I have already talked about the Western obsession with “empowering” women in other parts of the world (see here and here). Today I ran across this article detailing yet another statement to this effect: “this White House paper sums up by saying that 'across all [these] objectives, we will: deepen our engagement with Africa's young leaders; seek to empower marginalized populations and women...'”
I don’t really have anything new to say. I just felt my point was worth emphasizing. The discourse about empowering women and “marginalized populations” in other countries is a means of: 1) Asserting Western moral and cultural superiority (a sneaky form of racism); 2) Reinforcing the narrative of Progress; 3) Obfuscating domestic inequalities; and 4) Providing justification for various sorts of intervention (neocolonialism).
Most tellingly, this rhetoric is premissed on the assumption that it is Western powers that must do the empowering, while women and subalterns are passive recipients of empowerment, unable to act on their own accord.
It feels so good to be the Savior.
Showing posts with label neocolonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neocolonialism. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
European Exploitation: Phase 4
I have already described how exploitation of the so-called “Third World” has proceeded over the past few centuries according to a succession of variants (though the basic theme remains the same), and I have also explained how that exploitation has been and continues to be vital for capitalist/industrial profitability. In another post, I delineated to some extent the rigidity of the global hierarchy of wealth.
Specifically, I think it is important to emphasize that the only time during which the lower rungs make some sort of progress is when the top of the pyramid (the industrial north) experiences any kind of set-back. In a very simplistic and abstract way (which very much belies the complexity of the actual mechanisms of change), this is due to the fact that wealth is finite (based, of course, on a given level of technology) and essentially zero-sum (just like, for all you physics fans, the amount of energy in a closed system never increases or decreases, but merely changes form).
Now, on a slight tangent, I have heard some official reports from institutions like the World Bank that extreme poverty has recently been reduced around the world. Get out the champagne, right? Unfortunately, I would not put too much stock in this claim. For one thing, official statistics regarding global poverty produced by multilateral organizations like the World Bank tend to be extremely misleading and, quite frankly, useless. Not only do these organizations have agendas (as instruments of the industrial north), but statistics, in general, tend to be ineffective for understanding poverty. A true Marxist looks to structural realities and daily experiences. Take a look at any local newspaper in a Third World nation, and you will see no evidence of improvement in the conditions faced by ordinary people. (Where there are gains, these tend to concentrated at the top of the internal hierarchy, in typical capitalist inquality-increasing fashion.)
Regarding the structural realities, it is clear that the basic pecking order, the global relations of domination, has not changed. At all. And since gains in the underdeveloped world come at the expense of the industrial north, they are almost always limited and temporary.
Often, gains are temporary because the industrial north tries to regain their position in much the same way that, when two people are struggling to stay afloat in a pool, one tries to stay above water by holding the other down. This happened at the end of the 1970s. Global economic stagnation had set in by the late 1960s (caused by a crisis of overproduction and merely exacerbated by the energy crisis). As growth slowed in the industrial north, the Third World made some impressive gains. This was especially facilitated by the initial attempt of capital to find areas of investment and possibilities for cheaper production in other parts of the world.
But then the 80s, and with it the Reagan-Thatcher brand of neoliberalism, rolled in and flattened the developing world. The policies (“austerity measures,” if you will) of the industrial powers undermined all the prior investments and resulted in devastating financial crises which destroyed any economic progress made in the Third World in the previous decade.
In the intervening years we had some bubbles that did not resolve any of the underlying problems of overproduction, but made us feel pretty good about ourselves, nonetheless. Shockingly, the bubbles burst and we once again found ourselves on bumpy terrain. And once again, whose head are we going to hold under water so that we might have another gasp of air? Who are we going to screw over in an attempt to save ourselves? It seems that the EU is busy devising new ways to drain the world of its wealth and resources.
Check It. Sorry, Africans!
