Confession: I tune out whenever anyone mentions “women’s empowerment” as a solution to Third World problems. Before I tune out, I roll my eyes and sigh. And I am a feminist.
If you've had any involvement in human rights circles you will be familiar with the idea: empower women – give them an education or a microloan or whatever constitutes empowerment – and they will “fix” poverty. However, the belief that women are the key to human progress is not new, and it is not feminist. In fact, it has always been essential to the functioning modern patriarchy – that is, patriarchy in fortified imperialist/racist form. More than that, this belief is the most insidious element of patriarchal ideology, because it only superficially, and very disingenuously, values women.
Consider, for example, the American women's rights movement in the Reconstruction Era. White women were encouraged to stay home and raise children to fulfill their role as guardians of the White Race. The suffragists did not want to stay home and have tons of babies, but they happily accepted the fact that they would further the progress of their race. They insisted that voting rights for women was the only antidote to the impending peril of the Black Vote. White women, they argued, were educated and enlightened, and they outnumbered all of the uncivilized blacks and immigrants who would be tarnishing every election from here on out. White women could properly serve their function as guardians of the race only if they had the right to vote. Sadly, in constructing their argument on the basis of the Woman Savior, the suffragists merely strengthened the sexist and racist ideological framework that was instrumental in their oppression.
Of course, there is also a long history of using "women's liberation" as a pretext for imperial conquest. This may be even more pertinent to discussions about the developing world, particularly coming from the propaganda mills of powerful NGOs.
When a child has a crappy role in a school play, you make her feel better by telling her that, even though she doesn't have any lines, it is actually the most important, super special part in the play. Guardianship of the race (/humanity) works in pretty much the same way. Women have to clean up all the messes caused by capitalism, and they are told it is an honor. Whatever society as a whole used to provide, women now have the responsibility of taking care of as best they can on their own.
Valuing women does not mean forcing the entire burden of human progress onto their shoulders. It is not women’s job to fix poverty. As far as I can tell, men created the problem, so why should women have to solve it alone? I have heard, in the context of microloans, that men can’t be trusted because they waste money on alcohol and they don’t care as much about their families. Although I can’t prove that this is an exaggeration born out of Western ideas about masculinity, I can still ask: don't we want to raise the bar for men a little bit? Are the women supposed to do all the work of lifting their families out of poverty while the men drink themselves into oblivion?
But the larger issue is this: the responsibility for “fixing” poverty does not lie with any individual poor people, male or female. Poverty and inequality must be treated as a global systemic problem, one that involves a complex network of transnational social relations manipulated by a handful of people with incomprehensible amounts of wealth. It must be confronted en masse. A few individuals may be able to raise their standards of living with a good education or a loan, but poverty will continue to exist on the same scale until enough people, men and women, decide that they are not going to put up any longer with the capitalist system that creates it.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Friday, July 26, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Myths About Poor People
One crucial means by which the ideology of progress is sustained is the pervasive yet tacit act of mapping progress schematically onto the existing human population on the basis of race, class, gender, health status, and so on. As a consequence, certain people are made to bear pre-modern traits and represent the conditions from which more enlightened humans have evolved.
This past year poor people have been a particularly favorite target of this ideological mapping, which imbues them with such primitive features as: laziness, irrationality (they spend their money on tvs and cellphones rather than food!), selfishness, addictive behavior, and foolishness (they needed to be educated about how to take care of themselves). The Poverty Myth: people are poor because they don't want to work and they waste their money on drugs and tattoos. In the Social Darwinist view, these are the feebleminded runts of humanity who deserve to die off.
Aside from the structuring idea of progress, other assumptions underly The Poverty Myth.
1. A vast majority of human beings are naturally lazy and inept. Now, I don't think most people overtly think about this implication. However, ascribing to The Poverty Myth logically entails this belief on some level of consciousness. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the world lives in poverty. Somehow human beings were able to travel across continents, oceans, and ice bridges; successfully adapt to every climate on earth; learn how to hunt mammoths and buffalo.... and yet most humans are inherently lazy and stupid? Admittedly, there is a certain plausibility to the Great Man Theory of history, if one does not look too far back. But if you examine the earliest years of human existence, the human population was just too small, and the number of obstacles overcome were too great, to sustain that theory. In order to figure out how to cross the Pacific ocean in a small boat, or to survive in the Arctic or the desert, the genius and perseverance of almost every member of these small communities was required. So if the majority of the world's population can't even manage to feed itself hundreds of millennia later, humans have undergone some major devolution.
2. (in response to my conclusion to #1) They may not be naturally lazy and inept, but a vast majority of human beings are handicapped by __CULTURE__ or __SIN__ or __RELIGION__ (fill in the blank however you like). Regardless of how you fill in the blank, the condition of poor people is attributed to their habits and beliefs. Even if it is learned, it is still their fault. Once again, though, if one goes back to the earliest human beings, one has to wonder if any of these things was really absent then, and why is it all of a sudden working against humanity now? Of course, the real culprit is our social system. In the modern world, capitalism necessitates unemployment (the "natural unemployment level"), low wages, and de facto (or real!) slave labor. Capitalism organizes production so that wealth is continually redistributed into the hands of fewer and fewer people. In the modern era, poverty occurs because people cannot organize production to satisfy their own needs, cannot earn enough money to feed themselves, and sometimes cannot find any role in society at all.
Plus, one has to account for the fact that the characteristics associated with poor people often apply as or more aptly to rich people. In this society, rich people (particular those with an inheritance) are much more likely to be lazy and and feel entitled than poor people. Rich people do cocaine and get addicted to prescription pain meds and spend their money on frivolous, irrational things (like jewelry for their pets).
