I found the quote from Michael Taussig to be particularly interesting. "We would be unwise to overlook or underestimate the role of terror... Not only a psychological state but also a social fact and a cultural construction whose baroque dimensions allow it to serve a the mediator par excellence of colonial hegemony."
Terror was and is a critical component of subordination. The fear it instills in people promotes disunity and chaos. This allows for more control and for the "terrorists" to dominate. This situation seems to be what occured in Guatemala during its colonization by the Spanish. Estimate suggest there were large numbers of Mayans living in Guatemala at the time of colonization, but their population was rapidly decimated. The Spanish were able, in any cases, to quickly and efficiently gain control over the Mayan communities by creating chaos and instilling fear.
These same principles are still relevant to present-day examples as well. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were meant to cause the same chaos and fear that occured in the Mayan communities. That chaos and panic disrupts our way of life and shakes our foundation. Air travel was changed forever on that day just as the Mayan communities lives were changed when the Spanish conquistadors arrived in Guatemala.
I find it interesting that some of the very same things that we discussed last week as we talked about development as freedom popped up in the readings for this week. I guess there is actually some method to the madness. Having read Development as Freedom,I feel as if I have my eye out for excuses to change a people. During the the 1500's when the Spaniard were trying to enforce their ways of life on the native Mayans, they claimed many of the things they implemented was for the benefit of the natives. They wanted to bring them from the scattered highlands to a congregacion where they could convert the Mayans to Christianity or better control them. Encomiendas were systems in which a certain person was given responsibility to protect or better exploit those under his rule. The reasons the Spaniards had for their many reforms sounded pretty good until it seemed as if each had a very distinct and selfish motive behind it. One great example of "development as freedom" was the thought or belief of two Spaniards, Cardenas and Torres, working to construct successful congregacion. They compare the Indians to children and decide on their behalf that "one must not do what most pleases them but what is best for them." I get the feeling the Cardenas and Torres have the notion that they know what is best for the people who have been living peaceful lives prior to the their intrusion. Amazingly, Cardenas and Torres seem to understand why the Indians would not want to leave their homes and deep rooted history behind. Although they are able to comprehend these things, as I pointed out last week, they are seeing this picture from a different perspective.
Whether the intentions are genuine or not, it is difficult to know what is best for a group of people when you yourself have not lived their experiences. The freedom that the Spaniards tried to force on the people such as freedom from their uncivilized lives, appeared to simply hinder personal expression. What was clear about the natives, however, was their fighting spirit. Although outsiders had come to alter their way of life, they fought to maintain their lifestyles and in essence remain free.
Lovell weaves documentation about what happened to Mayas in particular during the war years with accounts of their difficult personal situations. Meanwhile, an intransigent elite and a powerful military continue to benefit from the inequalities that triggered armed insurrection in the first place. Weak and corrupt civilian governments fail to impose the rule of law, thus ensuring that Guatemala remains an embattled country where postwar violence and drug-related crime undermine any semblance of orderly, peaceful life. He locates the roots of conflict in geographies of inequality that arose during colonial times and were exacerbated by the drive to develop Guatemala's resources in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The lines of confrontation were entrenched after a decade of socioeconomic reform between 1944 and 1954 saw modernizing initiatives undone by a military coup backed by U.S. interests and the CIA. A United Nations Truth Commission has established that civil war in Guatemala claimed the lives of more that 200,000 people, the vast majority of them indigenous Mayas.
“AngelusNovus” is a Klee painting that shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angle would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing in from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress. (Walter Benjamin, The Ghost Map) I can imagine this angel looking back over the wreckage and struggle in Guatemala perpetuating from the negative slope of inequality that continues to grow steeper as it wipes out the Mayan culture. In order to upend and reverse this phenomenon the ways in which we impact other cultures needs to be fully realized so that we are sharing rather than acting as imperialist.
I also had this preconceived notion of the Mayans as this ancient civilization that left some very beautiful ruins but whose culture has pretty much been forgotten. Lovell's explanation of the history and struggles of the people of Guatemala really helped me to understand that there is much more deeply rooted culture still in existence than I would have ever imagined, and much of this culture survived years of war and political unrest.
I really liked how Lovell didn't simply try to make the beginning chapters a story of how the poor people of Guatemala were taken over by the big strong Spaniards, but instead try to make it an issue of how the Guatemalans were able to deal with the intrusion. As he states, "If we view the Mayas as subjects not as objects, we can see them instead as social actors, as human agents who respond to invasion and domination in order to shape key elements of their future"(114). He does bring to light the horrors of disease and warfare that were the initial problems with Spanish invasion, but then he discuss how the Mayans took on the "responsibility of being Maya in the Spanish scheme of empire" (116). Through his descriptions of the way of life during that period of time we are able to understand how the invasion of the Spaniards effected the Guatemalan way of life from a very unbiased source.
On another unrelated note, I found his interest in the T-shirts to be fascinating. I think its amazing that all the money for clothes is generally set aside for the women as it is a means of explaining community origin or affiliation. This somewhat reminded me of fashion and jewelry trends here in the U.S. where everyone seeks out the most expensive labels because of what it means to own those labels. I also though it was interesting the wearing American T-shirts wasn't a means of becoming more westernized, but instead simply a means of survival.
