tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58862912033461061312024-03-14T01:49:57.185+10:00ReciprocansReciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-55618985988717302182012-11-24T21:47:00.000+10:002012-11-24T23:25:07.131+10:00The Legacy of Gandamak and the Crisis of Counterinsurgency<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“Where there is a visible
enemy to fight in open combat, the answer is not so difficult. Many serve, all
applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow
struggle, with no immediately visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed.”</i> –
President John F. Kennedy to the graduating class of the United States Military
Academy at West Point in 1962.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q0saDzA2aYA/ULBdHWCojqI/AAAAAAAAAJU/M3Z9cirlnFQ/s1600/44th.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q0saDzA2aYA/ULBdHWCojqI/AAAAAAAAAJU/M3Z9cirlnFQ/s400/44th.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"The Last Stand of the 44th Regiment at Gandamak" painted by William Barnes Wollen in 1898 depicts the last stand near Gandamak village on the 13 January 1842 by the survivors of the British retreat from Kabul.</i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In 1839, British forces
invaded Afghanistan and captured Kabul. By 1842 the occupation sparked uprisings
by the Afghani population which soon routed British forces. The commanding
officer of the British Garrison in Kabul, Major General William Elphinstone,
planned a retreat of the garrison which consisted of British and British Indian
soldiers and their wives and children. The retreating column was continuously
harassed by Afghani tribesmen and they were all eventually either massacred in the
valley pass of Gandamak, died from the harsh wintery conditions and lack of
supplies, or were captured. Only one member of the garrison, an assistant
medical officer by the name of William Brydon, both survived the ordeal and
made it back to the British garrison of Jalalabad. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Ever since this massacre near
the village of Gandamak in January 1842, Afghanistan has proved the setting for
risky geopolitical jousts, dangerous strategic manoeuvring, and folly military
interventions by global great powers. Whilst the motives for the invasions of Afghanistan were different for each superpower, the course and outcomes of their conflicts have all arguably been analogous – indeed such is the legacy of Gandamak. The British invaded for strategic and imperial rationales – seeking to counter Russian influences in Central Asia and to protect Imperial India. The Soviets invaded for strategic and political rationales – seeking to counter American influences on the southern flanks of the USSR and to support the Afghani communist regime of the Saur Revolution. The Americans invaded for security and political rationales – seeking to rid the world of the Taliban that were supporting Al Qaeda, to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and to bring capitalism and democracy to the country. Indeed the imperial and military misadventures by the great powers profoundly reflect an ignorance and misunderstanding of the diversity of Afghani political and cultural dynamics. Suffice to say, as Seth Jones has termed,
Afghanistan has been the <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57411/milton-bearden/afghanistan-graveyard-of-empires">Graveyard
of Empires</a> through changing international and regional strategic, military,
demographic and socioeconomic factors - <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55999/l-carl-brown/tournament-of-shadows-the-great-game-and-the-race-for-empire-in-">the
Great Game</a> of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, the Cold War of the 20<sup>th</sup>
century, the concurrent War on Terror or <a href="http://www.socsci.uci.edu/files/internationalstudies/docs/counterinsurgency20101007">Global
Counterinsurgency as per David Kilcullen</a>, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/after-afghanistan-a-new-great-game.html?_r=5&">the
emerging New Great Game</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sTOikiUd5ag/ULDKX-YjjeI/AAAAAAAAAK8/7S7hao9w3z0/s1600/Afghan+children+pose+for+a+photograph+beneath+graffiti,+with+writing+that+reads,+freedom+in+Kabul,+on+June+22,+2012.+AP+Photo+Ahmad+Nazar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="268" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sTOikiUd5ag/ULDKX-YjjeI/AAAAAAAAAK8/7S7hao9w3z0/s400/Afghan+children+pose+for+a+photograph+beneath+graffiti,+with+writing+that+reads,+freedom+in+Kabul,+on+June+22,+2012.+AP+Photo+Ahmad+Nazar.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i>Afghan children beneath graffiti of a crossed out pistol with writing that reads "freedom" in Kabul (20 June 2012 | Associated Press / Ahmad Nazar).</i><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Now in 2012, 170 years since the
withdrawal of British forces and their massacre in the First Anglo-Afghan War and
23 years since the withdrawal Russian forces and their loss of the Soviet
invasion, the troops of the 2009 surges by the United States have been
demobilised. Indeed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/opinion/09dalrymple.html?pagewanted=all">the
history of Gandamak has been stirring up similarities</a> between the Afghani
ventures by British forces and ISAF forces. The United States Secretary of
Defence, Leon Panetta, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/us-troop-surge-in-afghanistan-ends.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&">announced
the finalisation of the withdrawal whilst in New Zealand in September</a>
without pomp or circumstance in the American or international media. At the NATO
Summit in Chicago in May this year, an <a href="http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_87595.htm">exit
strategy and transition were planned</a> entailing decreases of the NATO led
ISAF troop commitments with incremental handovers to Afghani security forces. Other
member nations of ISAF, such as Australia, have also begun to scale down
operations and troop commitments. There is seemingly recognition by the public
and governments of ISAF member nations that a continued prolonged and sustained
military presence in Afghanistan has become too detrimental due to overriding political,
financial and human costs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 262.9pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, the international
military presence in Afghanistan, which has been a continuous conflict since
2001, has largely turned into a quagmire. Efforts to train Afghani forces have
resulted in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/world/asia/afghan-attacks-on-allied-troops-prompt-nato-to-shift-policy.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all">growing
numbers of “green on blue” attacks</a>. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/afghanistans-corruption-imperils-its-future-and-american-interests/260178/">Levels
of corruption and obstruction</a> in the Afghani authorities have been ride. The
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths?newsfeed=true">increasing
utilisation of drone strikes</a>, surgical or not, as well as extrajudicial
killings as tools of statecraft to fight insurgents in the contested Federally
Administered Tribal Areas and in the Afghani-Pakistani border more broadly have
killed civilians, categorically exacerbating existing conflicts and facilitated
radicalisation. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/insider-attacks-afghan-war-ied_n_1933949.html">Continued
deaths and wounding of troops</a> by <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/improvised_explosive_devices/index.html">Improvised
Explosive Devices</a> have been unforgiving. The noted troop surges, whilst may
have appeared an effective strategic decision hoping to mimic the success seen
by the Iraq troop surges, <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/09/2012929115223291371.html">have operationally manifested as poor tactical deployments</a> that have been <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/surge-report-card/">proven ineffective at stemming the flow of violence and Taliban movement</a>.<br />
<br />
Recent phenomena, such as the Arab Spring, along with long term economic trends, namely the Asian Century, have profound geopolitical and strategic implications for the conflict in Afghanistan. The pivot that Central Asia has historically offered is drastically changing due to economic, technological and social change in the wider Middle East and Asia Pacific regions. The British made this mistake through pouring troops in from India in the nineteenth century as did the Soviets from their border in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Now the Americans and ISAF are scaling down troops whilst attempting to train Afghani security forces and bequeath a new self-dependence. The Soviet campaigns of carport bombing of villages with attack helicopters and plane strikes are analogous to current drone strikes by the United States. Indeed a tragedy presents itself – Mikhail Gorbachev couldn't win the war in Afghanistan and yet couldn't acknowledge this fact. Although Gorbachev, a moderate in the politburo, planned a withdrawal deadline of Soviet forces, military expenditure actually increased until Soviet forces crossed the last bridge out of Afghanistan. Similarly, Barack Obama faces an increasingly unwinnable conflict and yet steadily increased American forces until scaling back the troop surges just last month. Indeed, Afghanistan is a war without an end. Fundamentally, <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/10/201210814353196525.html">Afghanistan
proves unstable</a> and, as David Petraeus notes, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/petraeus-gains-in-afghanistan-fragile-and-reversible-afghans-will-take-over-in-select-provinces/72507/">any
progress that has been actualised is fragile and reversible</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AgW6zzKIi44/ULBe7eWJkwI/AAAAAAAAAJc/3jSaXX2mQAE/s1600/1024px-Remnants_of_an_army2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AgW6zzKIi44/ULBe7eWJkwI/AAAAAAAAAJc/3jSaXX2mQAE/s400/1024px-Remnants_of_an_army2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><o:p>"Remnants of an Army" painted by Lady Elizabeth Thompson in 1879 depicts </o:p>William Brydon, an assistant medical officer, arriving at the gates of Jalalabad as the only survivor of the British retreat from Kabul of 1842. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Theorised, developed and put
forth by maverick military commanders and strategists thinking outside of the
box at the Pentagon, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/counter.html?utm_campaign=videoplayer&utm_medium=fullplayer&utm_source=relatedlink">counterinsurgency strategy was hailed as a panacea</a> and
game changing for the future of warfare. <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_coindinistas">The pioneers
of counterinsurgency</a>, figures such as David Petraeus, John Nagl, David
Kilcullen, and Herbert McMaster, have marked the rise of a new intellectual
warrior class: combat soldiers with doctorates and higher academic
qualifications. Counterinsurgency at its crux is an operational strategy
centred on protecting population centres from insurgents, civil institutional
capacity building, and information operations. Indeed the work by former
Australian Army officer, government advisor and political anthropologist Dr
David Kilcullen on counterinsurgency strategy has been fundamentally important.
His theory of the “accidental guerilla is a key to understanding the
insurgencies around the world throughout modern history. A complex range of
diagrams and flow charts explained in verbose management language with a focus
on quantitative methods are all now part and parcel of the strategy of
counterinsurgency as it manifests in the academic literature and military
strategy. The pioneers of counterinsurgency led the charge for
counterinsurgency strategy to be adopted by the United States Military as
official doctrine by presenting it as the grand unified theory of everything
for the unconventional warfare. Consequently the United States Military
formulated the <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf">Counterinsurgency
Field Manual</a> and the <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/01/05/counterinsurgency_field_manual_afghanistan_edition">Army
and Marine Corps have implemented</a> training programs, established research
centres, and formulated operational tactics guidelines for small frontline
units. The United States Department of State formulated a <a href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf">counterinsurgency
guide for the civil agencies</a> of the United States Government. The NATO led
ISAF commanders have also <a href="http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf">established
counterinsurgency manuals</a>. Indeed, counterinsurgency strategy has become
the orthodoxy for unconventional warfare for the United States Military. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Fundamentally though, counterinsurgency
has largely failed at countering the widespread insurgency in Afghanistan and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051502069.html">yet
it is becoming almost dogmatic</a> and a “one size fits all” strategy for
commanders, planners and policymakers. Critically, counterinsurgency is largely
becoming the unquestioned orthodoxy and an institutionalised narrative of unconventional
warfare for the United States Military. However there is an ongoing debate
surrounding the effectiveness of counterinsurgency inside the United States
military and government and outside in academia and think-tanks. Even President
John F. Kennedy <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8695#axzz1xEGHIbqE">warned
the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point in
1962</a> that counterinsurgency is problematic: “Where there is a visible enemy
to fight in open combat, the answer is not so difficult. Many serve, all
applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow
struggle, with no immediately visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed.”
Indeed, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/opinion/the-age-of-unsatisfying-wars.html?_r=2&">unsatisfying
wars are the stock in trade of counterinsurgency</a>; rarely, if ever, will
counterinsurgency end with a surrender ceremony or look akin to the victories
of conventional warfare of history. And yet, unconventional operations, from
counterinsurgency to foreign military assistance, have been the operations
almost exclusively waged by the United States Military since the Vietnam War
though with the notable exception of the First Gulf War. Comparative to other
operational doctrinal changes in the United States Military, counterinsurgency
largely went unquestioned during its emergence and adoption. The doctrine of
AirLand Battle was the official doctrine for the United States Military from
1982 to 1998 and over 110 articles were written for military journals
fundamentally questioning it from 1976 to 1982. Up until its adoption in 2006, there was marginal questioning of counterinsurgency with only significant critiques occurring during its <a href="http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol6no1RoperandKieper.pdf">operational and doctrinal implementation</a>. The paradigms of
counterinsurgency that originated with the Boer War, were developed during
conflicts in Malaya, Algeria, Vietnam and Northern Ireland, and then
redeveloped for the insurgency in Iraq have largely failed in Afghanistan.