TIME OUT: How are we defining "lazy" and "hardworking"? If we are defining the latter in terms of duration of a task or the physical strength required, poor people have rich people beat. Poor people work multiple jobs. They work in plantations, mines, and factories. They work as maids, field hands, and construction workers. This is the hardest work of all! If you are trying to argue that wealth is associated with hard work, then you would have to define the latter in terms of intellectual labor. Of course, it is not always the case that the ideas come from the top of the hierarchy, or that innovation is independent of opportunity (both in terms of education and employment). Maybe that woman in the Apple sweatshop could be a Steve Jobs if she were born into different circumstances. To contend that the fact of her current existence alone proves she does not have such capabilities is to merely employ circular reasoning. Furthermore (and this is a whole different story for another day), it is not so easy to prove that wealth is a function of good ideas.
3. Starvation and disease are appropriate punishments for laziness. Let's just assume for a second that poverty is caused by laziness. Is it really just - does it fit the "crime" - that lazy people should starve to death? [Well, sure. If someone refuses to do the work to feed themselves, why should they not starve?] Social science to the rescue! Pretty much every human being on this planet has enough of a self-preservation instinct - and a strong enough drive for food - to make that level of laziness impossible. No one is so lazy that they will not feed themselves if they can feed themselves. [Yes, but if someone is always there feeding them, why would they do it themselves?] Clearly, for most of the world, someone is NOT there feeding them, and that is why so many people die of starvation. Even in a welfare state, most people find it demeaning to live on "handouts" and anyway, these are often not sufficient to sate the basic human urges that would impel them, in the absence of obstacles, to work harder. People who talk about welfare queens and the high life of food stamps obviously do not have an experience with poverty that would enable them to make such judgments.
So let's get rid of this ridiculous notion that a considerable number of people are too lazy to feed themselves. The only plausible indolence is the lack of desire to work beyond what is necessary to obtain the means of satisfying basic human urges and necessities.
So what. I am lazy. I do not like to work. I rarely work for the entire 8 hours that I am at the office because it is not necessary. Do I deserve to live in tatters on the street, watching my body decay of malnutrition and AIDS?
Or is laziness more of a tendency that everyone has to some degree, depending on conditions and varying according to the circumstances - not a static and consistently manifested trait, not an essence.
Where did we get this idea that laziness is the worst thing in the world? This is where we circle back to the ideology of progress.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Democracy Doesn't Create Wealth
And... now for part three of the "I Told You So" series.
As I was listening to a report this morning about the continued economic woes (e.g. high unemployment) in Tunisia, despite the new democratically elected government, I was reminded of a post I wrote about dictatorships and democracy, in which I argued that dictatorships are a result of poverty rather than a cause. I insisted that democracy is nothing more than a discursive tool employed by those who are wealthy enough to erect the requisite physical and ideological infrastructure to sustain its illusion. And I predicted that supposed democratization in the MENA region would not bring about prosperity, so long as the capitalist system remained in place.
I told you so.
As I was listening to a report this morning about the continued economic woes (e.g. high unemployment) in Tunisia, despite the new democratically elected government, I was reminded of a post I wrote about dictatorships and democracy, in which I argued that dictatorships are a result of poverty rather than a cause. I insisted that democracy is nothing more than a discursive tool employed by those who are wealthy enough to erect the requisite physical and ideological infrastructure to sustain its illusion. And I predicted that supposed democratization in the MENA region would not bring about prosperity, so long as the capitalist system remained in place.
I told you so.
Monday, September 12, 2011
School Choice is Segregation
At the same time that Brown v. Board of Education, the Elementary and Second Education Act, and A Nation at Risk were shaping the educational landscape, another movement was emerging in opposition to these developments. This counter-movement, premised on ideas of "choice" and privatization, has increasingly sought to undermine the enterprise of public education itself.
The "school choice" movement originated as a means of avoiding desegregation orders, particularly in southern states. It was one loophole in the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The states/districts employing "choice" programs insisted that they were simply allowing students to decide where they wanted to go to school rather than mandating school assignments and implementing forced bussing. The reality, however, was that they had devised a way of maintaining segregation of the schools.
Later, after the federal government began allocating funds for low-income schools, and after A Nation at Risk salvaged the Department of Education and inaugurated a discussion about national standards, the "school choice" movement morphed into an attempt to undercut the federal government's role in education entirely. "Privatization" and "vouchers" became the buzzwords of the day.
In the 90s the attention started to shift toward charter schools, which are more palatable versions of voucher schools (mainly because public money does not go to religious schools). Charters schools have become a raging fad, and there have been a number of popular books and documentaries (for example, Waiting for Superman) trumpeting the success of these schools.
All flying in the face of the fact that now there is undeniable evidence that voucher systems and charter schools do not do what their advocates claim they do. A handful of charter schools are very good; but most aren't any better than the average public schools, and some are far, far worse. Furthermore, even with non-discriminatory admissions policies and established under a guise of helping the neediest students, charter schools still tend to exclude the most disadvantaged students: either directly in the admissions process or by "weeding them out" after they have enrolled. [For more information about charter schools, vouchers, and school choice, I would recommend the book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch (a former proponent of these reforms). It is, at the very least, a much more accurate account of the past few decades of reform than films like Waiting for Superman.]
The reason the "choice" movement has become so successful (in terms of its popularity only) is because it is neoliberal ideology in unadulterated form. "Choice" advocates claim that competition will spur a "race to the top" (shout-outs to Obama's education policy!) in which bad schools "die out" and good schools proliferate. But that is not how free markets work, number one, and number two, capitalism has strangled the freedom of the market. What choice and competition actually do in every case is reinforce the existing socio-economic hierarchy and make it much harder for those on the bottom to "rise up." Choice and competition in the realm of education is a case in point. The real effects of vouchers and privatization of the education system, as far as it has been implemented, are increasing segregation and widening gaps.