I think that Lovell makes a significant claim about the Mayas and different cultural groups in general when he states that "we can see them instead as social actors, as human agents who respond to invasion and domination in order to shape, at least in part, key elements of their culture" (Lovell 114). This is especially important for groups such as the Mayas who have been forced under colonial rule by the Spaniards, and now because they lack community autonomy, could be in danger of losing their culture and sense of what distinguishes them as Mayan people. Instead, it is not difficult for them to become a lost group of people just floating within the borders of Guatemala. When Lovell makes this claim, he emphasizes the importance of everyone maintaining a certain level of sensitivity for this group of people and the uniqueness that makes them who they are.
When I began reading Lovell's words, my mind traveled to a lot of different places and concepts. In fact, I tried to compare the situation of the Mayas to situations that I have encountered or learned about that seem to have some similarities. For example, when I envision the Maya people in Guatemala who have a different culture but no complete autonomy, I thought about diversity in the United States. Reading the words of Lovell, I got the sense that the Mayas not having their own community autonomy was a negative thing because they didn't choose this situation, but instead, it was forced upon them due to their circumstances under the rule of the Spaniards. Diversity in the United States is often celebrated as a quality of this country being able to have a diverse group of people with diverse contributions. On the other hand, having the Maya people as a part of the Guatemala country doesn't carry with it the same positive connotations because they did not choose their current state of being.
I also thought back to a discussion that I had in one of my Spanish courses about Puerto Rico and the controversy surrounding the United States maintaining Puerto Rico as a United States territory without allowing them to have complete authority as a seperate state. Certainly the territory of Puerto Rico has an upper hand on the Maya situation in Guatemala because they have some sense of the "community autonomy" that the Lovell describes that the Maya people lack.
Furthermore, My mind drifted to the situation in the United States concerning the Native Americans. As I read stories about the Spanish rule and how they conquered the Maya people, I sympathized with the Maya people, and this made me even more excited to be able to work with some of them in the upcoming trip in May. At the same time, I thought about the irony in me going to another country to work with people who have similar situations as people living on reservations in the United States now. This just demonstrates to me that it is interesting how international experiences can be the key that opens our eyes to similar situations that may be occurring in our own back yards.
Finally, "The T-Shirt Parade" that Lovell describes triggers thoughts about the class discussion last week. This is a prime example of how the influence of the United States permeates throughout the world and affects people in other places that we may not even realize. Not only may we fail to realize our impact on people in other areas, but these people don't even fully understand the impact of the American culture that they help promote. For instance, Lovell encounters several people in the streets of Guatemala wearing shirts with US writing; however, when asked, they are unable to explain the meaning of the statements on their shirts.
More than anything, the history of the native people of Guatemala seems to be that of one filled with richness, sadness, tragedy, and redemption. In A Beauty that Hurts, I think that Lovell makes an important point about the Maya during the time of imperialism and the years following independence. He states that rather to view the Maya as “An assortment of relics” and “ inert victims...preserved by colonial exploitation”, readers should understand the group as “social actors and human agents…who responded to domination in order to shape...key parts of their culture (114).” The idea that the Maya are an active group that is still shaping the future of Guatemala is important to remember. Furthermore, the realization that this native group is in fact not a passive and helpless group of individuals attests to the vibrancy and strength of their culture. It seems that very often Indian groups are labeled solely by their identity during the times of invasion and imperialism. By looking beyond the European definitions that have labeled these groups as backwards, weak, and uncivilized, we are able to understand them as vibrant and active members of society. Moreover, they hold the potential today to change their country and the world.
Another issued that courses throughout Lovell’s work is the conflict in Guatemalan history between progress and culture. The author describes this struggle when he discusses Guatemala’s recent attempts to transform into a modern, capitalist state. “Progress, advancement, and civilization” have been linked, in the Mayan’s mind, to “Loss of land and forced labor”, he notes (137). How do you reconcile such a perspective, especially one that has been constantly justified over the course of history? The association of modernity with social injustice and loss of rights highlight many reasons why Guatemala has experienced such a complex past. This tension has evolved over the years from not only Spanish institutions--the encomienda and congregación, for example-- but also from more recent forms of exploitation similar to that of the United Fruit Company. With a legacy of so much imperialism, it is easy to understand why there still is such tension in Guatemala between returning to traditional ways of life and continuing on with a new social order. However, the struggle remains to find understanding and balance in today’s world between traditional culture and ideas of modern progress.
Lastly, I just wanted to mention the role of the t-shirt phenomenon in analyzing the current state of Guatemala. How does this observation relate to culture? How does it represent the influence of the outer world? Whatever the case, I believe Lovell’s anecdote is a wonderful, and observable example on the current role the outside world plays in this country, as well as a testament to the ever changing identity and constant vitality of the Guatemalan people.