Specifically, I think it is important to emphasize that the only time during which the lower rungs make some sort of progress is when the top of the pyramid (the industrial north) experiences any kind of set-back. In a very simplistic and abstract way (which very much belies the complexity of the actual mechanisms of change), this is due to the fact that wealth is finite (based, of course, on a given level of technology) and essentially zero-sum (just like, for all you physics fans, the amount of energy in a closed system never increases or decreases, but merely changes form).
Now, on a slight tangent, I have heard some official reports from institutions like the World Bank that extreme poverty has recently been reduced around the world. Get out the champagne, right? Unfortunately, I would not put too much stock in this claim. For one thing, official statistics regarding global poverty produced by multilateral organizations like the World Bank tend to be extremely misleading and, quite frankly, useless. Not only do these organizations have agendas (as instruments of the industrial north), but statistics, in general, tend to be ineffective for understanding poverty. A true Marxist looks to structural realities and daily experiences. Take a look at any local newspaper in a Third World nation, and you will see no evidence of improvement in the conditions faced by ordinary people. (Where there are gains, these tend to concentrated at the top of the internal hierarchy, in typical capitalist inquality-increasing fashion.)
Regarding the structural realities, it is clear that the basic pecking order, the global relations of domination, has not changed. At all. And since gains in the underdeveloped world come at the expense of the industrial north, they are almost always limited and temporary.
Often, gains are temporary because the industrial north tries to regain their position in much the same way that, when two people are struggling to stay afloat in a pool, one tries to stay above water by holding the other down. This happened at the end of the 1970s. Global economic stagnation had set in by the late 1960s (caused by a crisis of overproduction and merely exacerbated by the energy crisis). As growth slowed in the industrial north, the Third World made some impressive gains. This was especially facilitated by the initial attempt of capital to find areas of investment and possibilities for cheaper production in other parts of the world.
But then the 80s, and with it the Reagan-Thatcher brand of neoliberalism, rolled in and flattened the developing world. The policies (“austerity measures,” if you will) of the industrial powers undermined all the prior investments and resulted in devastating financial crises which destroyed any economic progress made in the Third World in the previous decade.
In the intervening years we had some bubbles that did not resolve any of the underlying problems of overproduction, but made us feel pretty good about ourselves, nonetheless. Shockingly, the bubbles burst and we once again found ourselves on bumpy terrain. And once again, whose head are we going to hold under water so that we might have another gasp of air? Who are we going to screw over in an attempt to save ourselves? It seems that the EU is busy devising new ways to drain the world of its wealth and resources.
Check It. Sorry, Africans!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Is The West Plotting Against Syria?
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has claimed that his regime and his nation are being subject to external meddling. He suggests that the West is purposely trying to create instability in an effort to overthrow the government. Now, on the one hand, this is exactly the kind of claim that an embattled dictator would make in an effort to defend himself. On the other hand, it also seems likely that it could actually be true. At this point it's hard to be sure either way, but Assad's argument has gotten support from other leaders and media outlets around the world.
For one thing, one has to look at what happened in Libya. Gaddhafi railed against external interference. Now, evidence has come to light that suggests he was correct, and that, in fact, U.S. and British intelligence officers were working within the country, while leaders of the Rebel forces had connections within the U.S.
It is also significant to note that both Libya and Syria have been considered as targets of interference, particularly during the George W. Bush era. Especially Syria. The U.S. has been absolutely dying to get control over that country.
Yet, the West acted rather quickly to provide military assistance to the Libyan rebels. One has to wonder why, if they are indeed trying to topple the Syrian government, they have not yet upped the ante?
We will probably just have to sit back and wait for all the evidence to come in after the fact.
For one thing, one has to look at what happened in Libya. Gaddhafi railed against external interference. Now, evidence has come to light that suggests he was correct, and that, in fact, U.S. and British intelligence officers were working within the country, while leaders of the Rebel forces had connections within the U.S.
It is also significant to note that both Libya and Syria have been considered as targets of interference, particularly during the George W. Bush era. Especially Syria. The U.S. has been absolutely dying to get control over that country.