In fact, the "school choice" movement is a perfect demonstration of the way in which education is used to reproduce the social order.
The "school choice" movement originated as a means of avoiding desegregation orders, particularly in southern states. It was one loophole in the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The states/districts employing "choice" programs insisted that they were simply allowing students to decide where they wanted to go to school rather than mandating school assignments and implementing forced bussing. The reality, however, was that they had devised a way of maintaining segregation of the schools.
Later, after the federal government began allocating funds for low-income schools, and after A Nation at Risk salvaged the Department of Education and inaugurated a discussion about national standards, the "school choice" movement morphed into an attempt to undercut the federal government's role in education entirely. "Privatization" and "vouchers" became the buzzwords of the day.
In the 90s the attention started to shift toward charter schools, which are more palatable versions of voucher schools (mainly because public money does not go to religious schools). Charters schools have become a raging fad, and there have been a number of popular books and documentaries (for example, Waiting for Superman) trumpeting the success of these schools.
All flying in the face of the fact that now there is undeniable evidence that voucher systems and charter schools do not do what their advocates claim they do. A handful of charter schools are very good; but most aren't any better than the average public schools, and some are far, far worse. Furthermore, even with non-discriminatory admissions policies and established under a guise of helping the neediest students, charter schools still tend to exclude the most disadvantaged students: either directly in the admissions process or by "weeding them out" after they have enrolled. [For more information about charter schools, vouchers, and school choice, I would recommend the book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch (a former proponent of these reforms). It is, at the very least, a much more accurate account of the past few decades of reform than films like Waiting for Superman.]
The reason the "choice" movement has become so successful (in terms of its popularity only) is because it is neoliberal ideology in unadulterated form. "Choice" advocates claim that competition will spur a "race to the top" (shout-outs to Obama's education policy!) in which bad schools "die out" and good schools proliferate. But that is not how free markets work, number one, and number two, capitalism has strangled the freedom of the market. What choice and competition actually do in every case is reinforce the existing socio-economic hierarchy and make it much harder for those on the bottom to "rise up." Choice and competition in the realm of education is a case in point. The real effects of vouchers and privatization of the education system, as far as it has been implemented, are increasing segregation and widening gaps.
In fact, the "school choice" movement is a perfect demonstration of the way in which education is used to reproduce the social order.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Education for Social Equity
The first two landmarks in American education in the post-WW2 era are Brown v. Board of Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Both were reflections of a new focus, during a period of economic growth, on using the education system as a tool to promote social equity.
Brown v. Board of Education marked the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. The result of this 1954 Supreme Court case was an active effort to desegregate schools, with the intent of improving the quality of education for African American children. As the saying goes, separate is inherently unequal, and segregated black schools suffered from lack of funding and resources. In actuality, though, the project of school desegregation was another excellent way of placating those who might challenge the system, without significantly altering any social reality. Desegregation did not close achievement gaps or erase the correlation between race and poverty. What did end up happening was that African American students were often relegated to lower academic tracks (the tracking system, in which students within a single school receive differential education, supposedly according to their abilities and needs, was still popular for several more decades) and were subject to lowered expectations and discrimination by their teachers. Of course, I do not believe that desegregation in itself is bad, nor do I wish to see the schools resegregated, however schools alone cannot solve structural racism. To the contrary, educational reforms are limited by structural racism.
The ESEA of 1965 was part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Among other things, it provided funds (the famous Title I funding) to impoverished schools and districts. The hope here was that poverty, and the educational achievements gaps that went along with it, were simply the result of a lack of money. Hence, providing money to those in need would eliminate these gaps and help raise children out of poverty. Once again, this did more to make people feel good that something was being done, rather than do anything about poverty - or the quality of education received by those living in poverty. Poverty is a structural problem and cannot be solved with money. Even with Title I funds, children from blighted areas do not reach the same levels of proficiency, on average, as their more well-to-do peers.
"Panacea" is a word that is commonly used in the field of education. That is because educators constantly have to remind themselves and others that education is not a panacea for social problems. In fact, it is quite the opposite: educational equity begins with social equity.
Brown v. Board of Education marked the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. The result of this 1954 Supreme Court case was an active effort to desegregate schools, with the intent of improving the quality of education for African American children. As the saying goes, separate is inherently unequal, and segregated black schools suffered from lack of funding and resources. In actuality, though, the project of school desegregation was another excellent way of placating those who might challenge the system, without significantly altering any social reality. Desegregation did not close achievement gaps or erase the correlation between race and poverty. What did end up happening was that African American students were often relegated to lower academic tracks (the tracking system, in which students within a single school receive differential education, supposedly according to their abilities and needs, was still popular for several more decades) and were subject to lowered expectations and discrimination by their teachers. Of course, I do not believe that desegregation in itself is bad, nor do I wish to see the schools resegregated, however schools alone cannot solve structural racism. To the contrary, educational reforms are limited by structural racism.
The ESEA of 1965 was part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Among other things, it provided funds (the famous Title I funding) to impoverished schools and districts. The hope here was that poverty, and the educational achievements gaps that went along with it, were simply the result of a lack of money. Hence, providing money to those in need would eliminate these gaps and help raise children out of poverty. Once again, this did more to make people feel good that something was being done, rather than do anything about poverty - or the quality of education received by those living in poverty. Poverty is a structural problem and cannot be solved with money. Even with Title I funds, children from blighted areas do not reach the same levels of proficiency, on average, as their more well-to-do peers.