Before this reading, I always associated Mayans with an ancient, non-exist culture. The only thing I ever really knew (or thought I knew) about the Mayans were that they were an early American civilization that the Europeans managed to take over. However, my past history classes never put emphasis on the fact that the Mayan culture still exist. One of the aspects of this weeks reading that stood out to me was how tight-knit the Mayan culture is. With in the first few pages of reading, we learned that in just 100 years (between 1524 and 1625), approximately 94% of the Mayan population had been wiped out. It amazed me how a society can take such a hit, yet still be able to exist today and retain its ancient culture.
I also found it interesting that despite all the European influence, the Mayans failed to assimilate on both an external and internal level. It was hard enough to withstand Spanish force and missionary efforts, but the fact that Mayans were able to preserve individual customs is incredible. As discussed on page 121, even when the parcialidades were forced together into a single community, “parcialidades would preserve their aboriginal identity by continuing to operate socially and economically as separate components rather than merging to form a corporate body.” Lovell articulates this best when he states that the parcialidades “touched but did not interpenetrate” and “co-existed but did not always co-operate.” I found this particularly interesting because I would think that the parcialidades would naturally assimilate due to their close proximity and their shared goal of withstanding the Spaniards. This is extremely unique of the Mayans. In history, native groups generally assimilate and come together to fight against a common enemy. The fact that there are still 20 distinct languages in Guatemala says a lot about their culture, social organizations, beliefs, and overarching values.
On a separate note, I think that Lovell did a great job of giving the reader a different perspective on Guatemalan history. As a world power, Americans often see things from one viewpoint. The history of the United Fruit Company and the overthrow of the Arbenz government really shocked me. It’s appalling that a large company, such as the United Fruit Company, can be so influential, but even more upsetting that Americans were quick to trust the company and automatically felt that it was in the best interest of Guatemala to overthrow the Arbenz government. The excerpt from Time magazine on page 141 shows how much power the media has in our country, and how it can affect other countries as a result. This made me think about how little Americans actually know about world affairs, although we may think that we are extremely educated. Even though the news is often used as a source of knowledge, there will always be a bias attached to this information.
Along the lines of our ethnocentrism, we are often quick to assume that other countries need our help and want to be more like Americans. I thought Lovell brought up a great point on page 148: “…some men discarded Maya-style clothing in favour of Western attire for Indians and guerrillas were often considered synonymous; the abandonment of traditional community dress was a self-protective, not an assimilationist measure.” I know that if I saw a bunch of Mayans wearing American shirts, I would naturally think that the people are striving to be more Americanized, yet this is clearly not the case. Both the reading from this week and last week are definitely starting to change the way I regard other countries and cultures.
When reading these chapters (especially chapter 18) I found myself at first confused by the argument Lovell seemed to be making. The first few pages, or even paragraphs, alluded that Mayan culture has held strong and continues to thrive in modern Guatemala. As I read on however, I found there to be examples of Spanish dominance and rule persisting and continuing to influence the way of life interspersed with an equal number of examples of how the Mayans resisted their conquerors. Therefore it seemed unclear what the author was truly getting at. After finishing the reading and considering Lovell’s arguments again however, I have come to a new conclusion as to why the author presented the facts the way he did.
By articulating both sides of the argument Lovell has moved past any form of indigenous stereotyping. The way in which Mayan peoples were able to resist is a testament to the organization of the numerous communities that were present when the Spanish invaded. This organization is in direct contradiction with poplar beliefs that indigenous people are “uncivilized” seeing as organization requires cooperation. Lovell’s examples also include ones in which some Mayan communities did not resist Spanish invasion (like the Kaqchikeles – who actually sided and fought with the conquerors). This contradicts the romantic idea that all indigenous people were born to struggle for their freedom – a pursuit clearly not sought after by the Kaqchikeles. Thus by providing the vast and at times contradictory examples of how Mayans reacted to colonialism Lovell is able to suspend stereotypical indigenous thought when analyzing the Mayan people.
On another note completely unrelated to the one talked about above, I found it horrifying to read about the rule and destruction of Arbenz in chapter 20. Related to our discussion last week concerning ideas of supremacy when helping underdeveloped countries develop, the actions taken by the United States in response to the United Fruit Companies claims were astounding. I was embarrassed to know that our government could be so easily convinced of an alleged fact, without being suspicious that the source of the information provided (the United Fruit Company) had such a large economic investment in Guatemala. If nothing else I think this is a great example of why we (as in the United States and other power house countries) feel such a need to help developing countries – since we were the problem to begin with.
My favorite aspect of this week's reading is that it starts off by telling the reader not to think of Mayans solely as "relics of the past" or "inert victims" of exploitation. The sentence put me on my guard and sort of changed the way that I read the rest of the book. Even with the best intentions, I think it is just easier sometimes to see a certain group of individuals simply as 'victims.' Lovell shows that there is a much more complicated history and culture involved.
Like all people, the Mayas have the ability to make certain decisions for themselves. Even during colonialism and horrible oppression, the Mayas could have assimilated themselves into the growing ladino culture. They could have gone into the towns, converted to Catholicism, and given up their culture. However, some of the Mayans chose to live outside of European influence for as long as possible, even though this decision often led to a decrease in their living conditions. (Obviously most people would argue that they never should have had to make this decision in the first place.) The point is, that they make decisions based on what is important to them.