Moreover, it is still questionable to assume that counterinsurgency and the
associated operations were a success in Iraq. For Afghanistan,
counterinsurgency has been inadequately implemented due to practical failings, ignorantly
theorised through dogmatic assumptions, and fundamentally been an ineffective
foil against the blades of cross cutting ethnic, religious, political
conflicts.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
There have been <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/15/counterinsurgency_a_debate_far_from_over">scathing
criticisms against counterinsurgency</a> since the official adoption of it as a
doctrine of the United States Military. There is <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90200038">seemingly
a schism in command structure</a> over the <a href="http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/24/counterinsurgency_is_a_bloody_costly_business">validity
of counterinsurgency</a> with a number of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753402909694027.html">active United States Army Officers openly critiquing their superior officers</a>. <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/01/12/think_again_counterinsurgency?page=0,1">United
States Army Colonel Dr Gian Gentile</a> and retired United States Army Colonel
Dr Douglas Macgregor are emblematic of this <a href="http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/16/coin_is_dead_long_live_the_coin">increasingly
present schism</a> <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/2067/the-colonels-and-the-matrix">within the United States Military</a>. Outside of the military
there have been systematic articles criticising counterinsurgency. Adam Curtis,
a documentarian with the BBC, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/06/how_to_kill_a_rational_peasant.html">wrote
a very insightful examination</a> of counterinsurgency theory critiquing the
American redevelopment of it for Iraq and Afghanistan. Sean Liedman, a United
States Navy Officer and Fellow of the Weatherhead Centre for International
Affairs at Harvard University, writes a dissertation entitled “<a href="http://programs.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/files/liedman.pdf">Don’t Break
The Bank With COIN: Resetting U.S. Defence Strategy After Iraq and Afghanistan</a>”
which offers an insightful critique of counterinsurgency. The website <a href="http://reassessingcounterinsurgency.wordpress.com/articles/">Reassessing
Counterinsurgency</a> also provides a comprehensive library of articles
evaluating counterinsurgency operations and strategy. Critically,
counterinsurgency strategy as has been practiced in Afghanistan is flawed - the troops surges have failed, the ethics of counterinsurgency operations are questionable, and counterinsurgency has become more or less a paradigm of armed nation building. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iTdEGHclpbw/ULBhzricKVI/AAAAAAAAAJw/mpUT34oF6Ao/s1600/A+bullet-riddled+map+of+Afghanistan,+painted+on+a+wall+of+an+abandoned+Canadian-built+school+in+Zharay+district+of+Kandahar+province,+southern+Afghanistan,+on+June+9,+2012.+Reuters+Shamil+Zhumatov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iTdEGHclpbw/ULBhzricKVI/AAAAAAAAAJw/mpUT34oF6Ao/s400/A+bullet-riddled+map+of+Afghanistan,+painted+on+a+wall+of+an+abandoned+Canadian-built+school+in+Zharay+district+of+Kandahar+province,+southern+Afghanistan,+on+June+9,+2012.+Reuters+Shamil+Zhumatov.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A bullet-riddled map of Afghanistan painted on a wall of an abandoned school in Zharay district of Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan (9 June 2012 | Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov).</i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Within the context of the <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/25/the_afghan_surge_is_over">recent demobilisation of the troops from the 2009 surge in Afghanistan</a> order by Obama, it is important to examine the impact of surges associated with counterinsurgency operations and strategy. The primarily rationale for the Afghanistan troop surge in 2009 stemmed from the seemingly successful troop surge in Iraq in 2007 where violence significantly declined. Military commanders and counterinsurgency strategists complained that it was the troop surge that led to the declines in violence however on closer examination that a range of other factors were at play. Certainly there was a decline in violence in Iraq in 2007 coinciding with the troop surge, but this does not equate to causation. The Sunni Awakening, the cease-fire by Mahdi Army, the progressive sectarian segregation of Sunnis and Shiites, and the positive inroads of United States Military, are all critical factors in explaining the decline in violence. Moreover, comparative to Afghanistan, Iraq was more conducive to counterinsurgency operations due to the largely static population centres, working urban infrastructure, relative ethnic homogeneity and better economic conditions. The population of Afghanistan, conversely, is far more rural and sparsely located with more ethnic heterogeneity in Iraq.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Thus the starting rationale for the troop surge in Afghanistan wasn't as clear cut or significant. Failings of the Afghanistan troop surge stem from this misunderstanding of the flaws on the Iraq troop surge, but also from the misunderstanding of the dynamics of the Afghani insurgents or "accidental guerillas" as per Kilcullen. Increasing troop commitments exacerbated
unrest and consequently more accidental guerrillas were killed through the
superior fire power of the United States Military forward operating bases and patrols. Efforts to protect
population centres with increased security failed simply because an increased
troop presence didn't deter the Taliban from making threats and carrying out
punishments with those that explicitly and implicitly cooperated with ISAF. Moreover, cross cutting ethnic and political conflicts were further exacerbated by increased presence of ISAF troops and their efforts in civil cooperation and capacity building. Afghani civilians didn't attend marketplaces patrolled by ISAF troops and migrated away from their troop
bases. Thus the crux of counterinsurgency of population centric operations failed either because increased troops simply deterred civilians before engagement or killed the farmers that infrequently fired at ISAF troops (the "accidental guerillas") thus fostering further radicalisation or alienation. The civil programs of the United States Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development were simply not effective, coordinated or specialised for Afghanistan. There was no sustainable socioeconomic development or long term institutional capacity building by such civil programs which were critically important for support the military operations in the overall counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
For the surge and its
accompanying counterinsurgency strategy to prevail in Afghanistan, four main
things needed to occur: The Afghan government had to be a willing partner, the
Pakistani government had to crack down on insurgent sanctuaries on its soil,
the Afghan army had to be ready and willing to assume control of areas that had
been cleared of insurgents by American troops, and the Americans had to be
willing to commit troops and money for years on end. Fundamentally, the aforementioned were not attained. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1wpWpS3lQZk/ULC5VySGzqI/AAAAAAAAAKM/zJP_zxoX_S0/s1600/EIA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="277" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1wpWpS3lQZk/ULC5VySGzqI/AAAAAAAAAKM/zJP_zxoX_S0/s400/EIA.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<i>A graph from a ISAF Report in September 2012 measuring Taliban and associated insurgents launched against NATO forces, month by month from January 2008 to August 2012 (obtained via "<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/surge-report-card/">Military's Own Report Card Gives Afghan Surge an F</a>" from Wired.com).</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Coinciding with the rise of
counterinsurgency, there has been a militarisation of the social sciences by
the United States Military. The <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/mcfate.pdf">relationship
between the social sciences, particularly anthropology, and the military</a>
has a contentious history since the Second World War with Iraq and Afghanistan
proving flashpoints. One of the pioneers of counterinsurgency, David Kilcullen,
completed his Doctor of Philosophy in Political Anthropology at the University
of New South Wales with a thesis entitled “<a href="http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_3240">The
Political Consequences of Military Operations in Indonesia 1945-99: A Fieldwork
Analysis of the Political Power-Diffusion Effects of Guerrilla Conflict</a>” in
2000 utilising ethnographic methods. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Indeed there has been an acknowledgement of the importance of cultural intelligence in counterinsurgency
and the United States Military have established the, horrifically named, <a href="http://humanterrainsystem.army.mil/">Human Terrain System Project</a>
staffed by social scientists and deployed with combat forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Attempts to rectify crosscultural problems and teach intercultural
understanding to the military commanders of ISAF have been made by
anthropologists and other social scientists. Also, there has been extensive
writing on the critical importance of understanding local and regional cultural
dynamics with ethnographic depth for counterinsurgency strategy and
peacekeeping operations. Whilst individuals such as Kilcullen have indeed made
constructive inroads in achieving a cross-culturally competent American
military establishment, a range of external and operational factors have
contributed to renewed failings of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Yet this militarisation of the
social sciences to enhance counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
has been met with scepticism and controversy. Ethical objections by the
American Anthropological Association and various social scientists have also
been made. Legal questions pertaining to the combat status of non-military
members of the Human Terrain System Project and their ability to engage with
aspects of war fighting are also important. Organisations such as the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/concernedanthropologists/">Network of
Concerned Anthropologists</a> and <a href="http://anthrojustpeace.blogspot.com.au/">Anthropologists for Justice and
Peace</a> have been <a href="http://www.diigo.com/list/openanthropology/list-2009122720054589">active
and vocal</a> in criticising counterinsurgency and the Human Terrain System
Project. The Network of Concerned Anthropologists has even published a book
entitled <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/C/bo6899695.html">The
Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual</a> that systematically critiques
counterinsurgency strategy and the employment of social scientists by the
Military. David Price, a Professor of Anthropology at St. Martin's College has
also written the comprehensive book entitled <a href="http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/presenting-david-prices-weaponizing-anthropology/">Weaponising
Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State</a> which also
rebukes the militarisation of the social sciences. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0iNRRs7tbls/ULC8lPy4ULI/AAAAAAAAAKg/VSmAgCADJQY/s1600/a29_54190285.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="253" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0iNRRs7tbls/ULC8lPy4ULI/AAAAAAAAAKg/VSmAgCADJQY/s400/a29_54190285.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<i>United States Army soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, carry a wounded colleague after he was injured in an IED blast during a patrol in Logar province (13 October 2012 | AFP / Munir Uz Zaman).</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The paradigm of nation
building is arguably a valid concept of international development; however within
counterinsurgency operations it is pursued primarily by the military. This is
only inevitably due to the massive difference between funding and resources of
the United States Military and the foreign civil development programs of the
United States Government. Yet <a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20844/jacqueline_jill_hazelton.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F2085%2Fjacqueline_l_hazelton">such a situation is not ideal</a>. Thus it is accurate
to classify <a href="http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/armed-nation-building-the-wests-unhappy-history">counterinsurgency as armed nation building</a> conducted by an
organisation not versed in civic development. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Such coincides with the
existential crisis the United States Army is going through over what role it is
to take in a post-Cold War and post-911 world. Pentagon officials and strategic
theorists believe the future will be dominated by sea-air warfare,
cyberwarfare, and unconventional warfare. Indeed the historical role of the Army
of infantry operations and conventional warfare is now defunct. Therefore, the top
United States Army officers believe that they must adapt to the changing
strategic and security environment or risk decreased funding and irrelevancy. Though
whilst adapting to unconventional warfare may seem a critical and imperative
decision for the United States Army and military at large, it is merely a
superficial approach and ignores the underlying factors for such conflict in
the first instance. Moreover, the adaptation to counterinsurgency and
asymmetrical warfare by the United States Military arguably incentivises and
fosters an interventionist posture. A change of posturing of the United States
Military from conventional forces towards a holistic counterinsurgency doctrine
will likely incentivise continued entrances into unconventional conflicts that
would traditionally not have been a consideration. Gian Gentile, a United
States Army Colonel and History Professor at West Point, <a href="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/01/3207722">posits that
overconfidence in the validity of counterinsurgency</a> incentivises future
interventions into conflicts but also prevents the development of capabilities
to counter conventional threats. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J3yRsNlo0ns/ULC9STSD3JI/AAAAAAAAAKo/RJ88Ni5Hjqc/s1600/A+paratrooper+with+the+82nd+Airborne+Division's+1st+Brigade+Combat+Team+fires+an+M240B+medium+machine+gun+at+insurgent+forces+June+15,+2012,+in+southern+Ghazni+province,+Afghanistan+U.S.+Army+Sgt.+Mike+MacLeod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J3yRsNlo0ns/ULC9STSD3JI/AAAAAAAAAKo/RJ88Ni5Hjqc/s400/A+paratrooper+with+the+82nd+Airborne+Division's+1st+Brigade+Combat+Team+fires+an+M240B+medium+machine+gun+at+insurgent+forces+June+15,+2012,+in+southern+Ghazni+province,+Afghanistan+U.S.+Army+Sgt.+Mike+MacLeod.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A United States Army soldier of the 1st Airborne Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division fires a machine gun at insurgent forces in Ghazni province (15 June 2012 | U.S. Army / Mike MacLeod).</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<a href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/counterinsurgency-not-a-strategy.html">Rather than have the United States Military adapt to asymmetrical warfare</a>, efforts must be taken to
increase the funding and resources of civil and humanitarian programs such as
USAID and various organisations of the Department of State. Only then can the
underlying conditions that foster radicalisation, extremism and the accidental guerilla syndrome be dealt with. Insurgencies will continue to exist despite
the exertions of counterinsurgency operations by the United States Army and
Marine Corps. Thus rather than increasing military presence, non-military