Yet, the West acted rather quickly to provide military assistance to the Libyan rebels. One has to wonder why, if they are indeed trying to topple the Syrian government, they have not yet upped the ante?
We will probably just have to sit back and wait for all the evidence to come in after the fact.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Why Afghanistan?
On Thursday's Daily Show, the guest was Peter Tomsen, a former U.S. Special Envoy and expert on Afghanistan. Now, there are probably many Daily Show interviews, and many other such interviews from other sources, that I could use to make the point I am about to argue, but I just happened to "feel like it" this time. So there was nothing particularly special about this interview.
The general point I want to raise is: such a distorted view of the world has been constructed and promulgated, that even the "experts" are often clueless and misguided. Never trust an expert. Or at least, never trust an expert just because they are an expert. Do your own research so that you can evaluate claims with reference to your own knowledge base.
The Peter Tomsen interview demonstrated the ineptitude of experts quite well. For example, he suggests that there has been so much interest in Afghanistan because it is located on a plateau, which gives its occupier strategic military advantage. Even Jon could see the ridiculousness of this proposition, it seemed from his jokes. It is, in fact, quite an outmoded understanding of geopolitical strategy.
The salience of things like geographical features, or even oil, is not what it used to be. What matters now is having neocolonial control over other governments so that they willingly "open" their markets to foreign investment and create projects that enable or require the involvement of multinational corporations. (In Afghanistan, for example, whether intended or unintended consequence, the infrastructural devastation cause by all of the wars has actually allowed some corporations to profit enormously from reconstruction efforts.) I have argued before that "Islamic extremists," such as the Taliban, are only threatening to the United States when they refuse to cooperate with the U.S. and its corporate interests. Otherwise, the U.S. is all to happy to openly or covertly support Islamist groups. It is clear, then, what the true strategic interest is.
Probably the most laughable and blatantly false thing that Tomsen said was that the Pakistani government has control over the ISI. Expert on what now?
The general point I want to raise is: such a distorted view of the world has been constructed and promulgated, that even the "experts" are often clueless and misguided. Never trust an expert. Or at least, never trust an expert just because they are an expert. Do your own research so that you can evaluate claims with reference to your own knowledge base.
The Peter Tomsen interview demonstrated the ineptitude of experts quite well. For example, he suggests that there has been so much interest in Afghanistan because it is located on a plateau, which gives its occupier strategic military advantage. Even Jon could see the ridiculousness of this proposition, it seemed from his jokes. It is, in fact, quite an outmoded understanding of geopolitical strategy.
The salience of things like geographical features, or even oil, is not what it used to be. What matters now is having neocolonial control over other governments so that they willingly "open" their markets to foreign investment and create projects that enable or require the involvement of multinational corporations. (In Afghanistan, for example, whether intended or unintended consequence, the infrastructural devastation cause by all of the wars has actually allowed some corporations to profit enormously from reconstruction efforts.) I have argued before that "Islamic extremists," such as the Taliban, are only threatening to the United States when they refuse to cooperate with the U.S. and its corporate interests. Otherwise, the U.S. is all to happy to openly or covertly support Islamist groups. It is clear, then, what the true strategic interest is.
Probably the most laughable and blatantly false thing that Tomsen said was that the Pakistani government has control over the ISI. Expert on what now?
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Why I Hate "Travel"
I just watched an episode of The Bachelorette. Not something I would normally do, but I just happened to be in one of those moods where I was willing to watch whatever hulu.com recommended to me. One thing I noticed: a couple of times, a male contestant tried to impress the bachelorette by mentioning that he liked to travel.
Everyone likes to travel. Everyone puts that down as a hobby. People think it makes them look so sophisticated, worldly, and wise. There are a number of reasons why this annoys me, the first being that I see it as a form of elitism. Who doesn't like to go to new places? People who say they enjoy traveling think it makes them unique (it doesn't). But not everyone can afford to travel. To emphasize the frequency with which one travels is both to highlight that one has the financial privilege to do so, as well as to suggest that one is somehow a better, more knowledgeable, or more "well-rounded" person for it. (This follows the general rule of only holding those experiences that are exclusively open to well-off people as valuable to human enlightenment and "cultural awareness.")