This concept also made me think of Professor Fischer's book, Broccoli and Desire, which I read part of for my Ethics discussion group last year. A very broad comment about the book's subject is: today many Mayans have stopped growing corn and traditional crops that are culturally important in order to grow and sell broccoli. This is a risky decision, and the Mayan's incomes are based on consumption patterns in the United States, where nobody really cares about how their decisions impact the impoverished farmers. The Mayans could continue with more traditional and 'safe' work. However, many choose to farm broccoli in order to have the chance of making a greater profit and having more freedom. A very simple view of the situation is: that the Mayans who farm broccoli are victims of a rough economic system, but at the same time they have the ability to choose another option and don't.
In this way, using the word 'victim' as a blanket term to describe their situation is not very accurate. Lovell makes this point as well, and it is important to view a specific group's situation through their choices and decisions, and not just by what they are denied.
I liked how Lovell provides an unique approach to Mayan history, because in truth, all we have learned from U.S. history is the stereotypical story of how the Spanish invaded and conquered a golden empire, rendering the Mayans as victims who survived domination. (not to mention that we have predisposed images in our heads after movies like Pocahontas and Road to El Dorado that deal with colonization) He mentions the specific consequences of the illness and disease that ravaged the Mayan colony and how this impacted their agriculture. Additionally, Lovell inserts eye witness accounts from both the Mayan and conquistador perspective, which I found to be very intriguing. History books tend to be one-sided at times, or completely neutral and not accurately representing either side. The other thing to keep in mind, that didn't initially occur to me, is that the Mayan experience varied from region to region. They were more free to live as they pleased in the north and west, as opposed to the south and east. Lovell really depicts, I think, that there is much more to the Mayan conquest than what we see at face value. By habit, we over simplify the history behind it
We gain some insight into how the Mayans resisted Spanish rule and for what specific, cultural reasons they did so: "Among all these Indians there is not one who wishes to leave behind the hut passed on to him by his father, nor to abandon a pestilential ravine or desert some inaccessible craggy rocks, for that is where the bones of his forefathers rest" (22). This really reminds me of the Hispanic emphasis on family and community, and I realize now where the roots of this philosophy may have come from. You do see similar values in American culture (these values are some what inherent to human nature I think), but not to the same extent. Here, it is common for an American-born adult to go their own way, move away from their home state and settle elsewhere.
A Beauty That Hurts also makes me reconsider my opinions about the Spanish conquistadors (and similar instances in history like the Crusades) and their Christian influence. In general I feel like they are portrayed as the bad guys and admittedly, I do still think that myself. But I kind of wonder now if we should see them as more than just villains. The impression I get from Lovell is that we should look beyond the "history of Guatemala under Spanish rule" and appreciate the history of post-colonial times (126). Yes, Spain conquered Guatemala, but so what? How did this affect the country as a whole and its individual communities? Because afterward, Guatemala survived as an independent republic, only to later be afflicted in turmoil by Liberal and Conservative sides. And even this battle produced a variety of effects, as Lovell goes into depth about specific community cases.
In the second to the last chapter, I first laughed at his Star Trek reference but then took it more seriously. I realized then that I was a victim of the classic scenario he just described on page 143. How often have I promised to send photos, make telephone calls and remember the people I meet internationally? And every time I have failed on my promises because I think to myself: "Oh, they'll never remember. It's not a big deal." But it's not true. They do remember. It may even hurt their feelings, but they don't show it if I ever run into them again. They just remind me once more to send them photos. Because of this I'm inclined to think of them as naive (as opposed to strong willed). And this naivety leads to the thought that they are easily taken advantage of, which leads me full circle back to colonization and why colonization occurs. Do we assume naivety as a trait of the people we are colonizing, or is it more than that?
"Economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom, just as social or political unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom" This statement that one unfreedom can foster the growth of another is a particularly poignant idea. The different unfreedoms that Sen mentions 1)political freedoms 2) economic facilites 3) social opportunities 4)transparency guarantees 5) protective security are all incredibly interconnected to development. Therefore it is important to realize the need to improve open all these unfreedoms as a whole. Only then will development improve. Sen stresses in Chapter 1 that simply improving on one aspect of freedom does not lead to an enhancement of life overall. aLater in Chapter 4, Sen discusses the idea that poverty is not just a "lowness of income" but actually a deprivation of one basic capability. This deprivation affects much more than just an economic unfreedom. A loss of any basic capability prevents one from developing as an individual and, in broader terms, as a population.
These issues that Sen discusses in his book rang true for me. I appreciated his consideration of the unity of development and the way different unfreedoms can affect so many aspects of development.
Like many others, the argument that I was most interested in had to do with the definition of poverty and how it has to do with a lot more than simply wealth. As Sen states, "The usefulness of wealth lies in the things that it allows us to do" (14). It is from this wealth that some people find freedom. Poverty to Sen is much more than simply not having money, which is how many people have been taught to understand the word. Poverty is the lack of basic needs, happiness, and well being. The story about Annapura helped me visualize the varying aspects of poverty as these three different people are described, each of which is poor in a different way. This idea of poverty than Sen explores also brings about the idea of relative poverty and how the basic ideas of what makes a person poor is completely dependent on the culture and class divides in the varying society.