"Panacea" is a word that is commonly used in the field of education. That is because educators constantly have to remind themselves and others that education is not a panacea for social problems. In fact, it is quite the opposite: educational equity begins with social equity.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society
It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?" There are so many competing ideas about what education should be. Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex. However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is. The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Welfare State
Because I am busy and lazy at the moment, I wanted to copy a portion of an email that I sent to someone a week or so ago, as part of a discussion about whether the success of European welfare states compared to that of the U.S. can be attributed to better management:
Good management/competence is a reasonable hypothesis concerning the success of welfare states when one is operating under the premises that 1) "the government" or "the state" is a singe, coherent entity; 2) it has coherent aims; 3) in large part those aims concern the "common good"; and 4) stated aims more or less reflect true intentions.
However, I don't accept any of those premises, so that is why I do not reach the same conclusions. I believe that in this world most of the shots are being called by a group of corporate/capitalist elites with conflicting interests, and that the state is simultaneously a means of (sometimes sloppy) compromise as well as a reflection of competition. The intentions of people who are employed by or influence the state are incredibly diverse. The state is not a "container of power" so much as it is an effect (or "emergent property") of power struggles.
I do not believe that the state exists to serve the common good (I believe that is a lie propagated to generate consent). I do not believe that when an action is taken in the name of a state that the publicly proclaimed reason for that action reflects the true origin of the decision. Although I do not believe that the state operates like some monolithic Big Brother, I do believe that language is purposely employed to shape consciousness and influence behavior. For example, when American citizens are told that the troops are "heros" who are "risking their lives so that we can be free," I think that is a strategic way of getting people to willingly risk their lives for causes that do not benefit them.
Therefore, when I even hear the word "welfare," I am immediately inclined to consider what social reality the word may be distorting. Additionally, because I believe the state, as an outgrowth of corporate/capitalist power struggles, can only be understood in relation to the global economy, my first line of attack is to place the "welfare state" in a larger context in order to make sense of it.
For this reason, I cannot escape the fact that the examples of successful welfare states just so happen to be among the wealthiest nations in the world, while the U.S., though wealthy, has one of the largest income gaps in the world. To me this does not seem insignificant.
Moreover, I think the history of the welfare state is very telling as to its role in a global capitalist system. It emerged in its modern form as part of a larger project of protectionism among some European states, at the behest of industrialists, partially as a means of stemming the outflow of labor as well as subsidizing labor costs (including the training/education required for employment). This fits with the state's role within the capitalist system which is, in large part, diffusing risk (which continues to increase as a result of the exponentially growing investment requirements as capitalism evolves) through various sorts of subsidies and the like.
I think the U.S. has not had the same type of welfare state, then, not only as a result of the more widespread socio-economic inequality, but also following from its particular role in the global economy. At the same time that European states were employing protectionist policies, the U.S., on the contrary, was receiving labor and pursuing economic growth primarily through foreign investment and exports. In other words, U.S. capital flows were more externally-focused while European capital flows were more internally-focused, and I think that the European welfare state is a reflection of those dynamics.
Furthermore, I do not know if I can quite accept the claim that the welfare state has helped to reduce poverty. Not only are the numbers not very compelling, but I think it is difficult to reach any such conclusions based on the fact that the development of many welfare states occured during or immediately prior to periods of great economic expansion, and so it is difficult to say what would have happened if that were not the case.
I will grant that when welfare states have been constituted in Third World nations, for instance in Latin American countries, it has helped to mitigate some of the effects of global poverty. However, I would say this is partially due to the fact that nationalization of industries is also a means of putting those industries out of the reach of foreign multinational corporations, and thus preventing capital from flowing out of the country. In addition, such states have historically not been stable because of political/military pressure from the industrial north.
Overall, I am skeptical of the welfare state because it preserves the system rather than challenging it. While welfare states were developing in the industrial north, the gap between the wealthiest and poorest nations in the world was increasing starkly; the same processes that enabled economic "progress" and raised standards of living in the north concomitantly lowered standards of living in other parts of the world. So, I see the welfare state more as a privilege of the wealthy, just like "democracy."
I think that "the welfare state" is more a heterogenous set of policies and institutions managed by different people for different purposes, some beneficial, some harmful. Mostly, though, I believe those purposes support the status quo by pacifying anyone who might challenge the system, managing poor people (welfare recipients in the U.S. and abroad are notoriously monitored/spied on by the government), subsidizing labor costs, and in some cases helping to preserve the "natural" level of unemployment.
Good management/competence is a reasonable hypothesis concerning the success of welfare states when one is operating under the premises that 1) "the government" or "the state" is a singe, coherent entity; 2) it has coherent aims; 3) in large part those aims concern the "common good"; and 4) stated aims more or less reflect true intentions.
However, I don't accept any of those premises, so that is why I do not reach the same conclusions. I believe that in this world most of the shots are being called by a group of corporate/capitalist elites with conflicting interests, and that the state is simultaneously a means of (sometimes sloppy) compromise as well as a reflection of competition. The intentions of people who are employed by or influence the state are incredibly diverse. The state is not a "container of power" so much as it is an effect (or "emergent property") of power struggles.
I do not believe that the state exists to serve the common good (I believe that is a lie propagated to generate consent). I do not believe that when an action is taken in the name of a state that the publicly proclaimed reason for that action reflects the true origin of the decision. Although I do not believe that the state operates like some monolithic Big Brother, I do believe that language is purposely employed to shape consciousness and influence behavior. For example, when American citizens are told that the troops are "heros" who are "risking their lives so that we can be free," I think that is a strategic way of getting people to willingly risk their lives for causes that do not benefit them.
Therefore, when I even hear the word "welfare," I am immediately inclined to consider what social reality the word may be distorting. Additionally, because I believe the state, as an outgrowth of corporate/capitalist power struggles, can only be understood in relation to the global economy, my first line of attack is to place the "welfare state" in a larger context in order to make sense of it.