This elitism/classism has historical precedent and, in fact, the typical attitude toward travel smacks of residual colonial mentality. First, there is the practice of exploiting other people (the Other) for a sense of personal edification and fulfillment. In the Colonial Era, merchants, missionaries, anthropologists, and adventurers treated the non-European world as their personal zoo, in which they could study all of the human specimens in their natural habitat and use the knowledge they obtained to understand their own past (note: non-European societies did not, in fact, live in a "state of nature" equivalent to some stage of Europeans' past). Similarly, particularly on these reality shows (those which, like The Bachelorette, film in "exotic" locations), one hears people talk about how they like to "learn the culture" and "experience local traditions" (only for the sake of their own edification of course). Almost always the reference to "culture" and "traditions" presumes that the "locals" are disconnected from the rest of the world, that they have no history of their own, that they basically inhabit some strange, isolated and timeless realm wherein they are stuck repeating the same habits and practices for all of eternity. World Travelers presume that the lives of other people can be reduced to a motley collection of foods, clothing styles, rituals, random landmarks, bizarre behaviors, and odd beliefs. By sampling all of these strange and new things, World Travelers hope to get in touch with some inner, primitive humanity that they share.
However, when World Travelers visit other countries, they rarely stray too far from the luxurious resort areas and tourist zones (they may make their token trip to a market or something so that they can "experience local culture"). They don't learn about how colonialism unfolded in that particular part of the world; how neo-colonialism continues to shape the political and economic conditions; what different "local" people think about their position in the world, about the role of tourism, about the hardships and joys that they experience on a daily basis. The purpose of travel is not to build relationships, to bridge gaps, to better understand other people and the big picture that unites all of us. It is to sample things, to have new experiences, to say that one went to this country and ate this food and knows this list of facts about the Culture (assuming such a Culture exists).
"The only way to know is through trials of strength. 'Knowledge' is the state of this battlefront." - Bruno Latour (The Pasteurization of France)
Travel is a form of conquest. It entails a perception of "knowledge" and "understanding" as a collection of discrete, disembodied "facts." To become an educated person, one must master as many of these facts as one can (essentially cramming as many of them into one's brain as possible). Travel aids mastery by bringing a person closer to the material embodiment of "fact," to a more "authentic" manifestation (the same purpose served by museums - and perhaps not a coincidence that travel so often involves museum visits). Hence, Travelers learn about a land and its people by visiting all the key landmarks and historical sites, not by sharing mundane experiences with the people who live there. Often planning for a trip involves picking out all the attractions from a book or guide that will allow one to feel like one has seen everything "important."
Furthermore, by ignoring global structures of inequality and current conditions of poverty (particularly the case in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia), whilst staying in fancy hotels and eating at expensive restaurants, Travelers are participating in direct relations of domination with those who serve them. I have heard a number of people from the Caribbean express unfavorable attitudes toward tourists. To them, it feels like a continuation of slavery when they have no economic option other than to wait upon rich white people, for a pittance. The tourism industry impoverishes local populations (in part by causing price increases), hinders self-sufficiency and promotes further neo-colonial dependence upon the industrial core. It causes crowding during peak seasons and degrades the environment in myriad ways. And often, it forces people to portray themselves in the unflattering way that tourists imagine them.
[And then, of course, there is the even more directly physical dominance that occurs when U.S. and European tourists use young women and children for sex...]
Rather than serving as a means to heighten understanding of other peoples' experiences of oppression, travel commodifies oppression and rebrands poverty as something "exotic" or "quaint."