The chapter I found most interesting was the last one where Sen stated, "People themselves must have responsibility for the development and change of the world in which they live" (282). This statement is an incredible way to wrap up everything that Sen has presented throughout the entire book. His approach to development through more humanitarian measures is truly amazing. Instead of simply trying to find quick fixes for the economic problems that the world is facing he is trying to dig deeper to the roots of the problem at look at it from a very different perspective. He is providing amazing insight by not only analyzing the money issues, but also analyzing the psychological effects that all of this has on the people that are effected and how these issues relate to poverty. However, his statement rings very clearly that the only way for any of these problems to be fixed is for the people that are effected by them to take action. As he also states, "Who better to rely on than oneself to look after one's interests and problems?" (283). So I guess the main message I received was that the only solution is action. Anybody can read what Sen has to say, but nothing is going to change until people start becoming accountable for their own actions and start taking measures to make things better.
I particularly liked the argument that Sen makes in explicitly differentiating between income poverty and capability poverty. When I listen to most debates or conversations concerning poverty levels, the conversation always centers around the amount of money someone makes and how this person is affected by this. Sen addresses this aspect of the discussion when she states that capabilities are based off of one's income. People who have less money are less able to live a good quality life. In many discussions concerning this issue, it always seems like those partaking in the discussion solely review ways on how to decrease poverty levels based on the income of those considered to be experiencing poverty. I thought that Sen makes a good point by emphasizing the need to look beyond poverty in this way. I have never really had the argument presented to me in the way that Sen presents it, so it forced me to look at poverty outside of "investment in education, health care and so forth" (Sen 92). Instead we need to look at poverty in terms of "lives people can actually lead and the freedoms they do actually have" (Sen 92). I think this is a good point because it challenges us as global citizens to go beyond the surface of what we think is decreasing poverty levels by instead helping others to live more fulfilling lives.
Another issue that Sen addresses that I thought was rather intriguing (and a bit troubling) is that "African Americans as a group have no higher--indeed have a lower--chance of reaching advanced ages than do people born in the immensely poorer economies of China or the Indian state of Kerala (or in Sri Lanka, Jamaica or Costa Rica) (Sen 21). As Danielle W. stated similarly in an earlier post, we seem to expect so much from the United States due to its high ranking global status that statistics or comparisons such as these are shocking. When I think about helping those in poverty, my attention so often turns to other nations considered much poorer than the United States, forgetting that some of these same conditions (worse conditions in this situation according to Sen) exist right in this country. This comparison certainly left me with something to think about, but if I had any critique about this comparison, I would say it left me hanging on the cliff in a sense. I understand that it is surprising that African Americans in the United States don't live as long as others in poorer nations, but I would like to here some explanations or theories as to why that is.
When reading the third chapter especially, I had to take a step back and ask myself, this won the nobel prize for economics??? Maybe this is from taking Macro 100 with Professor Buckles, but I definitely would not have imagined the study of economics to be such a humanitarian endeavor. It was refreshing to read something that considered 'regular' economics but actually focuses on human suffering and decision-making. Overall I thought that Sen's broad argument was fairly persuasive, probably because of his multidisciplinary approach. Aside from economics and ethics, he also discusses political science and culture.
Aside from this general comment, I want to mention three other things that particularly caught my attention: 1) I agree with several of my classmates that Sen's emphasis on groups and the individual as opposed to just countries allows for a much more accurate understanding of living conditions and human suffering. The example of minorities living in America was extremely persuasive. Economic disparities is something that we all know exists in the United States, but sometimes it is tempting to generalize about the living conditions in other countries. By citing this example early, Sen avoids that generalization which makes it impossible to accurately portray peoples' quality of life.
2) I also think that Sen's approach to human nature is refreshingly realistic. He discusses influential philosophical beliefs but ultimately is firmly in the middle. Approaching economics from a standpoint that all people are completely self-centered and greedy is clearly wrong, but so is assuming that people will be selfless. This is particularly important when discussing the relationship between the developing countries and the developed countries. Even though Sen's writing was very philosophical, he avoided extremes, and his discussion of human nature is only one example of that.
3) Although I liked Sen's general argument, I still don't really know if at the end we are anywhere closer to forming a solution to alleviate poverty and enhance social justice. I didn't read the whole book, but my last thought on what I did read is a sort of: now what do we do?
The part of Sen’s work that I found most enticing was his emphasis on a broader outlook for development, as opposed to the narrow conception recent economists have had concerning this topic. While Sen contends that industrialization and monetary output is an important part of development, he argues that a better goal would be to increase human capability to ensure individual success . Without consideration of aspects other than income there is no assurance that development will take place. A rich man can still have bad health, poor education, lack of political involvement, or an inability to choose an occupation that he wishes. While Sen's thesis may seem obvious after reading this book, it is strange to consider the ways in which our society helps “developing” countries the most – through monetary donations. This is not to say that economic aid is not needed or appreciated, but rather that it does not complete the puzzle. With it should come advances in democratization, education, and health care.