For this reason, I cannot escape the fact that the examples of successful welfare states just so happen to be among the wealthiest nations in the world, while the U.S., though wealthy, has one of the largest income gaps in the world. To me this does not seem insignificant.
Moreover, I think the history of the welfare state is very telling as to its role in a global capitalist system. It emerged in its modern form as part of a larger project of protectionism among some European states, at the behest of industrialists, partially as a means of stemming the outflow of labor as well as subsidizing labor costs (including the training/education required for employment). This fits with the state's role within the capitalist system which is, in large part, diffusing risk (which continues to increase as a result of the exponentially growing investment requirements as capitalism evolves) through various sorts of subsidies and the like.
I think the U.S. has not had the same type of welfare state, then, not only as a result of the more widespread socio-economic inequality, but also following from its particular role in the global economy. At the same time that European states were employing protectionist policies, the U.S., on the contrary, was receiving labor and pursuing economic growth primarily through foreign investment and exports. In other words, U.S. capital flows were more externally-focused while European capital flows were more internally-focused, and I think that the European welfare state is a reflection of those dynamics.
Furthermore, I do not know if I can quite accept the claim that the welfare state has helped to reduce poverty. Not only are the numbers not very compelling, but I think it is difficult to reach any such conclusions based on the fact that the development of many welfare states occured during or immediately prior to periods of great economic expansion, and so it is difficult to say what would have happened if that were not the case.
I will grant that when welfare states have been constituted in Third World nations, for instance in Latin American countries, it has helped to mitigate some of the effects of global poverty. However, I would say this is partially due to the fact that nationalization of industries is also a means of putting those industries out of the reach of foreign multinational corporations, and thus preventing capital from flowing out of the country. In addition, such states have historically not been stable because of political/military pressure from the industrial north.
Overall, I am skeptical of the welfare state because it preserves the system rather than challenging it. While welfare states were developing in the industrial north, the gap between the wealthiest and poorest nations in the world was increasing starkly; the same processes that enabled economic "progress" and raised standards of living in the north concomitantly lowered standards of living in other parts of the world. So, I see the welfare state more as a privilege of the wealthy, just like "democracy."
I think that "the welfare state" is more a heterogenous set of policies and institutions managed by different people for different purposes, some beneficial, some harmful. Mostly, though, I believe those purposes support the status quo by pacifying anyone who might challenge the system, managing poor people (welfare recipients in the U.S. and abroad are notoriously monitored/spied on by the government), subsidizing labor costs, and in some cases helping to preserve the "natural" level of unemployment.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Colonial Legacies in East Africa
East Africa has been getting some attention in the news the past week. First, there was the establishment of South Sudanese independence. Then there has also been the severe regional drought. If there is a pattern to my blog posts about global current events, it is the my constant irritation by the way in which colonialism is bracketed in the reporting of these issues. The East African stories are no exception! In fact, two seemingly unrelated stories like drought and ethnic/religious conflict are actually connected by colonialism - the tie that binds everything.
Drought
I have already mentioned, briefly, that the global poverty that exists today is a result of colonialism (when Europeans forcefully rearranged the relations of production in such a way that the colonized oriented all productivity toward the satisfaction of European demand, rather than to meet local needs.... a situation which persists today). Many people in the U.S. (and I would venture to guess in western Europe as well?) believe that poverty is caused primarily by environmental factors, and a situation like the current East African drought only serves to strengthen those convictions.
Yet, when Europeans reorganized production in the colonies, not only did they prevent the colonized from directing production toward their own local needs, it also hindered their ability to adapt to climactic fluctuations and respond to environmental hardships. East Africa, at the time of colonization, was a primarily pastoral region, whose economy focused on the very mobile practice of cattle herding. This has been very common among people who live in dry zones, as pastoralism is particularly well suited to such a climate. The communities in East Africa were nomadic and, in the case of drought, were easily able to move to new locales. They could adapt!
Colonization and the subsequent erection of nation-states with very static boundaries has been ruinous to the lives of many East Africans. For instance, in the current drought, those who try to move to better areas (and generally these are people who are more advantaged than the rest of the population) find that they have to cross national borders and, in the world of nation-states, are now considered "refugees": the only people in the world whose human rights cannot be protected.
Drought is only a problem because people no longer have the ability to move at will. Drought is not just an environmental issue. It is a social and political issue.
Sudan
In some of my posts on MENA and colonalism, I wrote about how religious, ethnic, and sectarian differences were created and/or exaggerated by the colonial powers in order to disunite the population and diffuse the strength of forces of resistance. Such is the case in Egypt and Sudan as well. In this region, England's tactic was to create religious segregation, and hence tension, between Christians and Muslims to prevent them from acting as a single force. In Sudan, a distinct barrier was created between the predominantly non-Muslim (Christian and other religions) south and the Muslim north in order to isolate the two different groups (as well as allow Christians more exclusive access to the indigenous religious groups for ease of conversion).
That worked out nicely, didn't it?
Drought
I have already mentioned, briefly, that the global poverty that exists today is a result of colonialism (when Europeans forcefully rearranged the relations of production in such a way that the colonized oriented all productivity toward the satisfaction of European demand, rather than to meet local needs.... a situation which persists today). Many people in the U.S. (and I would venture to guess in western Europe as well?) believe that poverty is caused primarily by environmental factors, and a situation like the current East African drought only serves to strengthen those convictions.
Yet, when Europeans reorganized production in the colonies, not only did they prevent the colonized from directing production toward their own local needs, it also hindered their ability to adapt to climactic fluctuations and respond to environmental hardships. East Africa, at the time of colonization, was a primarily pastoral region, whose economy focused on the very mobile practice of cattle herding. This has been very common among people who live in dry zones, as pastoralism is particularly well suited to such a climate. The communities in East Africa were nomadic and, in the case of drought, were easily able to move to new locales. They could adapt!
