empirical work on the capacity to aspire be abandoned. Rather that it should be expanded to bring more behavioral changes into its purview. Figure 1 shows the theory of the capacity to aspire in its simplest form. As Ray’s (2006) model describes, an aspirations gap that is either too narrow or too wide may reduce an individual’s capacity to aspire.

Figure 2 shows an expansion of the theory of the capacity to aspire that integrates strain theory. When the gap is too small, individuals experience aspirations failure due to a generalized lack of motivation to achieve. Our field research did not address this possibility since it took place in an environment of dramatically widened aspirations gaps. However, it may be the case that this type of aspirations failure can be characterized as either ritualism or Retreatism. More empirical work in low-gap environments would be helpful in exploring this type of failure in detail.

In the case that the aspirations gap is large, we can expect strain to be felt. To be consistent with strain theory, we have maintained its five typological reactions in Figure 2: conformity, rebellion, innovation, ritualism, and retreatism. Strain was apparent in our Dominican field study, but there was very little suggestion that it manifested in aspira-tions failure (ritualism/retreatism).

Our fieldwork revealed a large prevalence of conformity since many continued to feel that their best chance for success was through effort in work and education. Another prominent reaction to strain was either rebellion or innovation – both types of behavior that are deviant by definition, since they are not acceptable to mainstream society. The important point is that conformity, rebellion, and innovation all represent an aspirations resilience in contrast to a failure. This post-disaster context featured a marked increase in personal freedom from parental, institutional, and police monitoring. It is possible that such an environment is conducive to aspirations-resilient reactions to strain since deviant behavior is less likely to be detected or punished. It is likely, therefore, that reactions to increased aspirations gaps are contextual. The strain that is generated may sometimes produce aspirations failure or, as in the case of Dominica, allow for aspirations resilience.

Examination of aspirations as they relate to development reveals further weak-nesses in both the theory of the capacity to aspire, and the capabilities approach to development. Not only are the ends of development defined socially but so too are the acceptable means. It does not suffice to claim that the capacity to aspire is simply a capability enhancing substance or “meta capacity” (Appadurai, 2004, p. 26), such as financial or social capital, with which individuals may achieve socially desirable functionings. The tool of aspiration itself, if bound with socially deviant innovation, may be antithetical to social development, and corrosive to social capital, if the result is crime, deception, or corruption. Similarly, rebellion may be a requirement of social progress to some, but threaten the status of others. Conformity to an unjust system of goals and means may at once represent a resilience of aspirations and a corrosive deterrent of positive change. Retreatism may be akin to apathy and substance abuse, or the imagining of another, alternative, life, where the goal is not development, but contentment. These confounding observations do not imply that the investigation of aspirations be abandoned in development research. The implication is that aspirations should not be treated as a homogenous substance that fuels social progress and should therefore always be accumulated, but rather a force of motivation that must be evaluated in context. This suggests that detailed study of the context and meaning of development in any given environment, as well as the potential impacts of aspirational or non-aspirational behavior, is required as a next step in understanding the relations between aspirations and development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Abela, J. R., Parkinson, C., Stolow, D., & Starrs, C. (2009). A test of the integration of the hopelessness and response styles theories of depression in middle adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 354–364 doi:10.1080/15374410902851630

Agnew, R. (2010). A general strain theory of terrorism. Theoretical Criminology, 14(2), 131–153. doi:10.1177/1362480609350163

Andrews, D., & Leih, A. (2009). More inequality, less social mobility. Applied Economics Letters, 16(15), 1489–1492. doi:10.1080/13504850701720197

Antonaccio, O., Smith, W.R., & Gostjev, F.A. (2015). Anomic Strain and External Constraints: A Reassessment of Merton’s Anomie/Strain Theory Using Data From Ukraine. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(10), 1079–1103. doi:10.1177/ 0306624X14533071

Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In V. Rao &

1. Walton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 59–84). Washington: The World Bank.

Baumer, E.P. (2007). Untangling research puzzles in Merton’s multilevel anomie theory. Theoretical Criminology, 11(1), 63–93. doi:10.1177/1362480607072736

Besley, T. (2017). Aspirations and the political economy of inequality. Oxford Economic Papers, 69(1), 1–35. doi:10.1093/oep/gpw055

Burchardt, T. (2009). Agency goals, adaptation, and capability. Journal of Human Development, 10(1), 21–42.

Burger, R., McAravey, C., & van der Berg, S. (2017). The capability threshold: Re-examining the definition of the middle class in an unequal developing country. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(1), 89–106. doi:10.1080/19452829.2016.1251402

Camfield, L., Masae, A., McGregor, J.A., & Promphaking, B. (2103). Cultures of Aspiration and Poverty? Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 1049–1072. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0189-3

Chivers, D. (2017). Success, survive or escape? aspirations and poverty traps. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 143, 116–132. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.018

CIA. (2018). World FACT Book. Washington: Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https://www. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/do.html

Commonwealth. (2018). Dominica: Economy. London: Commonwealth of Nations. Retrieved from http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/dominica/economy

Conradie, I. (2013). Can deliberate efforts to realize aspirations increase capabilities? A South African case study. Oxford Development Studies, 41(2), 189–219. doi:10.1080/13600818.2013.790949 Conradie, I., & Robeyns, I. (2013). Aspirations and human development interventions. Journal of

Human Development and Capabilities, 14(4), 559–580. doi:10.1080/19452829.2013.827637

Copestake, J., & Camfield,                L. (2010). Measuring multidimensional aspiration gaps: A means to

understanding cultural aspects of poverty. Development Policy Review, 28(5), 617–633. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00501.x

Dalton, P.S., Ghosal, S., & Mani, A. (2014). Poverty and aspirations failure. The Economic Journal, 126, 165–188. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12210

Dodman, D., Mitlin, D., & Rayos, J. (2010). Victims to victors, disasters to opportunities. IDPR, 32(1), 1–26.