humanitarian and development capabilities need to be favoured. Rather than
having the capabilities of drone strikes and counterinsurgency operations, the
United States and ISAF as a whole should be focusing on civil, stabilisation
and capacity building programs. Indeed, whilst military forces will be required
to provide security and protection to such civil programs, the military option
should not be the first option of choice or even the tenth. Rather than drone
strikes and troop surges, ISAF must focus on civil capacity building through
education and social, economic and infrastructural development projects, and
through stabilisation policing and security assistance. Indeed ISAF should be
focusing on security assistance and socioeconomic development, rather than
combat operations with drones and troops. All other avenues are akin to
attempting to crack a nut with a jackhammer.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Tasman Bain is a second year Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International Development) Student at the University of Queensland and is currently undertaking a Summer Research Scholarship at the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. He is interested economic, evolutionary and medical anthropology and enjoys endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing piano. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-8180673568939828712012-09-25T13:09:00.004+10:002012-09-25T13:15:09.047+10:00Review: 'Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain' - David Eagleman<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U6Bncb8z1ZQ/UGEhMhrHvPI/AAAAAAAAAIw/xpVsFHFaSFI/s1600/incognito.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U6Bncb8z1ZQ/UGEhMhrHvPI/AAAAAAAAAIw/xpVsFHFaSFI/s320/incognito.jpg" width="209" /></a></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">About four years ago I went under the knife
for a procedure many teenagers will endure; wisdom teeth extraction. I’d heard
a lot of horror stories about what it might be like – stories about dentists
who need to stand up on the chair to get leverage, for instance; gruesome descriptions
of the cracking noise that comes as teeth are wrenched from their sockets
one-by-one; etc. etc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">My actual experience, however, was somewhat
enjoyable. Plainly, I don’t remember much. What I do remember is a cold feeling
running up my arm (after an injection of general anesthetic in my wrist), and
waking up (seemingly only a moment later) feeling awfully cheerful and relaxed,
and dribbling uncontrollably. ‘Wow!’ I thought, ‘That’s what a good night’s
sleep should feel like!’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">You might not have had a general anesthetic
before, but I bet you’ve tried alcohol (or other substances) and experienced a shift
in your consciousness. Drugs work. But why? The insight my wisdom-teeth
experience afforded me, and which David Eagleman expounds upon in his new book </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/0307389928"><i>Incognito:
The Secret Lives of the Brain</i></a></span><span lang="EN-US">, is that <i>thoughts
are physical</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Eagleman is a neuroscientist at the Baylor
College of Medicine, where he directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action,
as well as the Centre for Neuroscience and Law. <i>Incognito</i> is his elegant attempt to lampoon the dualistic view
(that the mind and body are separate) that has dominated western thought for
centuries, and to demonstrate how truly bizarre the three-pound bag of goop
inside your skull is in its operations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Consider this: there are a disproportionate
number of people named Larry and Laura (and other names starting with L) in the
legal profession. Similarly, the average person is more likely to marry someone
with a name beginning with the same first letter as his or her own. But if you ask
Leonard why he married Leanne and decided to go into the landscaping business,
don’t expect him to own up to the powerful influence of the alphabet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Some more surprises: men consider women far
more attractive just before they ovulate. No one knows why, exactly, but it
could have something to do with pheromones – chemical messages secreted by the
body that signal fertility. The effect is pronounced: one study in New Mexico
found that female strippers raked in an average of $68 per hour during peak
fertility, compared to a normal average of $52 (and only $35 during ovulation).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">What these examples, and dozens more in
Eagleman’s book highlight, is that the conscious aspect of our cognition is by
no means the most central to our actions and choices. Although he lacked the
tools that we have today to get inside the head, it seems that Freud – despite
some questionable forays into unfalsifiable theory creation (e.g. the <i>Oedipus complex</i>) – was essentially right
to believe in the paramountcy of the unconscious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zM0OmAHDrbE/UGEhkb7FDlI/AAAAAAAAAJA/WxEuTW-9oXM/s1600/Credit+M.+D.+Van+Wedeen,+Martinos+Center+and+Dept.+of+Radiology+Massachusetts+General+Hospital+Harvard+U.+Medical+School.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zM0OmAHDrbE/UGEhkb7FDlI/AAAAAAAAAJA/WxEuTW-9oXM/s320/Credit+M.+D.+Van+Wedeen,+Martinos+Center+and+Dept.+of+Radiology+Massachusetts+General+Hospital+Harvard+U.+Medical+School.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-US">Incognito</span></i><span lang="EN-US"> offers an enjoyable amble through social
psychology and modern neuroscience, but many will have heard about much of this
material (about our non-rational side etc.) before. The most intriguing
insights – at least for me – come, instead, in the form of Eagleman’s musings on
neuroscience and the law; principally, about what a deeper understanding of the
biological bases for our actions means for concepts like <i>culpability </i>and <i>punishment</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">In 1966, a 25 year-old engineering student
at the University of Texas, Charles Whitman, opened fire on his fellow students
from the heights of the main building’s tower. Only shortly before, Whitman –
who had an IQ of 138, and had been previously known as an intelligent and
friendly young man – had killed his mother and wife (stabbing the latter while
she slept). As the nation grieved, many asked a simple question: ‘Why?’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">A note Whitman had composed the night
before, offered some answers:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">I do not really
understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and
intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have
been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Also in his note, Whitman asked that an
autopsy be performed after his death to determine if something had changed in
his brain. And in an eerie harbinger of what was to come, he asked that his
money be donated anonymously to a mental health foundation; “Maybe research can
prevent further tragedies of this type.” Whitman’s intuition was spot-on: an
autopsy, performed shortly after he was killed at the scene, revealed an
aggressive brain tumour known as a <i>glioblastoma</i>,
which had compressed his <i>amygdala</i> – a
region of the brain associated with emotional regulation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">What can cases like Whitman’s tell us about
our criminal justice system? At first glance, not much – our system already
enables such people to get off the hook, if it can be shown that their actions
were not, for instance, voluntary. But if neuroscience is beginning to explain
how <i>all</i> of our behavior is caused by
our biological states – and that, consequently, we have no meaningful ‘free
will’ (because such states are influenced by factors beyond our control) –
shouldn’t we be letting everyone walk free?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Eagleman outlines an evidence-based
approach to criminal justice that is forward-looking, and which acknowledges
the incoherency of retributivism:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">While our current
style of punishment rests on a bedrock of personal volition and blame, the
present line of argument suggests an alternative. Although societies possess
deeply ingrained impulses for punishment, a forward-looking legal system would
be more concerned with how to best serve the society from this day forward …
Prison terms do not have to be based on a desire for bloodlust, but instead can
be calibrated to the risk of reoffending.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">Of course, that is only the beginning of a
rich conversation. But it suffices here for me to say that I think Eagleman’s
approach is persuasive. If we take it seriously, it could require no less than
a fundamental restructure of our criminal justice system. Such blue-sky
thinking, besides the elegant descriptions of our brain’s ins-and-outs, makes <i>Incognito</i> a worthwhile read.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ccgB7GzLxas/UGEhaMPZ2JI/AAAAAAAAAI4/a9rCNFvH5QE/s1600/David-Eagleman-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ccgB7GzLxas/UGEhaMPZ2JI/AAAAAAAAAI4/a9rCNFvH5QE/s320/David-Eagleman-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">An
interesting presentation by David Eagleman on ‘The Brain and the Law’ can be
found <span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EREriwV71mA">here</a></span>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US">--</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
William Isdale is a law and arts (politics and philosophy) student at the University of Queensland, where he is an Academic Excellence Scholar and TJ Ryan Medallist and Scholar. He is the President of the Australian Legal Philosophy Students' Association and Editor of the Justice and the Law Society's journal 'Pandora's Box'. In early 2012 he was a visiting student at Oxford University's Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.</div>
</div>
Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-35462310906354224442012-08-24T00:13:00.004+10:002012-08-24T00:17:23.784+10:00The Contentious History of Evolutionary Theory in the Anthropological Academy: From Boasian Historical Particularism to Wilson's Sociobiology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://neuroanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/cultural-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://neuroanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/cultural-evolution.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">With the
publication of On the Origins of Species, Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection has been one of the most profound theories in the biological
sciences in expounding and analysing the physical, genetic and behavioural
diversity of animals. Indeed Darwinian evolution has been a profound theory
outside of the biological sciences – namely it has had remarkable impact in the
social sciences throughout its history. During the nineteenth century, “versions
of Darwinian evolution took centre stage in political and social philosophy and
in the human sciences.” A number of anthropologists came to understand cultural
variation in terms of a linear progression to a cultural apex, then considered
Western civilisation. This interpretation was rebuked by the anthropological
school of cultural relativism and it became essentially taboo by the academy to
utilise evolutionary theory in the social sciences. That said, during the early
to mid-twentieth century a number of sociopolitical movements, such as the Nazi
party and the eugenics movement, appropriated Darwinism to justify the genocide
of certain deemed “unfavourable” and “subhuman” demographics. Such
justifications were strongly condemned by evolutionary scientists as
pseudoscientific and immoral but such utilisation of evolutionary theory in the
social sciences still remained seriously contentious. Then in 1975 the American
entomologist Wilson developed the field of sociobiology as the “systematic
study of the biological basis of all social behaviour in the context of
evolution” and in 1976 the British zoologist Dawkins developed the gene-centred
view of evolution based on “selfish genes” determining natural selection and
consequent behaviour of an organism. Whilst both Wilson and Dawkins primary aims
were with the study of non-human animals, their theories flowed over into the
realms of the social sciences. Indeed there was a profound backlash in the
social sciences academy claiming that sociobiology and the gene-centred view
were ethnocentric, reductionist, determinist and flawed in explaining human
nature. By the 1990s, the debate over human sociobiology culminated in the
development of evolutionary psychology as attempting to respond to the
criticisms against evolutionary theory in the social sciences. Led by Barkow,
Cosmides, and Tooby, evolutionary psychology aimed to understand the “neurobiology
of the human brain as a series of evolutionary adaptations and that human
behaviour and culture thus stem from the genetics and evolution of the brain.” Yet
there still exists and persists contentions from the social sciences,
particularly cultural anthropology, against sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology. This essay will examine the history of the contributions and
criticisms of evolutionary theory in the social sciences, from its racist and
pseudoscientific past to its current contributions. Then it will examine the
contributions and theory of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology as applied
to anthropology in explaining human nature and also examine the contentions and
controversy in the anthropological academy in response to such. Overall this
essay will not delve into the technical details and scientific theory of
evolutionary theory, but rather examine its claims and responses to and from in
the anthropological academy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Darwin’s
theory of evolution by natural selection has presented an interpretation of
human nature that has been at odds with prevailing theoretical paradigms
throughout its history. The theorisation of human nature through conceptions of
evolution and instinct has been undertaken by such figures as Darwin himself, Hume,
Smith and Huxley who have proposed that the mosaic of human nature stems from innate
human instincts. Whilst this paradigm of evolutionary social science culminated
as essentially “passive and benign contemplations”, the theory of evolution of
natural selection also manifested as bigotry, racism and the apparent
justification of white Anglo male supremacy based on a linear interpretation of
history. The school of social evolutionism in the anthropological academy led
by Tylor, Morgan and Spencer became the dominant paradigm in the late ninetieth
century and became appropriated as Social Darwinism in popular discourses. This
paradigm utilised the framework of evolution to describe the differences
between developed Western civilisations and non-developed “savage” cultures as stemming
from the biological inferiority of the “savages” who were considered more
related to chimpanzees than the superior Anglo-Saxons. Social movements also
took up this school of thought and supported social policies of eugenics and
forced sterilisation of certain demographics such as those in low socioeconomic
statuses, those with disabilities or mental illness, or those from non-white
ethnicities. Key responses to this school came from Boas and Kroeber in the anthropological
schools of historical particularism and cultural relativism. These schools posited
that the history of humanity is not a linear progression to the technological
civilisation of the West but rather that each culture must be understood by “its
own conditions and own particular cultural history.” Yet, there have still been
individuals and groups that support Social Darwinism, culminating in cases such
as the forced assimilation of Australian Aboriginals in the early twentieth
century and the genocide committed by the Nazi regime during 1933 to 1945.