Colonization and the subsequent erection of nation-states with very static boundaries has been ruinous to the lives of many East Africans. For instance, in the current drought, those who try to move to better areas (and generally these are people who are more advantaged than the rest of the population) find that they have to cross national borders and, in the world of nation-states, are now considered "refugees": the only people in the world whose human rights cannot be protected.
Drought is only a problem because people no longer have the ability to move at will. Drought is not just an environmental issue. It is a social and political issue.
Sudan
In some of my posts on MENA and colonalism, I wrote about how religious, ethnic, and sectarian differences were created and/or exaggerated by the colonial powers in order to disunite the population and diffuse the strength of forces of resistance. Such is the case in Egypt and Sudan as well. In this region, England's tactic was to create religious segregation, and hence tension, between Christians and Muslims to prevent them from acting as a single force. In Sudan, a distinct barrier was created between the predominantly non-Muslim (Christian and other religions) south and the Muslim north in order to isolate the two different groups (as well as allow Christians more exclusive access to the indigenous religious groups for ease of conversion).
That worked out nicely, didn't it?
Monday, June 27, 2011
AIDS and the World System
In honor of National HIV Testing Day...
I mentioned before that there is a strong connection between disease and political economic processes. For one thing, disease often follows lines of marginalization and exploitation. Not only does it tend to appear within conditions of poverty (which, let us not forget, is always caused by exploitation), but also among stigmatized populations, in areas where infrastructure has been weakened, where the environment has been degraded due to industrial development, etc. The situation is magnified when certain groups of people become solely associated with a particular disease and attributed all the blame, as a result of their "primitive," "backward," or "sinful" behavior. (AIDS has been branded as a gay disease and a black disease, for example.)
It is also interesting to consider the extent to which patterns of disease are correlated with large-scale economic cycles. For example, it seems more than pure coincidence that the Black Death, one of the largest multi-regional epidemics of disease in history, occurred on the heels of an economic downturn that was the prelude to the one of the greatest periods of economic stagnation the world has yet seen.
It is reasonable to suppose that we are currently headed for a comparable phase of stagnation. (It is more than a simple "recession" or "downturn" or blip on the radar.) So, it is also interesting to consider that the AIDS epidemic came to light near the beginning of this latest period of economic stagnation, which started in the 1970s. Coincidence?
At any rate, it's an interesting thought.
I mentioned before that there is a strong connection between disease and political economic processes. For one thing, disease often follows lines of marginalization and exploitation. Not only does it tend to appear within conditions of poverty (which, let us not forget, is always caused by exploitation), but also among stigmatized populations, in areas where infrastructure has been weakened, where the environment has been degraded due to industrial development, etc. The situation is magnified when certain groups of people become solely associated with a particular disease and attributed all the blame, as a result of their "primitive," "backward," or "sinful" behavior. (AIDS has been branded as a gay disease and a black disease, for example.)
It is also interesting to consider the extent to which patterns of disease are correlated with large-scale economic cycles. For example, it seems more than pure coincidence that the Black Death, one of the largest multi-regional epidemics of disease in history, occurred on the heels of an economic downturn that was the prelude to the one of the greatest periods of economic stagnation the world has yet seen.
It is reasonable to suppose that we are currently headed for a comparable phase of stagnation. (It is more than a simple "recession" or "downturn" or blip on the radar.) So, it is also interesting to consider that the AIDS epidemic came to light near the beginning of this latest period of economic stagnation, which started in the 1970s. Coincidence?
At any rate, it's an interesting thought.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Myth #3: Causes of Ill Health are Physical and Personal
By now I have just about hammered home the point that, as a general principle, the health profession looks for causes that are physical and tied to the individual. This approach has led so many in the field to focus on diet (fat, cholesterol, salt; now carbs, transfats, etc.), personal habits (how much do you exercise, how long do you sleep, how much do you smoke, how many sexual partners do you have...), family medical history (in so far as "the family" represents a personal gene pool), exposure to disease causing agents, and the like.
On the contrary, emotional, social, political, and economic causes of disease are given secondary consideration, if any at all.
I remember reading Malcom Gladwell's book Outlier, which begins with the story of an American immigrant community who presented phenomenally low levels of heart disease. Gladwell recounts the investigative process undertaken by medical rsearchers to determine the cause of this felicitous situation, including all the many dead-ends and their ultimate conclusions. I found the discussion fascinating and began describing the scenario to my mother. Immediately, she began throwing out possible explanations, in pretty much the same order as the medical investigators considered them. "It must have been their mediterranean diet" (no, they had switched to a high-fat, high-carb diet). "They must have walked frequently and performed a lot of physical labor" (not a chance). etc. etc. What never occurred to my mother, and in fact, what only occurred to the researchers after they had pretty much exhausted all other possibilities was this: the community had very tight social bonds and spent a lot of quality time together, they regularly participated in religious activities, and they exhibited a general sense of emotional well-being. Is it possible that happiness, strong social relationships, and spirituality may promote health more than diet and exercise?
In Myth #2 I discussed the role played by inflammation in such conditions as high blood pressure and heart disease. This raises the possibility that stress is more of a "root cause" of these maladies than diet, exercise, and other personal habits. It would follow that the promotion of personal, social, and spiritual well-being may be a more effective way to nurture one's physical health than avoiding salt or constantly striving to lose 10 pounds. However, interventions aimed at the individual are easier to implement and control, and are infinitely more profitable.
Another example. It is often suggested that people with less money are more likely to be fat because healthier foods are more expensive. If you have a limited budget and work two jobs, then McDonald's is going to seem like a much more attractive option. This is a great argument for those who prefer to view health in terms of personal responsibility. It is the choices poor people are making (even if their options are limited) that cause them to be fat.