Edgar, C., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2018). Gender and capacity building: A multi-layered study of

empowerment. World Development, 106, 207–219. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.024

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the thrid world.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin white masks. New York: Grove Press.

Featherstone, R. & Deflem,  M. (2003). Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences of Merton’s

Two Theories. Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 471–789. doi:10.1111/soin.2003.73.issue-4

Harrison, L.E., & Huntington, S.P. (2001). Culture matters: How values shape human progress.

New York: Basic Books.

Hart, C.S. (2016). How do aspirations matter? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 324–341. doi:10.1080/19452829.2016.1199540

18    T. MACNEILL ET AL.

Ibrahim, S. (2011). Poverty, aspirations, and well-being. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper, 14, 1–23.

Lietz, C.A., & Zayas, L.E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188–202. doi:10.18060/589

MacNeill, T. (2017). Development as imperialism: Power and the perpetuation of poverty in Afro-Indigenous communities in coastal Honduras. Humanity & Society, 41(2), 209–239. doi:10.1177/0160597615603748

MacNeill, T. (2020). Indigenous cultures and sustainable development in latin America. London and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.

Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 13(5), 474–486. doi:10.1080/0961452032000125857

Menard, S. (1995). A Developmental Test of Mertonian Anomie Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 136–174. doi:10.1177/0022427895032002002

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American sociological review, 3(5), 672–682. Murphy, D.S., & Robinson, M.B. (2008). The Maximizer: Clarifying Merton’s theories of anomie and

strain. Theoretical Criminology, 12(4), 501–521. doi:10.1177/1362480608097154

Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Peek, L. (2008). Children and disasters: Understanding vulnerability, developing capacities, and promoting resilience. Children, Youth and Environments, 18(1), 1–29.

Pelling, M. (2003). Natural disaster and development in a globalizing world. London: Routledge.

Pieterse, J.N.; Pieterse. (2000). After post-development. Thrid World Quarterly, 21(2), 175–191.

doi:10.1080/01436590050004300

Radcliffe,  S.A., & Laurie, N. (2006). Culture and development: Taking culture seriously in develop-ment for andean indigenous people. Environment and Planning D, 24, 231–248. doi:10.1068/d430 Rao, V., & Walton, M. (2004). Culture and public action: Relationality, equality of agency, and development. In V. Rao & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 3–36). Washington:

World Bank.

Ray, D. (2006). Aspirations, poverty and economic change. In R. Benabou, A. Banerjee, & D. Mookherjee (Eds.), What have we learnt about poverty?, 409-422. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosenfeld, R. (1989). Robert Merton’s Contributions to the Sociology of Deviance. Sociological Inquiry, 59(4), 453–466. doi:10.1111/soin.1989.59.issue-4

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (2004). How does culture matter. In V. Rao & M. Waton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp.

37–58). Washington: World Bank.

World Bank. (2018). Country Data: Dominica. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved from https://data. worldbank.org/country/dominica

WPR. (2018). Dominica Population 2018. World Population Review. Retrieved from http://worldpo pulationreview.com/countries/dominica-population/

Appendix A

Questions asked to only interview participants

• How old are you?
• Please identify your gender?
• What racial category do you identify with?
• What grade are you currently in?
• With whom do you reside?
• What does your parent/caregiver do for a living

Questions asked to both Interview and Focus Groups

• Tell me a bit about your experience during the hurricane, how did it make you feel? Operationalized Concepts: Psychological shock, strain, aspirational gap

Deviant Behavior Theme

• Before the hurricane, had you or your peers been involved in any activities that could cause potential harm to others or to yourself or that society would not approve of? Operationalized concept: deviant behavior (antisocial innovation, antisocial rebellion, antisocial retreatism)
• After the hurricane, have you or your peers been involved in any activities that could cause potential harm to others or to yourself or that society would not approve of? Operationalized concept: deviant behavior (antisocial innovation, antisocial rebellion, antisocial retreatism)

Aspiration Window and Gap

• Are there any changes in your future aspirations from before the hurricane, to after the hurricane? Operationalized concept: Aspirations window and/or gap
• Do you feel that you have the same opportunities after the hurricane as before the hurricane? Operationalized concept: Aspirations gap

Does Hard work Lead to Success?

• Do you feel that hard work will lead to success in your education and prosperity or that your future was predetermined no matter what before the hurricane? Operationalized concept: Capacity to aspire
• Have your feelings about that changed after the hurricane? Operationalized concept: Change in capacity to aspire

Choice perception shift

(1) Do you feel that you had more freedom after the Hurricane

Operationalized concept: freedom (to do what one wants without surveillance or repercussion)