Another aspect of Sen’s work that I connected with was his lack of arrogance when promoting his idea that freedom is development. He makes a point to state that “the approach of ‘development as freedom’ is not so much to order all states into one ‘complete ordering’ but to draw attention to important aspects of the progress of development” (33).The individualization of his agenda is reassuring in the acceptance that not all countries would be able to develop in the same manner. In fact, depending on political situations and social justices development as freedom may look completely different from one country to the next. This relates to the idea of culture that has been discussed on the blog already. If traditional ways must be given up, it should be up to the people of that community to decide how best to do this, or what traditions will be let go of. In this way Sen is careful not to overstep the boundary between aid in development and intrusionin way of life.
One aspect of Sen’s argument that immediately caught my attention was his constant focus on relativity. In today’s society, poverty is generally associated with lack of income. At a young age, I was taught to think of poverty in terms of income, and I know that the majority of people automatically link poverty to lack of money. I naturally think that those in third world countries or stereotypically “poor countries” such as India or Africa are poorer than people in the United States. Maybe this thinking roots from the ethnocentric environment that we live in. However, Sen stimulated my thinking when he made the point about relativity: although people in poorer countries may have less money or income, they may have more relative opportunities or more happiness. It wouldn’t surprise me the United States has the highest documented rate of depression. There is such a wide gap between the rich and poor in America. It is the proximity of those with extreme monetary wealth to those with relatively much less money that accounts for this relative poverty and thus depression.
I feel that Sen’s main points are extremely important for our country to emphasize and reconsider when thinking about development. We are all so caught up in monetary wealth and development in terms of industrialization and technological advancement. Sen’s redefinition of development as freedom allows us to think about what we are actually trying to achieve in life, which many economists have forgotten.
I like that Sen tries to refocus our thoughts of development in terms of freedom, capabilities, and opportunities, but it’s still hard for me to grasp how Sen would advise a country to further develop. There are so many varying factors contributing to development on both a macro and micro level, that its difficult to wrap my head around how to actually become more advanced as a society, as a country, and as a world.
Some questions that arose while reading these chapters related to Sen’s focus of development as freedom. I understand what freedom is, but because freedom is an idea rather than a tangible thing, its hard for me to understand development as freedom for a few reasons. If we think of freedom in terms of freedom of beliefs, and people in some countries believe in dictatorship, how can this work in terms of development? Or if certain religious groups are free to believe that women are inferior, their capability freedom may decease and gender inequality will result, which Sen assumes is bad in terms of development. Although Sen believes that these women lack certain freedoms, the women themselves may be happy with their lives due to the society that they’ve been raised in. I feel that it is too difficult to understand development as freedom because there is so much intercultural bias involved, as well as contrasting values. This goes back to the question of how to determine which values or freedoms are more important than others.
Sen's idea of development is one that requires sources of unfreedom to be destroyed; sources of "unfreedom" such as: poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunities, systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities, intolerance and overactivity of repressive states.(1) On the cover of the book is a picture of the world which in itself creates a sense of unity among all countries big or small and all people regardless of race or gender. Therefore, a few pages into the book, the reader's values of humanity are challenged to search for ways to be help catalyze the destruction of unfreedoms whether they are down the street or across continents.
The parable about Annpurna and her friends provides an interesting segway into Sen's introduction of capability. When trying to decide which of her friends to give the job, Annapurna looks for the person who most needs the job. It turns out that all three of her friends need the job for different reasons that would all be economically sound choices. Different philosophies are called into action--libertarianism and utilitarianism--but in order to measure inequality one cannot only look to leveling income gaps in an effort of equalization. Think about the battle lost for want of a nail...no matter how trivial it may be in the space of incomes or expenditures, that nail made a big difference. (84) In this situation Annapurna should look for the person who will, given the job, provide the least perpetuation of disparaties among the friend group/community. For instance, when trying to destroy the source of unfreedom provided by a lack of knowledge, build a school in the community that is most uneducated and also located where is can be accessible to the most people. Therefore, when you are trying to inspire development in a community, you are not inspiring development that will perpetuate inequality but instead inspire development for the entire country. You are not building a school in south but the north of Brazil. While reading this chapter one cannot help but to think of Parsons' model. Talcott Parsons is a 20th century economist who developed the model of the nuclear family. The current trend in Western societies toward men and women sharing similar occupations, responsibilities and jobs suggests that the sex one is born with does not directly determine one's abilities. However, there are differences in average capabilities of various kinds (physical strength) between the sexes, the capabilities of some members of one sex will fall within the range of capabilities needed for tasks conventionally assigned to the other sex. If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach him to fish he will be fed for a lifetime. Provide a person/community with the capability for greatness and they have the ability to overcome sources of unfreedoms.