After the Second World War, as Degler posits “the utilisation of the theory of
the biological sciences in the social sciences and the ‘biologicisation’ of
human nature became a taboo” due to the profound consequences of its
appropriations. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">During the
1970s there was a revival in the theory of evolutionary theory with advances in
molecular biology, genetics, computer science and mathematical game theory. This revival was primarily aimed at explaining non-human
animal behaviour and was largely led by Wilson and Dawkins along with other
evolutionary theorists. Although this was the primary aim of the science, both
Wilson and Dawkins still theorised on the evolution of human behaviour using
the same paradigm of evolutionary theory of the study non-human behaviour. There
was profound backlash in the social sciences, primarily by Lewontin, Rose, and
Kamin and Sahlins with the scientific reductionism and biological determinism
of sociobiology in explaining culture, but also controversy surrounding the
ideological and ethical implications of such. Thus the theorists of
sociobiology then responded to such criticism and controversy with the
development of the field of evolutionary psychology. Led by Barkow, Cosmides
and Tooby, evolutionary psychology attempted to redress the claims of
reductionism and determinism by focusing on the dichotomy of nature and nurture
through holistically studying the neurobiological, cognitive and psychological
factors of human nature. Yet, the paradigm of evolutionary psychology has also too
been met with profound criticism from the anthropological academy. Despite such
criticism over legitimacy and usefulness, the fields of sociobiology,
evolutionary psychology and the general application of evolutionary theory in
the social sciences, have been increasingly taken up in the biological and social
sciences academies.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://serpentfd.org/graphics/transmodel.gif" imageanchor="1" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="355" src="http://serpentfd.org/graphics/transmodel.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
majority of ethical, practical and theoretical contentions in the
anthropological academy surrounding the application of evolutionary theory to
explain human nature stem from the reductionism and genetic determinism of
evolutionary theory. Indeed the question of how in the confines of the so
perceived savage, impersonal and selfish world of Darwinian natural section can
complex social structures and cultural norms come about is indeed important.
Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology as they manifest in the academic and
popular literature have been rebuked by anthropologists and other cultural
theorists as being “ethnocentric, reductionist, determinist, and
philosophically reprehensible.” Critics level evolutionary theory “is merely
academic fancy foot work away from the archaic and pseudoscientific” school of
social evolutionism of the nineteenth century, that it explicitly and implicitly
makes “false, flawed and unsubstantiated assumptions about social, political,
economic, and cultural processes”, and that even the presumption of a “human
nature itself is flawed.” Indeed as Sahlins has stated, evolutionary theory in
the social sciences is “at its worst pseudoscientific and racist and at its
best it is quasi-scientific based on flawed principles and methodology with a
profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of culture.” The responses to these
claims by evolutionary theorists have centred on pointing out the “fundamental
biological basis of humans, being an animal species just like any other” but
also pointing out the “naturalistic fallacy between making descriptive and
normative judgements."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The theory
of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is predicated, by definition, on reducing
human behaviour to an evolutionary and biological basis. According to Lewontin and
Sahlins this does away with the cultural forces of acculturation and diffusion
and other social, economic and political dynamics. Indeed explaining human
behaviour by “reducing it down to the genes of the body and modules in the
brain” fundamentally “neglects to recognise the power of culture in shaping and
reshaping the human mind.” Thus the theorisation of the gene and or the brain
being the paramount determiner in human behaviour is flawed as it “restricts
the interpretation of behaviour and its cultural context.” Rather, Lewontin
propounds a dialectical and interactionist interpretation of human behaviour in
response to the reductionism as “it is not just that wholes are more than the
sum of their parts, it is that parts become qualitatively new by being parts of
the whole.” Lewontin propose that dialectical explanations are more effective
and holistic in explaining human behaviour in contrast to the “reductionist
calculus of the evolutionary neurobiological and gene-centred view of culture.”
In response, evolutionary theorists propose that reductionism is an “important
scientific principle.” Moreover such theorists as Barkow and Wilson propose
that the theory of evolutionary psychology also seeks a holistic interpretation
of human nature via genetic, cognitive, neurobiological and psychological
processes “based on the fact that humans have evolved to environments with
culture – that culture is not independent of evolution, but rather biology is
the precursor.” Indeed “culture is sometimes advanced as competing with
explanations that invoke evolutionary psychology, most frequently when cross-cultural
variability is observed” and these “cultural explanations invoke the notion that
differences between groups are prima facie evidence that culture is an
autonomous causal agent.” Evolutionary theorists respond to these criticisms by
stating that “cultural explanations are more or less cultural reductionism” and
“ignorant of the role of biology and innate characteristics” that have evolved
in the human species.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Along with
the claims and criticisms of reductionism against sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology is biological determinism. The critics label sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology as biological determinist and that evolutionary theory
is ignorant of the forces of nurture and the capacity of culture and social
environments to shape and reshape human nature, but also that evolutionary
theory facilitates and entrenches racism, sexism and prejudice. Indeed major
criticism against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology that stems from the
ethical, political and social implications of their theoretical underpinnings
and findings. The critics of evolutionary psychology propose that evolutionary
theory promotes or at least enables racism and sexism and does to re-entrench
out-dated perceptions of sex and race. This criticism came from key findings in
evolutionary psychology that the male and female brains evolved differently and
thus possess different cognitive and behavioural hardwiring and that certain
ethnicities are more likely to behave in certain ways or are more susceptible
to certain diseases. Indeed, some evolutionary theorists, such as Jensen have
even claimed that that intelligence is inheritable, that certain races are more
intelligent than others, and that racial economic equality is unattainable.
Thus it is proposed that just as the historically dominant class ideologies
that supported the oppression of women and ethnic minorities had strong pseudoscientific
justifications, in the form of assertions that women and ethnic minorities were
genetically inferior, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology makes it
possible again to hold such beliefs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">All this
criticism has been strongly responded to by evolutionary theorists primarily
based on pointing forth the naturalistic fallacy and that “sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology are scientific disciplines with no social agenda.” It is also put
forward that the frameworks of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology
dissolve dichotomies of nature versus nurture, innate versus learned, and
biological versus culture. It is not biological determinism but rather an
understanding that genes and other biological factors predispose certain
behavioural traits and therefore culture. Moreover, it is proposed that the
biological determinism perceived of evolutionary theory in the social sciences “as
being seen to be antithetical to social or political change is evidently
historically falsified.” Evolutionary theorists respond with that evolutionary
psychology does not privilege or prejudice individuals or groups but rather
just seeks to describe and that the claims on racial inequality being
inevitable by Jensen and Herrnstein have been discredited in the evolutionary
theory by fellow theorists such as De Waal and Pinker. Indeed, it has been
asserted that critics have been putting forth critiques based on personal
political and ethical values rather than any empirical or explanatory factors
and thus the attacks against evolutionary theory have been made on “non-scientific
grounds”. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists “should and do
acknowledge the role of ideology and politics in the formation and support of
scientific paradigms” but do not let it influence their own paradigm. Moreover
it is noted that “genetically determined mechanisms do not imply genetically
determined behaviour” and thus the theory of sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology is not predicated on genetic determinism. Fundamentally critics do
not recognise the naturalistic fallacy in their critiques of the ethical
implications of evolutionary theory. Indeed “an explanation is not a
justification” and neither sociobiology nor evolutionary psychology attempt to
justify the existence of social hierarchies, racism or sexism – “when they are
and have been used to justify such than evidently that is not scientific.” It
is posited that any “politically incorrect assertions of evolutionary psychology
are based on considerable empirical evidence” and indeed critics are welcome to
challenge the evidence or provide testable alternative explanations. Overall it
is a profound misunderstanding of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology to
claim it is biological determinist when it takes in genetic, neurobiological,
and cultural evolution of human behaviour. Thus when the theoretical paradigm
fails to achieve such a spread of looking at genetic, neurobiological and
cultural factors, theorists agree with critics that such a paradigm is indeed
flawed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/huxley_human_evolution_theory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/huxley_human_evolution_theory.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
resurgence of evolutionary theory in the social sciences has indeed been a
contentious and controversial one with much criticism being levelled against it
but it also has managed to make constructive contributions to the
anthropological academy. With its archaic and pseudoscientific beginnings in
the schools of social evolutionism and Social Darwinism of Tylor, Morgan and
Spencer arguably behind it, Wilson and Dawkins and then Barkow, Cosmides and
Tooby and others transformed the application of evolutionary theory in the
social sciences. Yet indeed the theory of sociobiology and evolutionary theory
was met with critical claims of ethnocentrism, determinism and reductionism by Sahlins,
and Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin and others, it responded with arguments stemming
from the naturalistic fallacy and that it is a misunderstanding of the theory
to label it determinist. Indeed the majority of theorists, both evolutionary
and non-evolutionary, acknowledge that it is flawed and invalid to make purely
reductionistic and biologically determinist explanations for human nature,
specifically culture. Thus evolutionary theory attempts to employ a holistic
interpretation based on neurobiological, genetic and cultural factors whilst
firmly grounded in the understanding that humans have evolved with culture. Overall,
whilst evolutionary theory in the social sciences, particularly cultural
anthropology, has been and still largely is contentious, it is becoming the
popular and prevailing paradigm once again. Thus sociobiology and evolutionary
psychology must not revert to their natal beginnings in the application of the
human sciences through justifying racism and sexism and other forms of violence
and prejudice of the times of Social Darwinism. Fundamentally evolutionary
theory must progress cautiously in explaining the politically, socially and
morally sensitive issues that exist. Indeed making politically incorrect
findings through evolutionary theory is essentially inevitable and should not
be refrained from, but its theorist must recognise the consequences as they
manifest in the social environment that it exists in. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
--<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Tasman Bain is a second year Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He is interested evolutionary anthropology, social epidemiology and philosophy of science and enjoys endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing the glockenspiel.</div>
</div>
Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-85757466307023999442012-08-23T10:51:00.001+10:002012-08-23T13:27:09.444+10:00'In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes': Why Popularity has become More Concentrated not Less<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vBgDrmUjuC4/UDG_ZNeFk5I/AAAAAAAAAHw/VfyhRdv_LHg/s1600/170px-Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vBgDrmUjuC4/UDG_ZNeFk5I/AAAAAAAAAHw/VfyhRdv_LHg/s200/170px-Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpeg" width="131" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Reflecting on Warhol</b></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Andy Warhol's prediction that everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes was intended to undermine the idea that anyone 'deserved' to be famous and highlight that with modern media a broader collection of people could be known by everyone (for only a little time, admittedly). This is related to the broader idea that globalisation and the end of the old media etc. would lead to more voices being heard and a decrease in the dominance of cultural conversations by a few individuals. I have highlighted before (in my post <a href="http://reciprocans-reciprocans.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/is-trade-in-ideas-free-interrogating.html">http://reciprocans-reciprocans.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/is-trade-in-ideas-free-interrogating.html</a>) that the marketplace for ideas is fundamentally unfree and in this post I wish to examine whether the broader idea that we have a more pluralistic (or less 'concentrated' perhaps) culture is at all valid. I can't help myself, I'm addicted to a life of material</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this begs two questions: How do people get famous? And is this more or less concentrated than before?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ifS4n3ngeBc/UDHBvmqGETI/AAAAAAAAAH4/r7j3eD6i1wQ/s1600/gag.png"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ifS4n3ngeBc/UDHBvmqGETI/AAAAAAAAAH4/r7j3eD6i1wQ/s320/gag.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't mean I want to examine the marketing of celebrity (which is detailed for those interested in a reasonably old Economist post: <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/4344144">http://www.economist.com/node/4344144</a>) nor do I want to get into a debate about the merits of Madonna or Lady Gaga etc (which I have previously defended at http://reciprocans-reciprocans.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/baby-im-your-biggest-fan-ill-follow-you.html), I mean the process by which the works, knowledge of their lives or writings of famous individuals spread in society.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I want to make two claims: really famous works (or the fame of celebrities) tend to spread at a slow rate until they reach a 'critical mass' at which point they spread exponentially (seemingly without effort) and that this and the processes of globalised capitalism make a 'winner take all' culture more pervasive (with qualifications) than before. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Warhol may have been right that many people are famous for short periods, but it is still true that there are particular subjects whose fame does not fade as easily who still dominate our culture.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>How Things Get Popular</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Gabriel Rossman in his excellent book Climbing the Charts discusses how most ideas (or works etc.) either spread 'within' a social network (think of your friends recommending a song or a new cardigan) or 'from without' (e.g. promoting the Batman film with a huge advertising release). The latter type produces the more predictable pattern that the work will do huge business initially but then fade away quickly, for example with Twilight box office sales.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zAj9nA2Rypg/UDV4XzZQRWI/AAAAAAAAAIM/V39pl4W25rs/s1600/18-500x316.jpeg"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zAj9nA2Rypg/UDV4XzZQRWI/AAAAAAAAAIM/V39pl4W25rs/s320/18-500x316.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Charts courtesy of Sociological Images</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, most works function like this- they have some initial scales (which are obviously scale variant) and then peter off. But some films or songs etc work in the first way- they become 'viral' which means that their sales are 'S-shaped', they are unpopular initially and then suddenly when they reach a critical mass of popularity, spike! As an example: the box office results for My Big Fat Greek Wedding:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M_GMfEDCYbk/UDV4-JJIpXI/AAAAAAAAAIU/skrlRqxJSqw/s1600/23-500x339.jpeg"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M_GMfEDCYbk/UDV4-JJIpXI/AAAAAAAAAIU/skrlRqxJSqw/s320/23-500x339.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This even applies to baby names, as you can see in the chart below, Isabella spiked as a social phenomenon from without whereas Madison spiked initially due to the movie Splash (released in 1984) and then became a runaway success until fading in the late 1990s.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_XqD09ERwc8/UDV5oxy54ZI/AAAAAAAAAIc/quMCMPX1CHU/s1600/34.jpeg"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_XqD09ERwc8/UDV5oxy54ZI/AAAAAAAAAIc/quMCMPX1CHU/s320/34.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, what does this all mean? Well, if you do get famous, with the exception for those whose 'fame' is the very brief glimpse on the nightly news- you tend to become famous for a longer period than Warhol's quip might suspect- see the Kardashians, for instance. Once you get people initially interested in a product, work etc. it can spread 'virally' throughout social networks till the popularity of that product, work etc. is self sustaining, at least for a time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, since I'm an economist at heart, what are the consequences then for the monetary side?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Rise of Winner Takes All Markets</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Adorno puts it in The Culture Industry, previously you might've had a tenor for each major town and a group of tenors in a major city- but now, thanks to technology, everyone can listen to Pavarotti- who is almost certainly not so much better than other tenors that he deserves most of the attention/profit but might be a bit better and able to be marketed more easily. With the invention of the internet in particular, it is very easy now for the works of certain people to spread through the whole population without limitations on say actually being able to go to a concert hall or wait for a new print run of Harry Potter etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, this is obviously not entirely the case- 'within' trends do exist as I noted, as evidenced by the explosion of new acts and writers who have risen from the internet (for example Justin Bieber). But the idea that new technology was solely going to lead to pluralism or the demise of persistent celebrity is false- indeed popular Western acts like Madonna etc. have displaced some locally famous acts across the developed and developing world. As there is an ability to reach more people, the 'market' for fame and status can devolve into a 'winner takes all' market. In economics, you can have a market where scaling up actually increases the returns you make on an investment (as opposed to what you might think is more intuitive- where scaling up decreases efficiency). If this is the case, then superstars can basically extract a lot of profit when they get to a certain critical mass of popularity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What are the limitations on this? Well, most new adaptions only get to a certain level of popularity before they peter out- with the exception of televisions, there is almost no technology owned by close to the whole population of the United States, for instance. Also, as we have seen time and time again (particularly with the youth), people will either intentionally or otherwise break the mould of the system- perhaps creating alternative or subculture communities as a consequence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
</b><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The tide of any cultural change is hard to predict- who would have thought that 'Call me Maybe' would become so popular or that a book about a boy wizard who goes off to wizarding school would enthral a huge reading public? But the general outline of the complex and varied system that is 'culture' can be at least traced. Fame might be quicker to obtain now than before, but it still often lasts and can provide particularly high profits. In the end, some people are still famous for a lot longer than 15 minutes and most people are only noticed for fifteen seconds, at best.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
--</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</div>
</div>
</div>
Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-21607637957903412992012-08-04T23:05:00.001+10:002012-08-05T13:30:39.864+10:00Communist Countries: Crisis, Contradiction and Collapse<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Introduction: A Beautiful Idea, Really?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
I've often had people claim to
me that communism would be a great idea, if only human nature let it work. But
I don't think that Marxist communism in particular would work on even a
theoretical level- the idea of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ever seeding
power is beyond comprehension. Were then communist systems always doomed to
fail, or might they have survived if not for a few historical quirks?</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Marx claimed in <i>Das
Kapital </i>that “capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of
a law of Nature, its own negation”. His argument was that because capitalist
societies relied on social production to create wealth but private
appropriation to obtain wealth, they were fated to collapse. However, communist
systems also suffered systemic crises, from the failure of the New Economic
Policy to the USSR’s fall. Indeed, communist systems suffered from the same
internal contradiction as capitalist systems, notably an exclusive extractive
class which took profits away from socially productive workers. Communist
systems in fact fared worse than capitalist economies from this because they <i>entrenched </i>party
apparatchiks at the head of their economies and lacked the 'creative
destruction' of capitalism. As a consequence, they suffered
systemic crises, to which unlike capitalist democracies, they could not adapt.
I want to make two points in this post: first, that the autocratic nature of
communist parties lead to the creation of a new extractive class, that of
autocratic party bureaucrats and second, that this internal contradiction lead
to crises in communist nations, leading to their eventual collapse. Thus, it
will be proven that not only did communist systems contain internal contradictions;
they suffered worse from them than capitalist systems.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Party Bureaucrats: The World's Best Rent-Seekers<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Communist systems lead to the
substitution of Marx and Engel’s bourgeois class who aimed for the
“accumulation of wealth in private hands” for a group of party bureaucrats who
were equally extractive, thus leading to an inherent contradiction. Official Soviet
propaganda espoused that the regime was leading the USSR to a “brilliant
future… one of liberty, equality, fraternity, guaranteed employment”. However,
because of the inherent vagueness in Marx’s idea of the “dictatorship of the
proletariat” which he claimed would lead to the “abolition of all classes”
after a transition phase of socialist rule, all communist systems in reality
did not transition out of bureaucratic socialism. As Olson notes, under Stalin
this meant that the party expropriated all natural resources and capital to add
to its yield to its tax collections and also directly controlled consumption
and investment for its own benefit. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Party members were rewarded
from this expropriation with special stores, health care facilities and
vacation spas in return for loyalty to the party. CPSU members were paid 127
per cent of the average wage of a government worker and their pay was one third
of the government administration budget. Further, there was systemic soliciting
of in-kind payments and direct stealing. They also engaged in what Verdery
terms “political capitalism”, that is bureaucrats used the shortages inherent
to the system to make a profit from selling scarce goods. Party “apparatchiks”
thus became the class of rent-seekers that Marx railed against because the
command economy allowed them to do so. They constituted a class both in terms
of political power, economic capital and the ability to consume both more goods
and those of a higher quality. Communist systems became a form of what Clark
and Wildavsky call “vulgar capitalism” or “profit-making without competition…
based on corrupt personal relations”. Simultaneously, bureaucrats were
rhetorically devoted to “large-scale heroic means of production”, production
based around work done cooperatively. Therefore, so-called communist systems
suffered from the same internal contradiction as capitalist systems: while
production was (at least initially- black markets eventually flourished) social
and cooperative, the accumulation of wealth was private and worked by class
expropriation.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Tear Down That Wall!<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, this inherent
contradiction led to inevitable crises in communist systems, to which they
could not adjust unlike capitalist systems, which led to their collapse.
Marx believed that the inherent contradiction in the expropriation of
workers by the bourgeoisie would eventually lead to a decline in the “rate of
exploitation” because “vampire-like, the capitalist only lives by sucking
labor”. His argument was that eventually this would lead to recessions and the
awakening of class-consciousness. This problem was also present in the Soviet
Union, where the extraction of wealth by members of the CPSU helped to slow
economic growth to the point where in 1967 the GNP of West Germany was larger than
the entire Soviet Bloc. In particular as Maier outlines the extractive process
of the communist system hampered the social production of the workers on which
it depended. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Somewhat fittingly, this led
to the class conflict that Marx had predicted capitalism falling prey to,
especially the rise of the Polish trade union Solidarity that was integral in
the USSR’s collapse. This was worsened by the chronic shortages of basic goods
which led to worse recessions than those experienced in capitalist systems.
Capitalist systems did not suffer as badly because, as Marx was unable to
foresee, the welfare state was developed, which redistributed profits to the
working class because it was in the bourgeois political class’ interest to
avoid class conflict. In contrast, the extractive behaviours of communist party
members were only possible through continued coercion of those they were
apparently serving. As soon as communist regimes faced crises they could not
adapt except by further coercion and entrenchment of expropriation behaviours.
Thus, as soon as communist regimes were opened to partial openness such as
under Gorbachev’s glasnost in order to create more profits to expropriate, they
began to collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions. This
has occurred not just in the Soviet Union, but also in the fall of Yugoslavia,
the transformation of the People’s Republic of China and recent partial reforms
in the collapsing Cuban economy. Thus, the inherent contradiction in communist
systems and their inability to adapt to the crises resulting from it led to
their eventual total collapse. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion and Consequences<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In conclusion, contrary to
Marx’s predictions, this essay has shown that the autocratic nature of
communist “dictatorships of the proletariat” created the same inherent
contradiction between the social production and private extraction and
accumulation of wealth inherent in capitalism. Further, it has shown that this
led to crisis and eventual collapse of communist systems because the extractive
class in the communist system could not allow for it to be adapted unlike the
capitalist bourgeois class. Thus, Marx’s proposed solution to capitalism became
self-defeating in practice for precisely the reasons Marx felt that capitalism
would fail.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Dan Gibbons is a third year
Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has
a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology
(about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise
of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and
the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public
speaker.</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-71001303735589618642012-07-27T14:42:00.000+10:002012-07-27T14:51:33.408+10:00'It is the morality of altruism that men have to reject': Why I find Rand's Objectivism Objectionable<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never
live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"-</i><i> </i>John Galt, <u>Atlas Shrugged</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Most philosophies, even those who are
particularly detrimental in their consequence, have redeeming features:
nihilism (broadly the idea that life has no meaning) provides an interesting
criticism of the concept of meaning and anarchism validly points out that
states have overreached boundaries in many circumstances. But Rand's
Objectivism, cannot be redeemed as it is founded on the premise that, to quote
Rand of <i>"the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness
as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest
activity, and reason as his only absolute".</i><i> </i>This sounds fine on the surface- why can't we be self-interested? But instead of justifying this belief in
self-interest via the outcomes it produces or recognising its limitations,
Rand's idea just attempts to cut off all that is good about human beings
(charity, altruism and cooperation) and replace it with a cold, calculating
society. Indeed, Rand is so devoid of feeling- the despondency of nihilists,
the anger of reactionary conservatism or the somewhat naïve hopefulness of communitarianism- that it is difficult to
tell on reading her whether she is talking about the same species of <i>Homo sapiens</i><i> </i>that I interact with daily. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to chart my
objections to Rand on two levels: a slightly more esoteric look at why I think
Rand's ideas are morally bankrupt and a pragmatic look at why Rand should <b>never, ever</b><b> </b>be used as a basis for policy making.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>'To say "I love
you" one must first be able to say the "I."'- The Sterile Self
Interest of Rand's Philosophy</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the <i>Groundwork</i>, Immanuel Kant conceived of humans as the ends in themselves-
that is we should treat other people (and ourselves) as ends, rather than means
to an end. Now Kant's philosophy obviously has problems- what about in purely
economic transactions? Why is it silent about animals? But it brings up the
important point that to be moral in any sense, we can't just aim for ourselves
and ourselves <b>alone</b>. Yet Rand
would have the individual only ever act for themselves- when it is clear that
human society is based on cooperation and reciprocity. It is worth presenting a
more detailed rebuttal of this kind of individualism before I get to why I find
it to be morally reprehensible rather than just incorrect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Rand argues that by
choosing to think, humans can liberate themselves from the tyranny of being
yoked to others, a logical consequence of a person's primary obligation which
she thinks is one's own wellbeing. She believes that humans have a choice to
think, and rational thought will necessarily lead them to Rand's philosophy.
