In the modern world, we want to enrich lives by “developing” underdeveloped areas. However, Helena Norbury Hodge’s ‘Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh’ reflects on the traditions and humanity that are lost as the region undergoes Western-style development. The author argues that economic prosperity does not necessarily bring happiness, and that materialistic development can lead to unhappiness. True progress, he emphasizes, is development that respects nature and tradition and preserves human values.
The process of transforming backward societies into modern ones is often referred to as “development,” “urbanization,” and “westernization. Development is the effort to change society for the better. Through development, society becomes more convenient and richer. Korea has also gone through the process of development and has risen from poverty to become the society it is today.
However, the word ‘development’ seems to be far from ‘happiness’. According to the happiness index published by British psychologist Rothwell and life counselor Cohen, many economically poor countries have high levels of happiness. On the other hand, there are also economically rich countries with low happiness. This shows that development does not necessarily mean happiness. If this is the case, we should rethink whether development is desirable.
Helena Norberg-Hodge, in her book Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh,” answers these questions. The book is based on the author’s experiences and thoughts during her 16-year stay in Ladakh, India. Ladakh is often referred to as “Little Tibet,” and although it is part of the Indian territory, it was once a self-sufficient community with its own language and Buddhist culture. However, with the decision of the Indian central government to open up the region to foreign tourists, this humble community began to change. While development has had a positive impact on the people of Ladakh, the author focuses more on the values of the past that have been lost to development.
The book is organized into three main parts. Part 1, “Tradition,” describes the pure and happy past of Ladakhi society, while Part 2, “Change,” shows how Ladakh is changing under the influence of Western culture. Finally, in the third part, “Learning from Ladakh,” the author shares his thoughts on progress and development. By contrasting the content of Part 1 and Part 2, the author makes the reader feel sorry for the changes in Ladakh, which makes the author’s arguments in Part 3 more resonant.
In Part 1, Ladakh is portrayed as a happy, almost utopian society. Ladakhis worked only four months a year, and life was easy. There was no concept of haves and have-nots, and they were content with what they had in a beautiful natural setting. The author looks at them with a warm gaze and takes time for self-reflection.
In Part 2, Ladakh is shown after it was opened to foreign tourists by the central government of India. With the development of tourism, the people of Ladakh gradually earned money, and people who did not attach importance to money gradually became materialistic. People became greedy, young people began to see their culture as inferior to Western culture, and Ladakh’s nature was slowly being destroyed.
In Part 3, the author summarizes his impressions of the changes in Ladakh. He blames globalization for the changes in Ladakh and argues that it is not advisable to follow the path of developed countries. He believes that a leisurely life based on frugal living, as in the past, is the future we should pursue.
However, the author does not advocate a simple return to the past; the development he criticizes is Western-style development that pursues only efficiency, and he proposes a “human scale” development as an alternative. Called “anti-development” or the “Ladakh Project,” it is an attempt to revive traditional values by utilizing energy that does not harm the environment, such as solar heating or gravity-fed water pumps. The author hopes that this will make Ladakh’s future more valuable and happier.
“There is no such thing as poverty here” – Chewang Palzor (Ladakh resident), 1975
“I wish you could help us Ladakhis, we are so poor.” – Chewang Palzor, 1983
This is one of the most striking parts of the book. Development has made a happy people unhappy in just eight years. It is self-evident that problems such as poverty and environmental pollution cannot be solved by conventional development. That’s why values like ecologicalism, which the author proposes, make sense.
However, in our society, which is already steeped in materialism, these arguments may seem far from reality. The more we obsess over material things, the more we neglect spiritual values. We know that it’s wrong that we spend most of our lives trying to make money, but it’s not easy to change society. The author’s argument sounds like an idealistic theory because it’s hard to give up the convenience and dynamism of modern life. The author’s argument sounds like an idealized theory because it is hard to give up the conveniences and dynamism of the modern world.
Nevertheless, I support Ladakh’s “humane” attempts to revive traditional values, and I hope that the author’s idea that true progress cannot be achieved without respect for tradition and nature will blossom in Ladakh.