I found the discussion of comparative incomes and mortality rates in different countries to be quite interesting. There is a lot of truth to what Sen mentions about the relationship of supposedly deprived groups within one country as they relate to countries that are thought by the majority to be impoverished. I completely agree that it is amazing that the state of a group of people like Blacks in a rich country like the United States can be considered comparable to populations in countries like China, India, or even Jamaica.
Personally, this idea hits home twice. My family is from Jamaica and I understand the current state of the economy in the country. To think that there are so many families that have migrated and continue to migrate to the United States in search of better wages and better lives for their families is in a way bittersweet. Sweet, because so many of my people have made it to the "land of opportunity". Bitter, because the opportunity that was so sure is not always the reality. The mentality of those who remain in Jamaica leans heavily to the sweet side. I cannot speak for all, but my family seems to think that money grows on trees in the States.
Though one may reside in an affluent country such as the United States, quality of life may not exactly mirror what is expected. On the other hand, it is interesting to actually think about the term quality of life. So many times I have heard my parents say we [children] don't know how blessed we are. They can go on for days about the things that we are priveleged to have that they never even dreamed about having when they were growing up. That being said, however, I don't ever think there was a time that they thought they themselves were poor. We have a saying that goes "tun ya hand an mek fashun". A direct translation would be "turn your hand and make fashion", simply meaning use what you have and make it work for you. As Sen argues, some economic development may not be as good as it seems because it may actually diminish the traditions and cultural heritage of a people. I completely agree. Had my parents and other peoples of Jamaica seen a host of economic development, I'm not too sure that many of our traditions and culturally unique aspects would be as vibrant as they are today.
What struck me most about Amartya Sen’s analysis on the workings of poverty and its subsequent relationship with freedom, is that he looks beyond the role of wealth and income as indicators of status and prosperity in developing countries. While no one can deny that these two areas of study are no doubt important, Sen strives to analyze the driving factors behind why people are poor and why there is inequality. His ultimate thesis, that people’s capabilities and their relative economic, political and social freedom are what truly drive poverty, was both a refreshing and substantive statement. Too many times the compelling reasons of why a problem is occurring in a country are overlooked and ignored in favor for a swift and immediate solution. It is interesting to note that Sen’s analysis seems one of the first examples (at least that I have read) proposing that the solution to a problem of poverty starts at the source. We cannot simply expect poverty to disappear based on wealth alone, and this distinction is an important factor that defines Sen’s work. He states this best when he writes, “Economic growth cannot be sensibly treated as a end in itself. Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy”(14).
Sen’s discussion of developmental problems represents one analysis of poverty interpreted through the lens of economics, and bolstered with distinctive moral and philosophical tones.For example, I thought that his inclusion of the many aspects of utilitarianism and liberalism strengthened his argument and provided and more analytical look into the personal side of poverty. The two different types of outlooks gave balance to his piece and also further added conflict to the idea of the “informational bases”. After reading this, I was struck by how much of the information we acquire about economics and poverty is very much generalized yet limited. There is so much information out there about what contributes and leads to poverty; however, from where is all this information originate, and on what facts are these conclusions being drawn? I thought this idea, as well as Sen’s notion as “poverty as capability depravation” could particularly be applied to the current state of Haiti after the recent earthquakes. The ideas proposed within the book can be clearly exemplified in light of the recent devastation, and the widespread poverty, lack of inequality and “unfreedom” within the country have all contributed to the break down of the state after the disaster. When applying Sen’s ideas to the situation in Haiti, the interplay of low income, political instability, and civil rights all prove to strengthen his idea that freedom truly is the building block of a fashioning a productive and more stable society. While there is no way that the author could have included the recent disaster in his writing, my one critique concerns that no overreaching example of his theory applied to a specific country. While many smaller examples were given, perhaps about a certain aspect he strove to emphasize, no one study was cited to act as the book’s empirical basis, which would have been useful when emphasizing a thought.
Just some thoughts and questions that popped into my head as I read...
On page 31 the author says: "It has been argued by some that economic development as we know it may actually be harmful for a nation, since it may lead to the elimination of its traditions and cultural heritage."
This reminded me of how some people find it offensive to call countries like Africa "third-world countries." Economically developing countries is the preferred terminology. The argument is that the term third world country implies a country is not rich at all, which is not true; it is rich in culture.
This makes me think of India. I was just in India for three weeks and when I describe my trip, I don't mention the poverty there. Strangely enough, I speak of the so-called impoverished lifestyle with some pride in my voice. To me it's culture. The lifestyle there is what makes up India and who she is. With an entire family growing up with low economic status, priorities are altered and allow for some of the differences we see in culture and tradition between the U.S. and India. For example, community is greatly emphasized. There is little individuality and the concept of privacy is foreign (or so I find amongst my relatives).
I'm not sure to what extent a nation would lose its cultural heritage if it became economically developmed. I believe that culture and tradition is very ingrained and that India will always inherently possess certain unique characteristics. Yes, it is getting more and more Westernized and India's appearance is changing, but the thing is, heritage isn't forgotten. It can be diluted (I live in the U.S. but I throw on traditional Indian clothes when the occasion calls for it) but I don't think it can be completely erased. Otherwise there wouldn't be Asian culture to this day. Even Asians who are very Americanized and don't live by their heritage are aware of what background they came from, whether they practice it or not.