Setting aside this supreme arrogance, one of the examples she cites is that "He cannot obtain his food without
knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build
a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To
remain alive, he must think" (Atlas Shrugged). Now this is odd- because
her examples are all examples of what we need <i>other people for</i><i> </i>- gaining knowledge and tools to survive in the world. All human
societies, but especially the capitalist societies Ayn praises are rooted in
trust and cooperation- because the market isn't a natural state- it relies on
trust for its very survival. Indeed <i>contra</i> Margaret Thatcher, there is such a thing as society- it is based
in the cooperative social relations of semi-autonomous semi-rational
individuals with overlapping state, market and social institutions. Humans <i>cannot</i><i> </i>reason just for themselves- both because we have evolved to be
happier when other people are (so called other-regarding preferences) and
because as I will later elaborate on, to do so would be a disaster.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But why is this immoral,
rather than just factually inaccurate? I will borrow another of Kant's ideas as
an 'intuition pump' (i.e. my argument will not rely on it, but it helps to
illustrate a point), that of the 'categorical imperative' or basically that any
moral law should be universal, without regard to circumstance. Now, if <i>everyone</i><i> </i>applied Rand's morality or i.e. if Rand's thoughts were taken to
be universal- the consequences would be monstrous! We have enough problems in
our society as it is with self-regarding people (think of the consequences of
crime or unrestrained uses of power). We would have no regard for the
vulnerable, or disadvantaged- no social progression, only the inevitable march
towards violent anarchy. This is important because Rand wants her principle to
be universal, rather than say historically contingent on post-industrial
capitalism. Even if it was contingent, this presents even larger problems for
her philosophy, it is empirically true of modern society even more than every
previous society that it can <i>only</i><i> </i>function by cooperation- meaning the application of any of Rand's
principles would not lead to more freedom, but rather societal collapse. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Further, if morality is
'having a good will' or doing what is 'right', the ability to fully determine
that for ourselves <b>despite the
consequences for others</b>- seems both
contradictory and downright criminal (why can we just disregard all others?-
Rand is not particularly clear on this point). Now, I would not claim that
everyone should follow Comte's maxim that we should all live for others, but
any <i>practical</i><i> </i>morality must include both other- and self-regarding components,
otherwise in my view we may as well give up on humanity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the lack of moral value
aside, what briefly are the pragmatic outcomes of Rand?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>"Wealth is the product
of man's capacity to think"- The Practical Consequences of Randian
Thinking</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to briefly
illustrate now three ways Objectivism is a real-life disaster: what would
happen if some people took on Rand's worldview, what would happen if everyone
did and some actual examples of Objectivists as policy-makers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In <i>Anthem</i>, Rand acknowledges that the earlier is more likely as "The
truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it" (Rand also
acknowledges that in various places not all people will 'think' enough to
embrace her ideas). This would likely lead to Objectivists trying to manipulate
others as to increase their own happiness- as without proper regard for others
or society at large, many of our innate moral precepts cease to have real
meaning. On a policy level, Objectivists would agitate for the abolition of
'coercive' government structures- such important social mechanisms as any kind
of welfare, public goods: indeed most things that governments do. While it is
their right to do so- these policies would lead to the kind of outcomes
detailed in the next paragraph.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If for some horrible reason
we <i>all</i><i> </i>became Objectivists, something similar to what I discussed earlier
would happen- the state would retreat into such minimalism that it could not
function (Rand wants the slow abolition of all taxes) and society itself would
never be able to fill the gap that the state previously had. Especially when
all members of society now treat <i>themselves</i><i> </i>as the only end to any means. But what has this looked like
before?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Two prominent disciples of
Rand are Paul Ryan (although he's released contradictory statements to try and
hide this) and Alan Greenspan. Ryan's budget, drawing on Rand's principle of
pulling back any coercion of individuals, would fundamentally wreck the balance
of income distribution in the United States and would ruin the already
struggling United States healthcare system. Greenspan, the former US Federal
Reserve chief cited Rand as one of his primary influences in his stewardship of
the US economy towards the oblivion of 2007 by pursuing ruthlessly pro-business
and anti-regulation policies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Conclusion- Where to from
here?</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I should note at this point
that I don't find Objectivists themselves immoral- many of them are quite
lovely people, partly because I've never actually met anyone who acted as Rand
would have them do in real life (even if it affects their political views). But
I do think that Rand's thinking is a dangerous virus that can infect the
impressionable and ruin political debate with its dogmatic insistence on the
primacy of individual self-interest. We should all inoculate ourselves against
such thinking.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Dan Gibbons is a third year
Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has
a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology
(about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise
of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and
the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public
speaker.</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-41072479147301868452012-07-20T00:07:00.003+10:002012-07-27T14:46:32.854+10:00Almost Human: On Great Apes, Selfhood and Rights<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.janegoodall-italia.org/images/news/young-jane-with-baby-chimp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://www.janegoodall-italia.org/images/news/young-jane-with-baby-chimp.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Great Apes are always seen as humanlike- probably why films like <i>The Planet of the Apes </i>resonate so much- after all could we really relate to a 'Planet of the Elephants' even if we know elephants are intelligent? And when we see apes in pain or being mistreated this tends to again tear at our heart strings more than most animals, save in Western cultures perhaps dogs or cats. While we aren't directly descended from chimpanzees (<i>contra </i>Darwin's initial musings on human evolution), we are very closely related- so this does indeed make sense. But is there a scientific basis to this feeling that we aren't too different from apes?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In particular, after a recent Australs debate (to the effect of that this house would grant the great apes more rights than other animals), I was prompted to think about some of the scientific underpinnings of that debate- do apes have selfhood? Should we grant rights on this basis? Do apes have unique cognitive capabilities? This very complex series of questions is far too much for a blog post of this length to entirely deal with- so for those pa<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">rticularly interested I recommend </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The Age of Empathy </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">by Frans de Waal, or indeed any of de Waal's masterful works. I will briefly outline two claims: apes have many humanlike capacities and do have selfhood (or something very closely equivalent) and that attendant to this we should grant animal rights on a spectrum (because they should exist for purposes that aren't just for human benefit).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/uploaded_images/HU042244-750474.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="313" src="http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/uploaded_images/HU042244-750474.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>"</b></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn": What separates apes from man?</b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">A good summary answer would be: effectively, a lot of apes' capacities are simply gradations of fully mentally able human capacities. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Let's start with recognising others: that capability is a lot more basic- it exists in a lot more species than can recognise themselves- for instance social insects are aware of what the other members of the colony are feeling but hardly care much for their own being. The most basic capacity of any social creature is <i>emotional contagion</i>- that is, the ability to perceive others' emotions and feel them yourself. This is what newborn babies in hospitals can do- cry when others cry, even if they don't know why they do this. The next stage is consolation- this is what the higher primate species (as well as dolphins, some lower primates and a few other species) </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">can do- have direct concern for others. An example is that male chimpanzees are often comforted by direct relatives and friends after losing a fight. The final kind is targeted helping- so for example, if you hear a scream and know that you should go and rush to deal with the danger itself. This exists somewhat in non-hominid higher primates, but humans do have a more finely attuned capacity to this (though this has negative effects to- it enhances our capacity to torture as well). Humans do indeed also have a more evolved capacity for imitation- giving rise to stronger memes or 'units of cultural transmission' (analogous though not the same as genes). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">More controversial though, is the question of whether we can find selfhood in non-human animals. This is a very philosophical question (with increasing argumentation from psychologists like Susan Blackmore that the idea of a truly independent self doesn't exist at all- see her book <i>The Meme Machine</i>), so I will largely leave treatment just to self-recognition. One standard test of self-recognition is to put a dab (that is visible but impossible to feel) on an animal's forehead (or equivalent) and see if they try to rub it off when they see themselves in a mirror. Now, in a very young human child (say less than 2) if you try this- they can't yet recognise themselves and so they don't try and rub the dab off. But in an older child or chimpanzee they will indeed try and rub the mark off- showing that they recognise that it is indeed themselves in the mirror (this circumvents the problem of having to ask children or chimps). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">The fact that these capacities exist in non-humans isn't troubling at all- if it didn't, the traits would be evolutionarily new and thus not particularly 'deep' in our neural architecture. As de Waal notes in <i>The Age of Empathy</i>, if we were the only species to recognise ourselves and feel empathy- these would be particularly weak traits of ours- and this is certainly not the case.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">So, humans are only separated from apes by <i>gradations </i>of these capacities- not the cosmic leaps that were once supposed in the philosophy of mind (and what a relief- such philosophies are so supremely arrogant about humans that they were often allied with attempts to put our little rock of a planet in the centre of the universe).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5UwK04L-blI/TbDiW7GAuCI/AAAAAAAAATQ/xL81otD2JV0/s1600/2783125_431.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5UwK04L-blI/TbDiW7GAuCI/AAAAAAAAATQ/xL81otD2JV0/s400/2783125_431.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b>How Should We Grant Rights Then?</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">I would find granting rights merely on capabilities deeply problematic- I am not a professional philosopher, but it would seem to me that there is little distinction between the capabilities of the mentally impaired or young children and particular animal species, yet I would prefer the state to give more rights to the humans (and certainly never withdraw rights wherever they can be given on the basis of incapacity alone). But a capability consideration in how we view rights seems to make intuitive sense- fish after all feel pain in a less brutal way than a chimpanzee does, and I would feel much less guilty about the pain of a fish.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">I would therefore propose that animal rights exist on a spectrum (which is already partly recognised in law, but I think should be changed to reflect human purposes less). Obviously there are other reasons to give animal rights- torturing animals reflects badly on humans and also society wants to minimise the amount of pain in the world. But to the extent that rights to animals are 'inherent' (which I would argue they partly are), I would say they need to be reframed in the context of the capacities of that animal. And possibly not even how 'human' they are- but merely in the contexts of empathy and selfhood (for example if animals had other ways of expressing either of those ideas, it would still make sense to grant them rights).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">In particular, such rights might included being treated differently in experimental trials or having particular guarantees on the kinds of environments in which Great Apes are kept.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Any ethical conversation, particularly about animals, is always very divisive. But this post has attempted to explain a few of the surface scientific and philosophical issues about the Great Apes and their rights. In particular, it has claimed that they have a kind of selfhood, and so should be afforded more rights on a spectrum. After all, if Great Apes are so like us- it should be unbearable to see them suffer.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics)
student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in
Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism)
and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role
of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of
nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">
</span></div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-67641176095952384512012-07-07T13:39:00.000+10:002012-07-20T00:26:27.619+10:00''Sing if you're glad to be gay. Sing if you're happy that way": Modern Sexual Identity and an Interrogation of the 'It's biological!' argument<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Helvetica; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dhOM_deDcB0/T_etAoSofFI/AAAAAAAAAHI/HsmFGiXMaoQ/s1600/glad+to+be+gay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dhOM_deDcB0/T_etAoSofFI/AAAAAAAAAHI/HsmFGiXMaoQ/s320/glad+to+be+gay.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<i><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">N.B. This article primarily concerns
sexuality, so in most cases I mean ‘gay’ in the sense of alternate sexuality
(e.g. LGBQQ etc). While the I and T in LGBTIQQ are very important, they fundamentally
rest on different issues.</span></span></i><br />
<i><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span lang="EN-US">In 1976 when
Tom Robinson sang 'Glad to be Gay', it was an intentionally provocative song
about police brutality, anti-gay violence and the need for solidarity amongst
gay men against broader social oppression. The gay community at the time was
largely focused (as they had to be) on the legalisation of sodomy and stopping
particular forms of anti-gay violence. As such, one of the arguments put
forward for gay rights at the time was that being gay is/was 'found in nature'
or 'genetic', a sort of born-with predisposition to homosexuality (or
bisexuality etc.). This argument is trotted out time and again, generally not
by activists formally but often enough in informal conversation that I decided
to write out my strong objections to it. </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I for one
think this argument was at best useful for a particular purpose at a particular
time and at worst is actively harmful to the cause. I am 'Glad to be Gay' for
precisely the reason Tom Robinson puts forward implicitly- no matter what
anyone else thinks, it is an important part of who I am, not some genetic disease.
I want to discuss two controversies that to me demonstrate the absurdity of
what I will call the 'biological determinism argument' (for sexuality and
associated rights): the search for the 'gay gene' and an absurd controversy
over penguins.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Personally,
I'd like homosexual (also bisexual, pansexual etc) love and people of all
sexualities broadly to be respected not because of any <i>biological </i>reason
but because it is the decent human thing to do. I would like to note that it is
<u>almost definitely true</u> that sexuality has a biological component
(although along a spectrum and with role for social influences). I just don't
think this is a good or relevant argument to the continued debate over social
and legal rights.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span lang="EN-US">'<b>Sing if
you're glad to be gay': The Curious Case of the Search for the Gay Gene</b></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I should
first note, scientists can search for what they like, I am not suggesting that
any research into the genetic determinants of sexuality should be stopped
(actually such papers are very interesting). What concerns me is the obsession
in some quarters with stating that there is a ‘genetic predisposition to
homosexuality’- yes, this is true but an unhelpful political argument. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The first
reason for this is such research is easily used by opponents of gay rights
against gay people- for instance when a National Organisation of Marriage (an
American group opposed to gay marriage) board member said that “our scientific
efforts in regard to homosexuality should be to identify genetic and uterine
causes... so that the incidence of this dysfunction can be minimized”. This is
particularly a problem when gay rights activists use language that predicates
the idea of tolerance on acceptance of this biological argument. Now, this is
not to argue that sexuality is so fluid that through some sort of conversion
therapy that people would be able to change it. There is significant evidence
that sexuality is partly genetically determined and that to an extent it is
largely unchanged over a person’s adult life. Regardless, we should allow
people to sexually identify how they like- whether that be gay or queer or
pansexual or bisexual – because the meaning of the Sexual Revolution broadly
was meant to be <i>more </i>freedom not
consignment to a Foucault-style cage. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Secondly, this
argument isn’t very persuasive <i>prima
facie </i>and can even lead to divisions within the queer community. Saying
that something is biological destiny isn’t a particularly good argument for
legalising the behaviours, relationship and family structures etc. that are
associated with that biological predisposition. Take for example, most of the
paraphilias (the ‘atypical and extreme’ sexualities e.g. non-human objects or
children) – there is some (though conflicting) evidence that such sexuality has
a biological component and we should <i>never,
ever </i>legalise the behaviour associated with such mindsets. This is particularly true because adults can rationally consent to homosexual acts. To do so would
be to commit the naturalistic fallacy- that is to confuse <i>what is </i>biologically with <i>what
ought to be </i>morally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span lang="EN-US">In a similar
vein, the reason that homosexuality and bisexuality are socially valid and
should be allowed legally is that there </span><span lang="EN-US">is <i>no harm </i>to anyone involved. Even if it were true that people <i>chose to be gay </i>(which I am not
suggesting is true), it should still be true that we allowed people to sleep
with their own gender and form relationships with their own gender if they
wished <i>because that love/those sexual
acts are fundamentally not harmful and those acts/relationships bring utility
to people. </i>Further, the line of argument has even been turned at times on
bisexual people to claim that they ‘just aren’t gay yet’ or are ‘self-hating’,
which is to confuse sexuality (and romantic feelings) with an awful, narrow
binary between heterosexuality and homosexuality.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But how did penguins become
involved, you ask?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">‘And Tango Makes Three’: How Two “Gay” Penguins became an Absurd
Political Issue<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2BSoC_a1YG8/T_euxWIzpXI/AAAAAAAAAHY/5gijEvu2E8g/s1600/penguins!.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2BSoC_a1YG8/T_euxWIzpXI/AAAAAAAAAHY/5gijEvu2E8g/s1600/penguins!.jpg" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Roy and Silo were two male
Chinstrap Penguins at the Central Park Zoo, who in 1998 formed an all-male
couple and were eventually given an egg to hatch together by zookeepers after
they attempted to hatch a rock. Now, like all penguins they are pretty
adorable- but they became mired in political controversy for two reasons: 1)
there was a farcical debate between the Christian Right and the liberal Left
about whether this situation was ‘moral’ and 2) a (very good) children’s book
was made about the pair called <i>And Tango
Makes Three</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In the first instance,
controversy erupted over whether the pair constituted evidence that
homosexuality is found in nature. Now, calling penguins gay is queer in the
very old sense of the term as <i>odd</i>,
while animals may have homosexual sex (although there is no record of Roy &
Silo doing this), this doesn’t make them any more gay than an otherwise
heterosexual human male who has sex with a man once. Because animals don’t
define themselves they by definition cannot be ‘gay’, merely they might form
pairings of the same gender or have sexual relations with members of their own
gender. It would be truly bizarre if homosexual behaviour had evolved in
penguins and humans for the same reasons- it would more likely be a case of
convergent evolution, where the same trait is acquired by different lineages
(for example bats and pterosaurs both evolved wings for flying).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But this was nothing compared
to the reactions when the couple split up and Silo found a female partner
called Scrappy. Focus on the Family declared “for those who have pointed to Roy
and Silo as models for us all, these developments must be disappointing. Some
gay activists might actually be angry”. Luckily, the National Gay and Lesbian
Taskforce responded that the “actions of two penguins is not a good way of
answering the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice or a
birthright”—but to me this demonstrates the danger of this argument.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FvfN5N5NEhU/T_etZwMi8UI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/AeLorj803A8/s1600/penguins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FvfN5N5NEhU/T_etZwMi8UI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/AeLorj803A8/s1600/penguins.jpg" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And then in 2005, Peter
Parnell and Justin Richardson authored <i>And
Tango Makes Three</i>, a children’s book based on the two birds (their chick
was named Tango), which was intended to explain same-sex parenting to kids. The
point here wasn’t that sexuality was found in nature, as both some pro- and
anti-gay groups supposed, it was just a fun way to explain same-sex parenting
to kids! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So, as this particular
controversy demonstrates any nature-based arguments surrounding homosexuality
are quite silly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I believe that arguments for
gay rights should solely focus on the necessity and utility of freedom for
LGBTIQQ people rather than commit a naturalistic fallacy of discussing whether
being queer is ‘natural’. Because I’m glad to be gay, whether I was genetically
made this way or not. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-35358651782517695332012-07-02T22:48:00.002+10:002012-07-03T00:03:10.121+10:00China's 'Bread and Butter Question' and the New Scramble for Africa<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;">This is an edited text of a paper submitted to 'Contribute' Magazine, the publication of UQ's United Nations Student Association</i><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">In January this year, an interesting guest attended the
opening ceremony of the new African Union headquarters building in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia: Jia Qinglin, the fourth ranking member of the Politburo Standing
Committee of the Communist Party of China. Amazingly, the entire US$200 million
construction project (everything from raw materials to interior furnishings)
was bankrolled by the Chinese government. This is a profound exemplification of
the Sino-African union in the changing economic and political landscape of the
twenty first century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">The isolationist foreign policy of the Middle Kingdom is no
more. Indeed, since the economic reforms and Open Door Policy of Deng Xiaoping
(1978), China has been at the forefront of the global economy and international
trade. Since 1999, the ‘Go out Policy’ has become the primary framework
defining China’s investment in, and exploitation of, expanding regional and
international markets. As the example of the Chinese donation of the new
African Union headquarters suggests, Africa has been the major focus of China
in recent years. China needs the continent’s natural resources to augment its
(already) unprecedented industrial growth. Channelled through its state-owned
enterprises (and defined by a large migratory flows of Chinese nationals),
Chinese capital has often crowded out any local or regional economic actors.