Yet, it is also true that living below the poverty line is significantly more stressful than living above it, and in the case of classic urban poverty, it generally entails fractured familial relationships and impoverished communal bonds. Could the political economic processes that create conditions of poverty be responsible for obesity among the poor? Is it more than simply a matter of the food they buy?
Similarly, a lot of noise is made about how African Amercians are "naturally" predisposed to high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, etc. This "medical fact" is convenient in two ways: not only does it locate the cause of these diseases in personal defects, it also sustains ideas about racial difference! How nice. Once again, we must consider: 1. African Americans are more likely to be poor (go back to above paragraph) 2. African Americans have to deal with racism, which is another significant stressor. Some medical researchers, in fact, have argued that the African American "predisposition" to high blood pressure is really caused by racism.
In the above cases, emotional status, social relationships, and political economic conditions are intertwined. It should also be underscored that in some instances political economic circumstances may play an even more direct role in health. Another book provides an example.
In Stories in the Time of Cholera, Charles and Clara Briggs recount their experiences with an epidemic of cholera that swept through a portion of Venezuela, and analyze the way in which this epidemic was represented by the media and government officials as eminating from a coastal indigenous population, as a result of their "primitive" behaviors. Yet, the Briggs' describe how cholera is a distinctly modern phenomenon, in fact, nurtured by particular forms of political oppression, marginalization, and economic alienation that have been instrumental to processes of state-making and market formation during the capitalist era.
Taking the same stance, physician-anthropologist Paul Farmer argues in Pathologies of Power that disease has distinct social, political, and economic causes which are very often ignored. In order to legitimate the current world system, these factors must be ignored, because they represent a challenge to the status quo. On the other hand, focusing on individual habits (particularly those labed "premodern" and "primitive") in the promotion of health is an important means of constructing the narrative of Progress that makes the desirability of the current state of affairs seem unquestionable.
On the contrary, emotional, social, political, and economic causes of disease are given secondary consideration, if any at all.
I remember reading Malcom Gladwell's book Outlier, which begins with the story of an American immigrant community who presented phenomenally low levels of heart disease. Gladwell recounts the investigative process undertaken by medical rsearchers to determine the cause of this felicitous situation, including all the many dead-ends and their ultimate conclusions. I found the discussion fascinating and began describing the scenario to my mother. Immediately, she began throwing out possible explanations, in pretty much the same order as the medical investigators considered them. "It must have been their mediterranean diet" (no, they had switched to a high-fat, high-carb diet). "They must have walked frequently and performed a lot of physical labor" (not a chance). etc. etc. What never occurred to my mother, and in fact, what only occurred to the researchers after they had pretty much exhausted all other possibilities was this: the community had very tight social bonds and spent a lot of quality time together, they regularly participated in religious activities, and they exhibited a general sense of emotional well-being. Is it possible that happiness, strong social relationships, and spirituality may promote health more than diet and exercise?
In Myth #2 I discussed the role played by inflammation in such conditions as high blood pressure and heart disease. This raises the possibility that stress is more of a "root cause" of these maladies than diet, exercise, and other personal habits. It would follow that the promotion of personal, social, and spiritual well-being may be a more effective way to nurture one's physical health than avoiding salt or constantly striving to lose 10 pounds. However, interventions aimed at the individual are easier to implement and control, and are infinitely more profitable.
Another example. It is often suggested that people with less money are more likely to be fat because healthier foods are more expensive. If you have a limited budget and work two jobs, then McDonald's is going to seem like a much more attractive option. This is a great argument for those who prefer to view health in terms of personal responsibility. It is the choices poor people are making (even if their options are limited) that cause them to be fat.
Yet, it is also true that living below the poverty line is significantly more stressful than living above it, and in the case of classic urban poverty, it generally entails fractured familial relationships and impoverished communal bonds. Could the political economic processes that create conditions of poverty be responsible for obesity among the poor? Is it more than simply a matter of the food they buy?
Similarly, a lot of noise is made about how African Amercians are "naturally" predisposed to high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, etc. This "medical fact" is convenient in two ways: not only does it locate the cause of these diseases in personal defects, it also sustains ideas about racial difference! How nice. Once again, we must consider: 1. African Americans are more likely to be poor (go back to above paragraph) 2. African Americans have to deal with racism, which is another significant stressor. Some medical researchers, in fact, have argued that the African American "predisposition" to high blood pressure is really caused by racism.
In the above cases, emotional status, social relationships, and political economic conditions are intertwined. It should also be underscored that in some instances political economic circumstances may play an even more direct role in health. Another book provides an example.
In Stories in the Time of Cholera, Charles and Clara Briggs recount their experiences with an epidemic of cholera that swept through a portion of Venezuela, and analyze the way in which this epidemic was represented by the media and government officials as eminating from a coastal indigenous population, as a result of their "primitive" behaviors. Yet, the Briggs' describe how cholera is a distinctly modern phenomenon, in fact, nurtured by particular forms of political oppression, marginalization, and economic alienation that have been instrumental to processes of state-making and market formation during the capitalist era.
Taking the same stance, physician-anthropologist Paul Farmer argues in Pathologies of Power that disease has distinct social, political, and economic causes which are very often ignored. In order to legitimate the current world system, these factors must be ignored, because they represent a challenge to the status quo. On the other hand, focusing on individual habits (particularly those labed "premodern" and "primitive") in the promotion of health is an important means of constructing the narrative of Progress that makes the desirability of the current state of affairs seem unquestionable.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Dictatorships and Democracy
I have wanted to touch on recent events in the Middle East/North Africa for some time now, but I almost don't know where to start. Certainly there is a lot of history related to global capitalism and imperialism that contextualizes these events. However, I think I would prefer to start at a more theoretical level and extend my earlier discussion of state power toward a discussion of democracy and dictatorships.
