While the notion of development as freedom seems almost intuitive to me on one level, I am still left wondering about this notion’s relationship to the Neo-Marxist implications of dependency theory. This relates back to my question about whether cutting off trade completely, isolating a nation, is a plausible option, which is obviously impossible and idealistic as I should have noted , but also brings about the paradox of cultural influence (the paradox being that it can be either positive or negative). Thinking back to the Rodney reading, where he decribes capitalism as inevitably exploiting other nations, I wonder if capitalist culture can also have instated ideas of corruption into those affected nations (I know this probably sounds like extreme socialist propaganda, and it probably is, but keep reading). In DER Chapter 3, Amartya Sen quite optimistically agrees with Yi Jing’s conclusion that “each country has to learn something from the other.” (40) Sen is a specialist in the relations between China and India, and shows us how China has been an economic role model for India, and that the Buddhist movement between them shows (at least for India) humanitarian interest (which, Mahbub Ul Haq says, is a developmental concept that need not be understated since for so long have we – or at least the Marxists – thought of development as something above the real people involved). Sen says that democracy makes sure that the people’s interests are accounted for, rather than brushed over or hidden by a powerful totalitarian government like that of China. He uses the examples of famines and epidemics to show that though China may have a longer life-expectancy, and is growing economically faster, “the persistent reporting of the dreadful state of Indian health services is, ultimately, a source of India’s dynamic strength.” (39) Perhaps slow and steady wins the race?
Still, like the Sachs article demonstrates, India is not “underdeveloped” per se, since Malawi and Bangladesh are comparatively less-developed. I don’t think that we can yet conclude that what worked in India will work with other countries. (I promise the isolationism theory comes in very soon!) In China, there is a severe sense of nationalism. I remember reading an article in The New Yorker many months ago in which they had interviewed a revolutionary writer, Han Han, who the internet police is always trying to censor, and who often makes a joke out of it. He described an article that he had read in the newspaper, which described a man’s 48-hour journey standing upright in a bus with no stops to get to his job which was non-stop (I can’t remember if he even had a place to sleep at night, or permission to), which lasted for about a month. The man then returned home on the same 48-hour bus (with no rest or bathroom breaks). Doesn’t this sound exactly like page 11 of the Sachs reading? Which describes Bangladesh? Anyway, Han Han was shocked (or perhaps not, because happenings like that are so commonplace in China) to find that the tone of this article was not disgust in the government, but pride in the man’s love of his country and his perseverance. But to Han Han, this poor man was not at all dignified – this extreme poverty had stripped away all dignity from him. The man had had to buy adult diapers just to make the trip. Oh, and his pay was much less than minimum, but that, of course, is not the issue here. This lines up with Sen’s argument that, freedom-wise, China is actually less-developed than India.
I think one thing that goes unmentioned (perhaps because it should be deemed as obvious) is India’s traditionalist culture of the caste system and arranged marriages. There is also the problem of viewing women as goods, and therefore not wanting daughters, but wanting sons (sounds like Mulan…). While many consider these traditions outdated, they are still very prevalent, and can’t be wiped out in only one or two generations. My mom, who is originally from Chile, but moved to the US when she was around 12 years old, used to tell me that, in Chile, a son of a baker, even if he becomes a lawyer, is still a son of a baker. Perhaps Chile (the so-called first developed South American country) has changed since then, but perhaps there is still an underlying tone of classism. What I am trying to get at is that China and India have an extremely strong sense of culture. I have this viewpoint because I am a mixed-up American, who feels as if she has very little cultural boundaries/ideals to adhere to (which leads to a lot of existential angst), but that is only what leads my questions. Historically, how much did China and India influence each other? They must have developed by themselves before interacting with each other, or else they wouldn’t have such different cultures. I realize that once a country has interacted with another country, you can’t reverse that knowledge that someone else is out there, but can we definitively say that freedom is a good thing when perhaps freedom is just a moral ideology that we, as Americans (or perhaps something else), are enthralled with? Perhaps this is wandering too far out of historical analysis, and into philosophical realms…
My point is that I still feel as though by pressuring countries to follow our path of “freedom” can still be a form of dependency because we are trying to change their culture to be more like our own culture. I feel as if we are still trying to decide what is the best type of government, or the best type of ideology to run a nation/community. Perhaps I am focusing too much on the word “freedom,” rather than on the meaning of it. When we, like Mahbub Ul Haq, say that “the basic purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices,” (29) that is what we mean by freedom. It does not mean that Indians need to stop arranging marriages, just that they have the option of having an arranged marriage or choosing their own partner. I suppose strong, traditional culture doesn’t always die when a different, more innovative and open culture is introduced… Then again, in democracy, majority rules, and if that traditionalist culture falls into the minority, it can always be destroyed. But then, perhaps, they could create their own party, and then there would be peace again.
This blog post was just an extended argument with myself. If anyone has any responses, I really need them, because now the concept of “majority rules” is bothering me. I just don’t think traditionalist cultures should necessarily die out, but it seems so inevitable in this system of freedom being development.
No comments:
Post a Comment