Everyone likes to travel. Everyone puts that down as a hobby. People think it makes them look so sophisticated, worldly, and wise. There are a number of reasons why this annoys me, the first being that I see it as a form of elitism. Who doesn't like to go to new places? People who say they enjoy traveling think it makes them unique (it doesn't). But not everyone can afford to travel. To emphasize the frequency with which one travels is both to highlight that one has the financial privilege to do so, as well as to suggest that one is somehow a better, more knowledgeable, or more "well-rounded" person for it. (This follows the general rule of only holding those experiences that are exclusively open to well-off people as valuable to human enlightenment and "cultural awareness.")
This elitism/classism has historical precedent and, in fact, the typical attitude toward travel smacks of residual colonial mentality. First, there is the practice of exploiting other people (the Other) for a sense of personal edification and fulfillment. In the Colonial Era, merchants, missionaries, anthropologists, and adventurers treated the non-European world as their personal zoo, in which they could study all of the human specimens in their natural habitat and use the knowledge they obtained to understand their own past (note: non-European societies did not, in fact, live in a "state of nature" equivalent to some stage of Europeans' past). Similarly, particularly on these reality shows (those which, like The Bachelorette, film in "exotic" locations), one hears people talk about how they like to "learn the culture" and "experience local traditions" (only for the sake of their own edification of course). Almost always the reference to "culture" and "traditions" presumes that the "locals" are disconnected from the rest of the world, that they have no history of their own, that they basically inhabit some strange, isolated and timeless realm wherein they are stuck repeating the same habits and practices for all of eternity. World Travelers presume that the lives of other people can be reduced to a motley collection of foods, clothing styles, rituals, random landmarks, bizarre behaviors, and odd beliefs. By sampling all of these strange and new things, World Travelers hope to get in touch with some inner, primitive humanity that they share.
However, when World Travelers visit other countries, they rarely stray too far from the luxurious resort areas and tourist zones (they may make their token trip to a market or something so that they can "experience local culture"). They don't learn about how colonialism unfolded in that particular part of the world; how neo-colonialism continues to shape the political and economic conditions; what different "local" people think about their position in the world, about the role of tourism, about the hardships and joys that they experience on a daily basis. The purpose of travel is not to build relationships, to bridge gaps, to better understand other people and the big picture that unites all of us. It is to sample things, to have new experiences, to say that one went to this country and ate this food and knows this list of facts about the Culture (assuming such a Culture exists).
"The only way to know is through trials of strength. 'Knowledge' is the state of this battlefront." - Bruno Latour (The Pasteurization of France)
Travel is a form of conquest. It entails a perception of "knowledge" and "understanding" as a collection of discrete, disembodied "facts." To become an educated person, one must master as many of these facts as one can (essentially cramming as many of them into one's brain as possible). Travel aids mastery by bringing a person closer to the material embodiment of "fact," to a more "authentic" manifestation (the same purpose served by museums - and perhaps not a coincidence that travel so often involves museum visits). Hence, Travelers learn about a land and its people by visiting all the key landmarks and historical sites, not by sharing mundane experiences with the people who live there. Often planning for a trip involves picking out all the attractions from a book or guide that will allow one to feel like one has seen everything "important."
Furthermore, by ignoring global structures of inequality and current conditions of poverty (particularly the case in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia), whilst staying in fancy hotels and eating at expensive restaurants, Travelers are participating in direct relations of domination with those who serve them. I have heard a number of people from the Caribbean express unfavorable attitudes toward tourists. To them, it feels like a continuation of slavery when they have no economic option other than to wait upon rich white people, for a pittance. The tourism industry impoverishes local populations (in part by causing price increases), hinders self-sufficiency and promotes further neo-colonial dependence upon the industrial core. It causes crowding during peak seasons and degrades the environment in myriad ways. And often, it forces people to portray themselves in the unflattering way that tourists imagine them.
[And then, of course, there is the even more directly physical dominance that occurs when U.S. and European tourists use young women and children for sex...]
Rather than serving as a means to heighten understanding of other peoples' experiences of oppression, travel commodifies oppression and rebrands poverty as something "exotic" or "quaint."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)