If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:
1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.
2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.
3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.
It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.
In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play. When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.
Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.
Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":
Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.
Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?
Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.
Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism"). Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.
What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).
And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.
If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:
1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.
2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.
3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.
It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.
In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play. When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.
Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.
Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":
Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.
Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?
Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.
Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism"). Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.
What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).
And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Forbes Rich List: Wealth Increased By 38%
Forbes released the 2011 Rich List. "Shockingly" it appears that the world's wealthiest are getting even wealthier. For example:
- "More than 200 people joined the billionaires list..."
- "The collective wealth of the billionaires on the list also hit a new record of $4.5tn"
- "There are 648 billionaires who increased their wealth in the past year. The fortunes of 160 fell, while 146 stayed even."
How is it possible that the richest people in the world are continuing to get richer in the midst of a global economic recession and a long-term decline in industrial profitability?
Accumulation of wealth is always a redistribution of wealth - skewed in favor of the wealthy. Thus, as the richest people get richer, everyone else will necessarily become poorer. The world does not possess unlimited resources and labor power; total value is limited. The more surplus value that is appropriated by a handful of individuals, the less there is for everyone else in the world.
So, the world's richest increased their wealth by 38% in the face of a global economic recession. Meanwhile, more than a billion of the world's 6.91 billion population lives on less than $1 a day.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Capitalism is Inherently Global
National boundaries do not represent the natural limits of capitalism. All economic activity is ultimately determined by global market forces; the state merely provides regional constraints for global competition.
The actions of one state affects all others. For example, accumulation of wealth in the industrialized core only occurs at the expense of other nations, through relations of exploitation. Primarily, these relations involve unequal trade, creating dependency through specialization, and control of the economic policies of underdeveloped nations by the industrialized core via transnational organizations such as the World Bank and IMF. I will discuss this in much greater detail later. However, the most important point to bear in mind for the moment is that the global political-economic system is structured in such a way that resources and capital are constantly flowing from poorer countries to richer ones, creating an ever widening gap between rich and poor.
Consequently, limited motion is possible within the global hierarchy of wealth. For most underdeveloped nations, increased integration into the world market has resulted in increased poverty. For "semi-peripheral nations" (the handful of countries whose fortune lies somewhere in between the wealthy, industrial core and the destitute Third World), some movement in either direction is possible, but "economic miracles" are rare and often fragile. Socialism/communism, in so far as it limits integration into the global economy, protects nations from such exploitation, to a certain degree. Historically, if it has had any effect, it has mitigated the impoverishment of countries relative to others of an initially similar position in the global hierarchy of wealth. (Usually, the success or failure of socialist states is measured against the standard of wealth enjoyed by the industrialized core; however, this ignores the fact that the wealth of similarly positioned but non-socialist states has steadily decreased against the core. Hence, the comparison needs to be made against these latter states.) Furthermore, on a domestic level, the poorest classes have generally fared better within socialist nations than within non-socialist ones.
Another example of the way in which the economic policies and fortunes of one state affects all others is the fact that within the industrialized core, nations must constantly compete with one another to retain or expand their share of the world's wealth. Accumulation of wealth in one country always occurs at the expense of others. Since the decline of manufacturing profitability in the 1970s, economic growth has occurred primarily via manipulation of exchange rates and monetary policy. Thus, for the past few decades, all boom cycles have occurred directly at the expense of other countries rather than by increasing productivity and profitability. In this zero-sum game of global tug-of-war, upturns are short-lived and frequent crises are inevitable.
The actions of one state affects all others. For example, accumulation of wealth in the industrialized core only occurs at the expense of other nations, through relations of exploitation. Primarily, these relations involve unequal trade, creating dependency through specialization, and control of the economic policies of underdeveloped nations by the industrialized core via transnational organizations such as the World Bank and IMF. I will discuss this in much greater detail later. However, the most important point to bear in mind for the moment is that the global political-economic system is structured in such a way that resources and capital are constantly flowing from poorer countries to richer ones, creating an ever widening gap between rich and poor.
Consequently, limited motion is possible within the global hierarchy of wealth. For most underdeveloped nations, increased integration into the world market has resulted in increased poverty. For "semi-peripheral nations" (the handful of countries whose fortune lies somewhere in between the wealthy, industrial core and the destitute Third World), some movement in either direction is possible, but "economic miracles" are rare and often fragile. Socialism/communism, in so far as it limits integration into the global economy, protects nations from such exploitation, to a certain degree. Historically, if it has had any effect, it has mitigated the impoverishment of countries relative to others of an initially similar position in the global hierarchy of wealth. (Usually, the success or failure of socialist states is measured against the standard of wealth enjoyed by the industrialized core; however, this ignores the fact that the wealth of similarly positioned but non-socialist states has steadily decreased against the core. Hence, the comparison needs to be made against these latter states.) Furthermore, on a domestic level, the poorest classes have generally fared better within socialist nations than within non-socialist ones.
Another example of the way in which the economic policies and fortunes of one state affects all others is the fact that within the industrialized core, nations must constantly compete with one another to retain or expand their share of the world's wealth. Accumulation of wealth in one country always occurs at the expense of others. Since the decline of manufacturing profitability in the 1970s, economic growth has occurred primarily via manipulation of exchange rates and monetary policy. Thus, for the past few decades, all boom cycles have occurred directly at the expense of other countries rather than by increasing productivity and profitability. In this zero-sum game of global tug-of-war, upturns are short-lived and frequent crises are inevitable.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The End of Poverty?
I just saw a documentary called, "The End of Povery?" I think it is one of the most accurate and thorough explorations of the cause of poverty that I have seen. I highly recommend it!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)