Although the ‘Go out Policy’ has been at the fore of Chinese economic
activities in Africa, the so-called peaceful rise (marked by soft power,
non-interference and responsible world leadership) also characterises the
Sino-African relationship. At the opening ceremony of the new African Union
headquarters, China reaffirmed this commitment: Jia Qinglin remarked, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“China will firmly support African countries
in their efforts to uphold sovereignty and independence and to resolve African
issues on their own.”</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">China has reignited the scramble for Africa and is seemingly
reigning as the Rhodes Colossus. In recent years, it has been the largest
single source of financial aid and foreign investment for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Last year, trade amounted to US$120 billion, surpassing the United States and
the European Union. This this comes at no coincidence, given China’s newfound
status as the world’s largest energy user, according to the International
Energy Agency. The resource extraction has been further complimented by a large
inflow of Chinese nationals into the continent (with Chinese state owned
enterprises now dominating the economic landscape). Sanou Mbaye, a former
senior official of the African Development Bank, states, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“more Chinese have come to Africa in the past ten years than Europeans
in the past 400. First came Chinese from state-owned corporations, but more and
more arrive solo or stay behind after finishing contract work.”</i> The new
Chinese entrepreneurial movement has excelled with government support.
Notwithstanding the continental disincentives of civil wars, institutional
corruption, political instability and (recently) the GFC, China has been
capitalising on the lack of Western competition. Indeed, negotiations with
African governments (particularly those with records of human rights abuse)
have proven remarkably straight-forward for Chinese investors. Chinese
investment is afforded protective security by African governments through
legitimate reciprocal trade agreements, but also through corruption. Suffice to
say, these cacophonous relations show no signs of quietening down. On the
diplomatic front, China has more embassies and diplomatic postings in Africa
than the United States and European Union combined. In 2000, the Forum on
China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) was established and its 2006 ministerial
meeting was the largest diplomatic forum in both modern Chinese and African
history. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">In the wake of the United States’ waning influence and Europe’s
economic woes, many consider that the Middle Kingdom is heavily engaged in
neo-imperialism throughout Africa’s postcolonial states. In 2006, then UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, criticised China as neo-imperialist,
remarking, “most of what China has been doing in Africa today is what we did in
Africa 150 years ago.” In 2011, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, warned
Africa of a “new colonialism”. Although not explicitly naming China, she did
urge greater scrutiny of its investments in Africa. Nevertheless, the character
of Sino-African relations is markedly different from that of the continent with
European and American relationships. Now, it
is investing in industry and infrastructure and importing resources and goods;
though this largely centres upon the extraction of largely finite resources,
China has also invested in telecommunications, financial services, and energy
infrastructure. Sino-African relations are officially guided by the policy of
‘mutual benefits’ and bilateral economic cooperation. Drawing upon this
policy’s profoundly positive developments, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi recently stated, “The future prospects of the [Sino-African] partnership
have never been brighter. China’s amazing re-emergence and its commitments for
a win-win partnership with Africa is one of the reasons for the beginning of
the African renaissance.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">In exchange for these developments, China has received large
contracts from African governments and priority with respect to to the
extraction of natural resources. In 2007, China signed a US$9 billion dollar
mining agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, constituting 68 per
cent of the latter’s annual mining revenue. In return, the Congo received
hospitals, schools and 6000 kilometres of railway and road infrastructure all
financed by China. Without Chinese textile corporations, unemployment in the
South African town of Newcastle would be over 80%. Workers are paid
approximately US$200 per month, which is greater than in China, but still less
than South Africa’s minimum wage. The local unions have tried to shut these
textile factories down, but a majority of the workers consider a poorly paid
job to be better than none at all. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">Whilst many Africans perceive the West’s demeanour as
condescending, the Chinese ostensibly manage their relationship with Africa as
a serious business partnership. As Faida Mitifu, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo’s Ambassador to the United Nations said, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“There are people who still consider Africans like children who can be
easily manipulated. The good thing about the [Sino-African] partnership is that
it’s sincere and give and take.”</i> On the surface it does – in fact – seem
that China is improving Africa’s wellbeing through its trade, investments and
financial aid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">Whilst the official policy guiding Sino-African relations is
of ‘mutual benefits,’ the primary rationale for Chinese involvement is out of
economic necessity and hunger for resources. Consequently, whilst official
government statements report on the positive friendship, there are widespread
claims of human rights abuses, poor working conditions and environmental
degradation leading to a wave of anti-Chinese sentiment and xenophobia on the
continent. As evidenced by oil spills in Sudan and Gabon, weekly deaths in
Zambia’s Chinese-controlled mines, slapdash construction in Guinea and endemic
corruption in some African governments, China has inflicted substantial harm
across the continent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">Amongst other continental statesmen, the Environment
Minister of Zimbabwe has been an active critic of the Chinese, calling them
“makorokoza”, a scornful local term for criminals. Thus, to avoid condemnation
from African governments, the Chinese have engaged in bribery and coercion.
Chinese managers have bribed government ministers and even taken some on ‘study
tours’ to massage parlours in China. Obstructionist African midlevel officials
are sacked and workers who assemble in groups are dispersed with rubber
bullets. In the rare event that cases do end up in local courts, there have
been reports that witnesses are intimidated and judges being paid off.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">China has become just as embedded in the African continent
as the minerals and oil that its state-owned companies are extracting. Whether
through massive migration of Chinese nationals or the perpetual presence of
state owned enterprises, China is seemingly, at least to some Western officials
(such as Clinton and Straw) and local African populations, colonising the
African continent. But this begs the proverbial question: is this really
neo-imperialism and, akin to the Scramble for Africa of the late 19<sup>th</sup>
and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries? On balance, the answer is ‘no’; there is a
lack of cogency between the plethora of Chinese corporations and the
heterogeneity of Chinese private entrepreneurs. China is simply being a
rational economic powerhouse and seizing the opportunity to exploit the
resources and markets in Africa to fuel its own economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">This points to an even more important question – is a
Chinese monopoly on Africa’s natural, economic and political capital good for
the world economy? Obviously a monopoly in any market is detrimental, but is
China alone to blame for crowding out other regional and international actors?
Arguably Western nations are equally if not more to blame – Europeans and
Americans exploited the natural resources of the continent through imperialism
and are responsible for the some of the most intense ethnic violence in
history. Many Africans have felt that the West has abandoned their plight.
Indeed since the 1980s, with increased civil wars and ethnic violence, and with
the global financial crisis since 2008, there has been an apparent lack of
political and corporate willingness in the West to invest in infrastructure and
industry on the Africa continent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">Although China’s monopoly on African markets and industries
may be regarded as a form of economic imperialism, it fundamentally differs
from the character of historical European colonialism in Africa. The driving
forces of European colonialism were administrative, political and cultural.
European nations attempted to maintain cultural hegemony over African colonies,
importing customs from food to sports and entrenching political and legal
institutions. The British implanted the common law system and cricket in Kenya;
the French implanted language and pastries in the Ivory Coast. Not bound by
such administrative or cultural hegemony, the underlying motivations for
Sino-African relations are marked by a deep paranoia over energy security by
the Chinese government. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">China has decidedly operated like a private corporation in a
Western nation – prioritising profit and only caring about social
responsibility and public administration when it serves a purpose. It has
rationally sought to exploit African resources for its factories that are
fuelling the global economy and making the cheap products that we in the West
consume. Surging foreign direct investment from China has substantially
affected Africa’s economic prospects and continental infrastructure networks.
Indeed, according to Johnnie Carson, the United States Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“China is a
very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals. China is not
in Africa for altruistic reasons. China is in Africa for China primarily.” </i>During
the nineteenth century, the British Empire was widely regarded as a mercantile
powerhouse ‘upon which the sun would never set’. Today, it is perhaps more
appropriate to reason that ‘the sun never sets on Chinese investment’.
Notwithstanding speculation as to the future character of its political
hegemony in Africa, Beijing’s insatiable appetite for natural resources will
define the growing presence of Chinese investment throughout the African
continent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"></span></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Tasman Bain is a second year Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He is interested evolutionary anthropology, public economics and philosophy of science and enjoys endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing the glockenspiel.</div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-57107767763940371752012-06-20T09:32:00.001+10:002012-06-20T09:51:26.300+10:00Review: 'What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets’ by Michael Sandel<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zYY5tHXo-rw/T-EQaCNKmfI/AAAAAAAAAG8/rW5jBfxjWxM/s1600/whatmoneycantbuy1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zYY5tHXo-rw/T-EQaCNKmfI/AAAAAAAAAG8/rW5jBfxjWxM/s320/whatmoneycantbuy1.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Professor
Michael Sandel is quite the philosophical superstar; his course on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Justice</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>at Harvard University – now available
online and for free – has been viewed by millions. Compared with your average,
sleep-inducing university lecture, Sandel’s course makes for compelling
viewing. In 2009 he delivered the BBC’s Reith Lectures on ‘<i>A New Citizenship</i>’
to great acclaim. He is, without question, a brilliant communicator and a
stirring intellectual.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In his
latest book, ‘<i>What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets</i>’, Sandel
takes a prod to our fetish for markets and the rising tide of commodification.
Some things should just never be sold, he argues, because doing so degrades and
corrupts goods that are best understood in non-market terms.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It’s
necessary to get something out of the way to begin with, because I can hear the
indignant cries of the rampant right-wingers already: “Communist! Communist!”
This is not a tract against capitalism. Sandel doesn’t question – and really,
the debate is just boring now – that markets<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>are</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>powerful and efficient (though,
imperfect) tools for the allocation of resources and the organization of
productive activity. Free markets are, as Churchill said of democracy, the
worst system available – besides everything else. What this book laments, is
“the expansion of markets, and of market values, into spheres of life where
they don’t belong,” and the fact that, “without quite realizing it, without
ever deciding to do so, we drifted from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>having</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>a market economy to<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>being</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>a market society.”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">There
are two arrows to Sandel’s bow; the first is an objection about inequality, and
the other is about corruption. To take them in turn: in a society where
everything is for sale, life is harder for those of modest means – the more
money can buy, the more it matters. Secondly, some things are improperly valued
or degraded (corrupted) when commodified. I don’t agree with Sandel’s approach
to why some things shouldn’t be sold, but let’s give him the benefit of the
doubt for now and consider some examples. Here are some things you can now buy
(at least in the United States):</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">A prison cell upgrade: $82 per night. </span></i><span color:black;background:white;mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" lang="EN-US" new="" roman'","serif";="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">In Santa Ana, California,
and some other cities, nonviolent offenders can pay for nicer
accommodation</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white'="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span></span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">– a clean, quiet jail cell, away from the cells for
non-paying prisoners.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">The services of an Indian surrogate mother to carry a
pregnancy: $6,250.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> Western couples seeking surrogates increasingly
outsource the job to India, where the practice is legal and the price is less
than one-third the going rate in the United States.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">The right to shoot an endangered black rhino: $150,000</span></i><span color:black;background:white;mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" lang="EN-US" new="" roman'","serif";="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">. South Africa has begun
letting ranchers sell hunters the right to kill a limited number of rhinos, to
give the ranchers an incentive to raise and protect the endangered species.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span color:black;mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" lang="EN-US" new="" roman'","serif";="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">Of course, some of these things are a
little pricey. But no worries – you can always raise some extra funds by:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">Renting out space on your forehead to display
commercial advertising: $777</span></i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">. Air New Zealand hired thirty people to shave
their heads and wear temporary tattoos “Need a change? Head down to New
Zealand.”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">Stand in line overnight on Capitol Hill to hold a
place for a lobbyist who wants to attend a congressional hearing: $15-20 per
hour</span></i><span color:black;background:white;mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" lang="EN-US" new="" roman'","serif";="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">. The lobbyists pay
line-standing companies, who hire homeless people and others to queue up.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Symbol;">-</span><span background:white'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times=""> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">If you are a second grader in an underachieving Dallas
school, read a book: $2</span></i><span lang="EN-US" mso-ansi-language:en-us'="" new="" roman'","serif";color:black;background:white;="" style="font-family: '} ';" times="">. To encourage reading, the schools pay kids for each
book they read.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Sandel’s
book is great value for its panoply of jaw-dropping and often hilarious
examples alone. The ones I’ve outlined here are by no means the most unusual
(for the truly tragic, wacky and outrageous, you’ll have to get yourself a copy
of the book).</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Take
the phenomenon of hired line-standers. What should we make of this practice? My
guess is that most people would think that paid line standing, at least on
Capitol Hill, is objectionable. But why? One reason is that Congress is a
democratic institution, and when well-heeled lobbyists buy their way into
hearings, it undermines the public nature of the forum. If allowing this
practice would make congressional hearings the exclusive purview of the rich, I
think we’d have a pretty good reason not to allow it.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In his
book the ‘<i>The Gift Relationship</i>’, the British sociologist Richard
Titmuss showed that paying people decreased both the quantity and quality of
blood that a blood bank would receive (unless a very large amount of money was
at play). The payment converted what had been a donation into a transaction,
and eroded the moral aura that had been associated with the act. A market
culture, just as here, changes how we view a whole multitude of goods, and not
always for the better.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Sandel
walks a fine line in this book between playing the moralist, and the
conversation starting provocateur. It’s difficult to know which examples he
supports and which he doesn’t. Let’s take another one from above: paying
$150,000 to kill an endangered black rhino. No doubt there is an emotional
knee-jerk, or ‘yuck’ reaction against this. It seems base, or uncouth, to kill
such a beautiful creature if the only reason is that it’s for what might,
generously, be described as ‘sport’. But it’s not clear why we shouldn’t allow
it if it<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>does<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>in fact lead to less black rhinos
dying overall. The empirical evidence Sandel discusses indicates that it has
indeed had this effect; the new monetary incentive to preserve rhinos has been,
apparently, enormously effective. If what we care about is outcomes, we should
(assuming there are no viable alternatives) allow the hunters their bloody
indulgence.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I’m not
convinced by Sandel that we need to philosophize to figure out the ‘nature’ of
goods. We can, and should, be less highfalutin and more consequential in our
analysis. A decision not to allow something to be sold is best reached after
concluding that doing so will have bad consequences, not because it is somehow
inconsistent with it’s ‘nature’. Sandel is right to challenge the market fundamentalists,
but I am concerned that he seeks to replace it with a fundamentalism of his
own; namely that some things should just<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>never</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>be sold, no matter what.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is
in enunciating the various ways in which market culture has degraded and
debased society (most particularly in the United States), and in its vigorous
call for a more robust public debate, that the value of this book chiefly li<a href="" name="_GoBack"></a>es. Sandel is never less than highly entertaining, and even
if you don’t agree with him, this book won’t fail to induce some seriously
enjoyable cogitation.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Here is
an<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH_z6BPFQXI&feature=related.">interesting
interview</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>of Sandel on this
book. And for those who haven’t heard of his course at Harvard on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&feature=related">Justice</a></i>,
it is well worth taking a look.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">--</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">William
Isdale is a law and arts (politics and philosophy) student at the University of
Queensland, where he is an Academic Excellence Scholar and TJ Ryan Medallist
and Scholar. He is the President of the Australian Legal Philosophy Students'
Association and Editor of the Justice and the Law Society's journal 'Pandora's
Box'. In early 2012 he was a visiting student at Oxford University's Uehiro
Centre for Practical Ethics.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-23997013270495162792012-06-05T18:26:00.002+10:002012-07-20T00:17:02.893+10:00The 'Sole director of the fate of human beings'?: Revisiting the idea of markets as 'default'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Markets are often described by economists in an almost messianic way- as if they alone will solve all of the world's problems. Now, it is worth noting that markets do a great many things well- they can be great democratisers (in the sense that they in principle allow for a levelling of the playing field), they are often better at distributing resources than a centralised economic instruments and they are more free of rent-seeking and political influence than command economies. However, something they certainly are not is natural- they are like anything else institutions, Douglass North's '<a href="http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/classes/v640/v640%20readings/north%201991.pdf">rules of the game</a>' or 'humanly devised constraints on action'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, as Polanyi claimed what has really happened is a Market Society (for anyone interested in a more in-depth look at this idea I recommend Polanyi's <i>The Great Transformation</i>) has been created: a combination of market exchanges, industrial production and hedonistic consumption. In this blog post, I will briefly chart how this is different from the mainstream economic account of what market mechanisms are, before briefly posing some conclusions on how this might affect modern development policy (looking particularly at the experience of Russia in the early 90s). The key difference I posit is that along Polanyi's lines, markets are embedded in the social and cultural relations of a society, rather than existing as a separate mechanism alongside them as neoclassical economics assumes (actually neoclassical economists mostly just seem very disquieted whenever the word 'culture' is mentioned).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'The Invisible Hand': Modern Market Exchanges</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Markets used to be largely places where often subsistence-based farmers, tradespeople or originally small-scale settlers or tribes would get items they needed but didn't have or couldn't produce from other people. They were often ad hoc, sometimes based on barter and very much not interconnected- prohibitions both religious and social against<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> profit-making ('usury') were followed to various degrees. Modern capitalism changed all this. </span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Modern market
exchange is predicated on the idea that commodities have value because of the
relationship between things, especially in terms of the translation into a
monetary value. Trade is predicated on the substitutability of unlike goods and
each participant having a different scale of values in order to produce mutually
beneficial trades. Markets have to be
embedded and naturalised within society, that is markets must have
“institutedness”</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. As Polanyi
observes, ‘free markets’ are instituted processes that must be articulated
through social, legal and political strategies. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1839845407"></span><span id="goog_1839845408"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This system of exchange is predicated on social
acceptance, which is why Western development projects often include help
setting up market economies, as a ‘charitable’ venture. Therefore, when
confidence is lost in markets they cease to function and as a test of this hypothesis, the exchange system should
also fail. This occurred amongst the Nentsy people of Northern Siberia when the
bank accounts the Soviets had given them became valueless due to the
depreciation in the value of the ruble in the early 1990s. As predicted, the
herders switched from buying consumer goods off the Russians back to solely
reindeer herding</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. </span>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Markets did not become successful because barter inherently transformed into modern capitalism- indeed as Polanyi notes, the really curious thing about laissez-faire capitalism is how planned it was- it needed helping although through establishing private property rights, creating and then dismantling large monopolies (like the East India Trading Company) and a change in attitudes to wealth accumulation, which brings us to consumption. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">'J'adore, Dior': Consumption Patterns and the Modern Corporation</span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Value
in cultural terms is defined by how people expect the world and people in it to
behave and how they judge that behaviour. The value of wealth accumulation has
changed from the medieval view of public virtue arising from private virtue to
the formal economists’ idea that public virtue can arise from private vice.