When Sen presents a world of “unprecedented opulence” coexisting simultaneously with “remarkable deprivation” and “oppression” (xi), he seems almost to mystify the world as a quirky and curious place where good and evil, oddly, are neighbors, but he can't see any connection between the two.Are these rich and poor neighbors participants in the same social system? Is one a landlord that owns the whole neighborhood and the other a landless tenant? Sen seems almost too conspicuously to be dodging the question that equality-minded people might have put to him: Does the world’s “unprecedented opulence” have anything to do with oppression?
On the other hand, Sen’s book is a refreshingly different kind of book on development. When most economists seem to be stuck in measuring GDP to justify their free-market shock treatments, Sen is trying to prove that the urge to human freedom and social justice are still relevant to economics.He argues that “we have to see individual freedom as a social commitment” (xii); he criticizes the World Bank (from within its walls); he refuses the employment of “the authorities” (xiv) in favor of public participation and debate, and, eventually, democracy.
And so I feel like I am still split between two readings of Sen. He is taking the idea of sharing, translating it as ‘interchange’, and calling it a ‘market’, when ‘market’ (in its current state-sponsored forms) usually means something quite different from ‘sharing’. Through that re-definition of markets, and translating the urge for self-determination into the vocabulary and logic of the free market ('interchange'), Sen might be arguing for human freedom and against coercion. He might be using the language of 'free labor' to make a case for an economy of mutual aid, sharing, and equality.Or, operating within the constraints of free market logic, Sen may just be the kindest face that the violence of neoliberal economics can find for the process of consolidating wealth and maintaining aristocratic control of most people's lives by a few people.So far, Sen hasn’t been detailed enough for me to choose one reading over the other, so I’ll share the things I’m watching for as I read the rest of the book:
1)An attempt to grapple with what Marx calls “alienation.”If you replaced every instance of ‘freedom’ in the text with the word ‘alienation’, it would seem like a satire on the circular nature of free-market triumphalist logic.To take just one element of alienation, let’s look at page 28, where Sen describes “a system of free labor contract and unrestrained physical movement,” highlighting the irony of using Marx’s critique of slavery for a defense of capitalism.Of course Marx noticed the qualitative difference of being able to choose who you work for, but you can’t read Marx for long before picking up that there is down-side to ‘free labor.’This is a section from a letter Marx wrote in 1853 about the enclosures in Great Britain that ‘freed up’ a large pool of available laborers by displacing people from their ancestral lands:
“My lady Countess resolved upon a radical economical reform, and determined upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks. From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically expelled and exterminated. All their villages were demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into pasturage. British soldiers were commanded for this execution, and came to blows with the natives. An old woman refusing to quit her hut was burned in the flames of it. Thus my lady Countess appropriated to herself 794,000 acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged to the clan. In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the expelled natives about 6,000 acres -- two acres per family. These 6,000 acres had been lying waste until then, and brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at 2s 6d on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their blood for her family. The whole of the unrightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the 15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep.”
I recommend reading the entire letter, especially in response to Sen’s arguments about what Marxthought about the freeing of slaves in the United States’ Civil War: http://libcom.org/library/scottish-clearings-karl-marx
3)Education and hierarchy.Sen argues for local self-determination and autonomy, but he does so in the language of influencing “public decisions” and “participation” –potentially a weak substitute for actual political freedom.I’m waiting to see if he will acknowledge that the ‘freedom’ of public education, while significant, is still the freedom of obedience to a particular dialect and form of hierarchical discipline, which may have the opportunity cost of diminishing other educations and freedoms (think about children that spend fifteen years in public school doing composition, pledges of allegiance, and learning to think in terms of grades rather than learning how to plant and harvest, judge agricultural cycles, build their own homes, and other skills that might be considered ‘self-reliant’)Formal [modern] education may open up a variety of freedoms, but it can also itself be a “deprivation of elementary capabilities” (20), including the basic habits of making your own choices rather than following the authority of a teacher.On page 33, he notes that “participation requires knowledge and basic education skills, which might lead him to conclude that even his notions of autonomy through ‘participation’ require some submission to hierarchical authority, a serious problem for 'development as freedom'.
4)A fair assessment of the coercive elements of employment, beyond just the assertion that unemployment “leads to losses of self-reliance” ( 21).This seems a rather rosy view of employment, which, although ‘free’, also involves submission to a more powerful employer and a substitution of someone else’s priorities for your own.He points out that slavery constrains the free labor market, but there are plenty of other, less onerous constraints on selling your time and muscles, like ‘pride’ (a belief in personal freedom), a desire to rest, a preference for subsistence, a strike, etc.
5)Freedom and tradition.He casts the cultural arguments over cultural genocide as a conflict between ‘freedom’ and ‘tradition’ rather than a conflict between various traditions, including capitalism, that are (in many cases, violently) enforced.I’m watching out for his analysis of the state and how it enforces 'free market reforms' (through evictions, privatization, etc.) in later chapters.