Associated with this has been a popularisation of modern hedonism,
characterized by the creation of cultural value in the self-conscious seeking
of personal pleasure. These concepts have spread widely to the point where
self-interest is taken for granted in most of modern Western society and
through global media, much of the world. Consumer goods are in Western society
associated with 'commodity aesthetics' in which people ascribe value solely on
the basis of design or promotion. Companies have sought to create a
'hyperreality' (Baudrillard) or an aesthetic coating of the world that seeks to
use images to generate a market-based society. Companies have also successfully
in many cases proselytised to the developing world, for example a Power Rice Ad
that was run in Papua New Guinea that was synchronised to the soundtrack
recording of “Power to the People!” and featured a muscular man lifting the
rice at a construction site. Foster also charts the rise of beauty contests and
other competitions that serve to reinforce that cultural capital is to be
gained through individual choices (see Materialising the Nation: Commodities,
Consumption and Media in Papua New Guinea by Robert Foster). This is also related
to what Jonathan Friedman calls homo consumens, "whose fragmented identity
is constantly rearranged by the winds of fashion". But how is this all
made?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>'Work must not Cease’: Mass-Production'</b></span></div>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Production is driven by the demands of the market,
with an emphasis on creating surplus to trade with others and where the value
is determined by what others will exchange for them. Perhaps the defining
feature of the capitalist mode is its tendency to reproduce itself on an
increasing scale. Production is also changed from previous reciprocal or household modes of production, because who makes the product is now irrelevant- i.e. all goods can at least hypothetically have their value translated into a monetary one (this is quite different to say the Kubo system where who gave you the pig is more important than the pig's 'worth' to you). </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Capitalism also means that production is no longer autonomous- capitalist production is the most interlinked of any economic system. Finally, h</span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">igh fidelity is ensured by industrialised
production technologies, which can produce millions of copies of the same good (this is a key difference from say craft-based economies).</span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Moving from the Positive to the Normative: Some Policy Ideas</b></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All of the claims I have made so far are what economists call 'positive', that is I've tried as hard as possible to make factual claims about what is not what should be (by hedonism for example, I do not mean a Catholicesque value judgment, I just mean the pursuit of individual pleasure). Now I will try and draw some tentative policy conclusions from what I've written.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first is that we should not expect markets in the third world to just spontaneously exist- governance needs to get better before the 3rd world can open up to trade more fully and before those countries can actually prosper. In particular, Chicago School style 'shock therapy' is an appalling idea because weak economies with markets that are barely embedded in society will just collapse- witness Russia in the early 1990s. There is a role in international NGOs and other aid providers to tie further aid to institutional improvements- also Western governments should help here rather than just prescribing more of the 'Washington Consensus'.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second is that the continued survival of markets means that institutions in every country have to be kept strong- there is a role for government policy in other words to stop the collapse in social relations that Polanyi discusses (though I obviously disagree with Polanyi's solution, which is to transition to either socialism or economic democracy).</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The last is that while international finance and other forms of globalisation are breaking down national boundaries, there will be a continued role for nation states in the future to regulate these issues and that they will require a truly international response.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would also make the empirical observation that economics needs to study these issues more- it should not be left to sociologists and anthropologists to fix up huge gaps in modern economic theory.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-75868545671408138052012-05-31T13:49:00.002+10:002012-06-01T16:26:20.056+10:00'An unjust law is no law at all': Homophobia and QLD's Defence of Provocation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2008, when Wayne Ruks made
sexual advances towards two men outside a church in Gympie, he was unaware that
his actions would invoke a response that would cost him his life. <span class="msoIns">The </span>defence that was successfully relied upon to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter is known as the homosexual advance defence, which is a form of
provocation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In 2003<span class="msoIns">,</span>
Tasmania abolished the defence of provocation for murder with Victoria doing
the same in 2005. Although all other Australian jurisdictions still allow this
defence, New South Wales and the Northern Territory have excluded non-violent
sexual advances from this defence. The current law in Queensland is stated in
section 304(1) of the <i>Criminal Code Act
1899 </i>(Qld):</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 42.55pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">When a person who unlawfully kills another
under circumstances which, but for the provisions of this section, would
constitute murder, does the act which causes death in the heat of passion
caused by sudden provocation, and before there is time for the person’s passion
to cool, the person is guilty of manslaughter only</i>.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Critics of the defence argue that
it was relevant prior to the defence of manslaughter being introduced so that
those accused could escape the previous <span class="msoIns">punishment</span>
of the death penalty. This being the case, the question raised is whether or
not this defence serves a purpose in modern criminal law and whether it’s
application in cases such as <i>Green v R </i>(1997)
is extending the definition too far.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u>The Reasonable Person</u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The general test that has been
applied throughout common law (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R v Sabri
Isa </i>[1952]) is that of the reasonable person. More specifically, what was
the effect of the provoking actions, not on the individual but rather on a
reasonable and objective person? Gibbs J extended this in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Moffa v R </i>(1977) to say that the reasonable person is not one who
acts reasonably, but rather one who has reasonable powers of self-control. Basically,
would an objective third party believe that it was reasonable for the accused
to act in that manner?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The opposition to this is that it is impossible to create a model of reasonableness
when it comes to provocation, as one must be able to view the characteristics
of the accused in order to truly understand why they acted in the way that they
did. Although it is reasonable to suggest that the characteristics of the
accused be taken into account, a major issue that arises is does this defence
protect people who are inherently violent and easily provoked? When someone is
easily provoked due to any number of characteristics, the chances of this
defence being used are increased. Additionally, it is very difficult to prove
and understand how each individual person reacts to different actions. This
then has a negative impact on the victim because their killer is given a lesser
sentence due to the fact that they reacted to words or actions differently to
what a reasonable person generally would. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Although the reasonable person
test may go against the rights of the accused, the objective test is the most
suitable test to apply due to the fact that it is generally consistent with the
views of wider society. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u>The Homosexual Advance Defence</u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The homosexual advance defence is
a form of provocation in that following a sexual advance; the accused loses
control and kills the person who made the advance. Although being used in a
handful of New South Wales cases previously (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R v McKinnon </i>(1993) and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">R v
Bonner</i> (1995)) the full extent of the homosexual advance defence was seen
when it was upheld by the High Court in a 3:2 split in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green v R</i> (1997). In this case, a close friend made a gentle
advance (rubbing the groin and backside) towards the accused and this then
evoked memories of sexual abuse that occurred between his father and sisters.
Because of this, the accused lost control and repeatedly punched the victim’s
face and then proceeded to smash his head against a wall causing large cuts on
the victim’s head. As if this wasn’t enough, the accused then grabbed a nearby
pair of scissors and stabbed him upwards of ten times. During this attack the
victim was never able to defend himself. This
attack was in no way proportional to the actions of the victim. This mans
homophobia caused him to kill one of his friends, and then because of the
reasons behind the death, he was able to reduce his charge. The most famous
line from this case is when the accused said “yeah I killed him, but he did
worse to me” and upon being asked why he killed him the response was “because
he tried to root me.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
On the issue of the reasonable person, McHugh J commented
that in this instance it should be viewed as a reasonable person who was
subjected to a sexual advance by a close friend that was aggravated by the
attackers sensitivity to sexual assaults. From the dissenting view, Gummow J
argued that as the acts of sexual abuse we towards his sisters rather than
himself, the actions were insufficiently related to the actions of the deceased
that caused the provocation. This then raises again the question of whether or
not the characteristics of the accused should be taken into account. On this,
the other dissenter, Kirby J argued that as a society, Australia is not that
homophobic that the response to a non-violent advance would be to brutally
murder the victim. Although there are members of society who are genuinely that
homophobic, as a whole, most Australians would not see this as a proportionate
response. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
More recently, in 2008 two men
outside a church in Gympie beat a man to death. As the man had made sexual
advances towards them, they successfully used the homosexual advance defence.
Following the attack outside his church, Father Paul Kelly began a petition to
eliminate the gay panic defence from Queensland law. This petition as garnered
much support much support including that of British comedian Stephen Fry. The
growing public support against the defence shows as a society, views towards
homosexuals have improved dramatically and the reasonable person test would not
extend to this form of provocation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Those who oppose the homosexual
advance defence claim that it is only used to protect homophobes and there
could not be a reasonable justification for allowing it. The defence of
provocation is also available for charges of assault, and although the same
issues apply, it is more reasonable to see how someone could lose control to
the extent of assault. Because even though they have lost control, they still
have the self-control to know when to stop, however this is still bad. When the
homosexual advance defence is used, it has been in cases of non-violent sexual
advances; it has not been in cases where the actions of the victim have been
enough to incite a violent response. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This then raises the question of, is it
possible for someone to be so overcome with panic upon being ‘hit on’ that they
lose control to the extent that the result of their actions is death? Although
there are still many instances of homosexuals being attacked, it is mostly done
out of pure homophobia as opposed to responding to sexual advances. It is
difficult to say whether or not it is impossible for this level of panic to
occur; however even if it is possible for an accused to legitimately lose
control and beat someone to death because of homosexual advances, this is not
something that society accepts as reasonable or acceptable behaviour. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It was
raised in the dissenting judgement of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green
v R </i>that the defence should be abolished “because it reinforces the notion that fear, revulsion or
hostility are valid reactions to homosexual conduct.” When allowing a defence
like this to exist, it sends the message that this type of reaction is
acceptable and this is a contradiction of the views that are held by our modern
society.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Kirby J raised one of the biggest
arguments surrounding this defence in his dissenting judgement. It was put
forward that this defence seems to only apply to homosexual advances as opposed
to advances by heterosexuals. He argued that if a woman who had non-violent
sexual advances made against her, tried to use provocation as a defence for
murder, it would extend the definition of provocation would be unreasonably
extended. If it is unreasonable to extend the definition of provocation to
non-violent heterosexual advances then why do we continue to allow this defence
to be used for homosexual advances? The fact of the matter is that provocation
should extend to neither as it is extremely unreasonable that someone should be
able to claim that they lost control of their actions when the supposed
provoking actions were non-violent sexual advances. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<u>What are the alternatives?</u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Although there are major problems
with the provocation defence, some say that there are certain crimes where the
defence should be allowed; such as domestic violence where the accused is
reacting to violent situ<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">ations. In response to this I still recommend that the
defence of provocation for murder be removed however in addition to this, I
suggest the, what some would call controversial, step be taken and the
mandatory life sentence be removed from the charge of murder and allow for the
judge to use his or her discretion when it comes to sentencing. In doing so it
allows for judges to take into account mitigating factors but without reducing
the sentence of murder to manslaughter. It is completely reasonable to charge
this people with murder because even if they have ‘lost control’, when one
viciously attacks a person to the point of death it is difficult to argue that
they lacked the required intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">--</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Andrew Suffern is a 2nd year Law/Justice student at Queensland University of Technology. He previously took a year of Film, of which he retains a keen interest. He is particularly interested in questions of legal ethics, especially surrounding the death penalty debate in the US. He is a keen debater.</span></span></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-70691843629416130962012-05-27T16:40:00.000+10:002012-05-27T17:38:39.649+10:00Deep green hypocrisy — can we ever be ‘green’?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WEvvMYbB5ZA/T8HLQLH6DpI/AAAAAAAAAFA/qzBOsyBulrA/s1600/R1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="193" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WEvvMYbB5ZA/T8HLQLH6DpI/AAAAAAAAAFA/qzBOsyBulrA/s320/R1.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">More and more we see the masses crying
out for the protection of the environment — whether unkempt Marxists or wealthy
philanthropists, they all exclaim: ‘please, won’t somebody think of the
Childers flying fox?’ </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I
jest, of course. But aside from ruthless stereotyping, there are some
important questions as to whether or not we can truly care about the
environment in the extreme sense of ‘deep ecology’, where humans should seek
‘consistency within ecosystems’, not the manipulation of nature for their own
ends. In attacking this deep ecology framework, I don’t seek to argue
against caring for the environment, since humans obviously benefit from its
preservation, whether through beauty, resources or for future generations, but
merely to undermine the philosophical basis of deep ecology, and explain how it
is impossible to be </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">truly</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> green. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The
quest to protect the environment for the benefits it affords humanity broadly
fits within the frame of what is labelled ‘shallow’ environmentalism, whose
critics, the ‘deep’ ecologists, claim by continuing to accept anthropocentrism,
the shallow ecologists simply perpetuate the exploitation of nature. At
the core of deep ecology or ‘deep green thinking’ is, most simply, the
rejection of any sense of anthropocentrism and instead an acceptance of
humanity as a </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">part</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> of nature, and not above it or separate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-roVvAmTXdxs/T8HLh4HWdDI/AAAAAAAAAFI/xg8p8fyEqW0/s1600/R2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-roVvAmTXdxs/T8HLh4HWdDI/AAAAAAAAAFI/xg8p8fyEqW0/s320/R2.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: justify;"><tbody>
<tr><td height="0" width="57"></td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Deep ecology<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The
conclusion deep ecology reaches is that we must protect and preserve nature: we
must be green, as we are merely part of the natural world, not above it.
This of course begs the question, what do we seek to preserve? What is it
to be ‘green’? The very word itself seems loaded with meaning, aside from
its political connotations; it suggests that what humans should seek to
preserve is those beautiful parts of wilderness: the old growth forests of
Tasmania, the crystalline fjords of northern Europe and the pristine ice sheets
of the poles. Or is it the radioactive green of low-carbon nuclear
energy? So let us test this idea of natural preservation as an end in
itself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">While
various frameworks are adopted by different groups, the focus is generally in
fairly amorphous constructions, such as the ‘encouragement of nature to
flourish’, which though evoking beautiful tableaux of flora and fauna in readers’
minds actually mean very little in terms of real goals. In what </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">seems</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">
like a more specific description, some proponents support preventing acts
‘inconsistent’ with particular ecosystems. This remains unclear — what
makes something inconsistent with nature? It could be inconsistent with
its appearance, such as a bitumen car-park in a rainforest, or even a wind
turbine in a field. However let us assume that it is not motivated purely
by aesthetic considerations, given that many things in ‘nature’ (always said as
if humans are not part of it, seemingly contradicting the anti-anthropocentric
approach) can look out of place, and given the deep ecologists’ apparent
loathing for ‘shallowness’. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q80HQTlc_7M/T8HLrt1TqeI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/7FCRnQ6iI4o/s1600/R3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q80HQTlc_7M/T8HLrt1TqeI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/7FCRnQ6iI4o/s320/R3.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Inconsistent with nature?</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">To
decide how to protect nature we must reach one of three conclusions, as I will
explain, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-text-indent-alt: -18.0pt; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Assume
we can make choices regarding what is best for nature and then act along those
lines, as deep ecologists suggest;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-text-indent-alt: -18.0pt; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">II.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Accept
that, given the integrity of nature which must be preserved, we should remove
humans from the planet; or</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">III.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Accept
that the only consistent part of nature is its process of natural selection,
and thus we should act with what is best in the eyes of humans, noting that
this does not necessarily exclude the protection of nature as we decide. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I.
‘Papa Don’t Preach’ — can humanity make choices about what is best for nature?</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">If we
accept the idea of humanity as one with and not above nor divisible from
nature, we cannot therefore make decisions regarding how to protect nature as
an end in itself. To make these decisions, in what I have already
explained seems a value-laden process, it assumes some level of
anthropocentrism, accepting that humans are in a position to make normative
judgements to interfere with nature, even if the aim is its benefit. Take
climate change, for instance. Why is nature better served by emitting
less carbon dioxide and having a cooler planet? Obviously there are human
protection and lifestyle imperatives, such as rising sea levels and agricultural
issues, but these are not our focus. How is nature any less flourishing,
or less consistent? It could be the extinctions which cause the worry,
however these are not inconsistent with the changes in nature which have
occurred in the past. What is the difference between extinction of a
prehistoric frog as a result of natural flying predators and the extinction of
a bird due to anthropogenic climate change? The argument that such
changes are differentiable seems strangely to put humans in the centre, as with
anthropocentrism, or at least assign some sort of anthropo-polarity, with
humans at one pole of some spectrum of nature, still distinct. This seems
contradictory to deep ecology’s stated basis. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">II.
Should we kill the environmentalists?</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">There
are some groups which propose gradual extinction or reduction of the human
population, however this author dismisses the former leaving it to others to
consider, and feels the latter is a discussion for another time. Not only
does it seem absurd to countenance, but is contrary to allowing nature to
flourish, if, as deep ecologists say, humans are part of nature. Again,
our meta-reasoning ability as a race distinguishes us, and to use that very
distinction to reason that we and nature are indistinguishable seems odd.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">III.
‘...until soft peaks form’ — is there only one way to measure consistency?</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In adopting a model by which to measure
consistency for the purposes of deep ecology’s aims, this author can only find
one possible measure: the process of natural selection and Darwinism. All
of nature, including, as the deep ecologists wish, humanity, has developed
through the process of natural selection: the random mutation of genes which
then, through the ‘survival of the fittest’ leads to the prominence of optimal
genetic features. This evolution occurred and still occurs not only
through survival of the fittest individual, but often the fittest groups, with
much current research, for instance, about the evolutionary origins of
altruism. Whether we look at bonobos working (and sleeping) together for
the benefit of the community or fish clinging to aquatic mammals in symbiotic
relationships, we see that cooperation such as that of humans is not against
this principle of natural selection. So it seems that only if we
interfere with that principle then we interfere with nature. Can we ever
interfere with this? I contend that we cannot, which finally places
humans as truly part of nature, equal with the other animals in our inability
to modify the process. Moreover, the conservationist tendencies of deep
ecologists betray their true failures: by seeking the protection of nature as
it exists now, they act antithetically to nature’s consistent, gradual
development, and implicitly oppose the flourishing they wish it to
undergo. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x0XQltA3zdo/T8HMGqgjx9I/AAAAAAAAAFY/7lqfP7ZzyVI/s1600/R4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x0XQltA3zdo/T8HMGqgjx9I/AAAAAAAAAFY/7lqfP7ZzyVI/s320/R4.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The path ahead</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So
does this mean we should just go about the destruction of nature, emitting
carbon dioxide as we please and hunting rhinos for their alleged aphrodisiacal
properties? Only if that is what we think is best for humans. I
certainly do not want to live in a barren, salinated wasteland at higher
temperatures without exotic creatures, and neither do many, so even if we
reject deep ecology we need not fear for that. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">It
seems that for all its grand ambition, deep ecology fails to maintain the
consistency it so prizes through its untenable basis. Shallowness knows no bounds. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">--<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">James
Rigby is a first year student completing a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of
Economics at the University of Queensland. He has interests in politics
and science, and intends to enjoy the best parts of Arts vicariously through
his learned colleagues. </span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5886291203346106131" name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-49024904072742370712012-05-24T20:33:00.003+10:002012-05-25T15:51:16.408+10:00The Sun is but a Morning Star: On the Importance of Science Literacy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r7oW4-NWGJE/T733ly5t_tI/AAAAAAAAAEg/Bj74acyFscE/s1600/NDT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r7oW4-NWGJE/T733ly5t_tI/AAAAAAAAAEg/Bj74acyFscE/s400/NDT.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>The Neil deGrasse Tyson Meme</b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<i>“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence” <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
Carl Sagan</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<i>“Science literacy is a vaccine against
charlatans who would try to exploit your ignorance” <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
Neil
deGrasse Tyson</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<i>“Is no one inspired by our present picture
of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers; you are
reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is
not yet a scientific age”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
Richard
Feynman <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<i>“The world is a thing of utter inordinate
complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the
idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but
probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea.
And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened, it's
just wonderful. And the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in
such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned.”</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">Douglas Adams </span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/9D05ej8u-gU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Being scientifically literate enables you to comprehend the universe.</b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The Enlightenment and the
scientific revolution bequeathed a certain and profound concept that has
enabled us to fully grapple with and comprehend reality. From Galileo Galilei to
David Hume and from to Charles Darwin to Steven Hawking, empiricism, scepticism
and the scientific method has been at
the fore of the human endeavour to understand the world. And yet, whilst we
pride ourselves on our technological civilisation that does not subject itself
to the supposed irrational superstition of backward tribal cultures, pseudoscience
and an apathy and ignorance of science is rife. Shamefully, as Carl Sagan pondered, the majority of
newspapers have astrology sections, but how many of them even have weekly
science columns? Indeed the majority of people can name many of the
astrological star signs, but simply cannot list the planets of our solar
system. Important public issues around science are being distorted and hijacked
by fringe groups and science curricula around the world is being dumbed down
or even rejected in place of pseudoscience or politicised and selective data.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Fundamentally, normatively and
empirically, science literacy is an imperative for a citizenry in this modern age of information technology and climate change. It is important to note that science literacy doesn't translate into the ability to understand
the basics of quantum electrodynamics or the ability to perform advanced calculus. Importantly, to be scientifically literate is to possess a certain frame of mind and recognition of the world in a certain way. Moreover to value science literacy is not to degrade or criticise the liberal arts and humanities, they are
equally of importance – as Jacob Bronowski states “<i>It has been one of the most destructive modern prejudices that art and
science are different and somehow incompatible interests</i>”. Thus it should be of equal shame and hypocrisy for a liberal arts graduate to be oblivious to who Watson and Crick were just as it is for a theoretical physics graduate to be ignorant about Shakespeare or Chaucer. Scientific
literacy empowers individuals to comprehend the world and make more rational decisions
about their place in it. Moreover, science is similar to the arts and music – it is
possible and indeed important to atheistically appreciate the discoveries of science. Indeed the scientific understanding of reality is one of beauty too – as Richard Feynman states “<i>there are all kinds of interesting questions that come from the knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe and beauty</i>”. There exists a gulf between the science cognoscenti and the public – when, for example, was the last time a scientist appeared on Q&A along with the politicians as opposed to a writer, actor or musician? Importantly, where does the fault lie – with the scientists themselves not being willing to engage with mainstream media, with the mainstream media not willing to engage with the scientists, or with society in not valuing science leading to the scientists and the media not bothering to engage society? Evidently it is a combination of all three demographics to blame.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>The Current State of Science Literacy</u><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Suffice to say, be it with
evolution or climate change, the population of the United States is one of the
most scientifically illiterate of the developed nations. The <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/">2010 Science and Engineering
Indicators</a> by the National Science Foundation paint a very poor picture for
the United States in terms of public science literacy. Indeed there exists a
massive disconnect from the scientific community and the general public due to
a number of social, cultural and political factors. Fortunately, Australia is
far more scientifically literate than the United States, but only marginally. When it comes to nuclear energy or genetically modified food, scientific
findings are just as likely to be politicised in Australia as the United
States. A <a href="http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf">2010
report of science literacy in Australia</a> by the Australian Academy of
Sciences shows that public science literacy is at a low. The report consisted
of asking over 1500 individuals from a diversity of backgrounds six basic
questions, such as “How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun?”
and “Is the following statement true or false? The earliest humans lived at the
same time as dinosaurs.” Only about 30 per cent of the sample answered all six
questions correctly. And yet individuals were asked “In your opinion, how
important is science education to the Australian economy?” and 42 per cent
answered “absolutely essential” and 38 per cent answered “very important”. Thus
the Australian public understands the importance of science education, but this
understanding is not being translating into science literacy. The <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OCS_Health_of_Australian_Science_LOWRES1.pdf">Health
of Australian Science Report</a> by the Office of the Chief Scientist of
Australia this year has a largely positive account of science in Australia. Our
researchers are punching well above their weight in terms of output and
recognition and those that are enrolled in high school science are preforming
well comparatively to other countries. However the report does point to some
trends that will prove problematic in the long term. There have been declining
rates of enrolment in high school science, especially in chemistry and physics,
with the recent years being at an all-time low since 1980. Moreover, there have
been declining rates of science teaching graduates. This is bad in terms of
science literacy for the broader public.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>The Ascent of Science Documentaries</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wks6NjVYvxY/T732ungkU_I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/x3E7p6WLj-k/s1600/scienceliteracy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wks6NjVYvxY/T732ungkU_I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/x3E7p6WLj-k/s400/scienceliteracy.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b>The opening titles The Ascent of Man (BBC
1973), Connections (BBC 1978), </b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b>Life on Earth (BBC 1979), and Cosmos (PBS
1980)</b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In 1969 David Attenborough was
Controller of BBC Two and commissioned a thirteen part documentary series about
the history of western art. Entitled <i>Civilisation</i>
it was presented by Kenneth Clark and showcased not only the history and
aesthetics of western art but also the quality of the new UHF colour television
broadcasting the BBC was then offering. The series was met with universal
acclaim and thus set the blueprint and precedence for landmark documentary
series. Also in 1969, BBC commissioned the television documentary series <i>Horizon</i> which began airing regularly and
each episode looked at individual topics in science. To complement the claims
of Clark in <i>Civilisation</i>, that the
arts reflected and was informed by the major driving forces in cultural
evolution and with the popularity of <i>Horizon</i>,
Attenborough specifically commissioned <i>The
Ascent of Man</i> in 1973. Presented by Jacob Bronowski, the thirteen part
documentary series looked at the development of human society through the
development of science. Then in 1974, America’s Public Broadcasting Service was
inspired and supported by <i>Horizon</i> to
produce a regular science documentary series using its same model – thus
culminating in <i>Nova</i>. In 1978 came,
along similar lines to <i>The Ascent of Man</i>,
<i>Connections</i>, a ten part documentary
series by James Burke. It took an interdisciplinary approach to the history of
science and demonstrated how various scientific discoveries and historical
events were interconnected paving the way for modern technology. Inevitably and
evidently Attenborough, who was always interested in natural history, was inspired
to present his own documentary series. His passion culminated in the thirteen
part series in 1979 entitled <i>Life on
Earth</i>. In 1980 across the Atlantic Ocean, PBS commissioned the landmark <i>Cosmos</i>. Presented by Carl Sagan, <i>Cosmos</i> proved to be was a fundamental
turning point for science education and the public understanding of science. To
this day science documentaries have proliferated from <i>Bill Nye the Science Guy </i>to ABC’s Catalyst and even Mythbusters is an
example of the popularity of science. Both BBC’s <i>Horizon</i> and PBS’s <i>Nova</i>
are still running, David Attenborough is still producing and narrating natural
history documentaries and clips of <i>Cosmos
</i>have<i> </i>received millions of views
on YouTube. Brian Cox’s <i>Wonders of the
Solar System</i> and <i>Wonders of the
Universe</i> have proved popular during mainstream television hours, and new documentary
science communicators have taken the stage such as Alice Roberts and Michio
Kaku. Suffice to say there is a market for science documentaries.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Popular Science in Popular Culture </u><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z10UtSdkDx4/T733N4pzeqI/AAAAAAAAAEY/vsbeOsWftcY/s1600/big-bang-theory-Tyson-530.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="336" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z10UtSdkDx4/T733N4pzeqI/AAAAAAAAAEY/vsbeOsWftcY/s400/big-bang-theory-Tyson-530.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b>Neil deGrasse Tyson with the cast of The Big Bang Theory</b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Popular science and science
documentaries have become prominent in society. From online blogs, magazines,
television series and books, popular science has are exponentially increased
since the 1980s. Interestingly the rise of the public intellectual and science
communicator, namely Carl Sagan, was originally decried by the scientific
academy as dumbing down scientific research. Now this has been embraced as a
critical role of the scientific cohort. Organisations such as the Royal
Society, the British Science Association and the Royal Institution all value
and realise the necessity of engagement with popular discourses. Many research
scientists have turned their hand from laboratory work to writing popular science
books, ranging from theoretical cosmology to evolutionary game theory. Steven
Hawking set the precedence for this trend with his landmark and bestselling <i>A Short History of Time</i> in 1988 and to
this day, with <i>A Short History of Nearly
Everything</i> by Bill Bryson in 2005, tautologically popular science books
prove popular. Even <i>The</i> <i>Big Bang Theory</i>, <i>CSI</i> and <i>Numbers</i> are
examples of the growing significance of science in popular culture. It is perhaps a positive indicator that a group of scientists and nerds can be stars on popular prime time television shows in the United States.<b> </b>Scientists and science communicators have noticed the significance of this and <span style="text-align: center;">Neil deGrasse Tyson</span> even appeared as a guest on an episode of <i>The</i> <i>Big Bang Theory</i>. There are
numerous YouTube channels and videos for science and increasingly universities,
such as MIT and Harvard have been uploading videos of course lectures.
Newspapers and radio stations have increasingly expanded their science
sections, from Ben Goldacre’s <i>Bad Science</i>
column in <i>The Guardian </i>to <i>The Infinite Monkey Cage</i> on BBC Radio 4.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b><u>Current Issues with Public Understanding and Awareness of Science</u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“<i>It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known but to question it</i>.” </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p>Jacob Bronowski</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It is important to delineate the differences between the public understanding and awareness of science. Science outreach (university community engagement, public lectures), science communication (documentaries, museums, festivals, journalism, popular science books) and science education (primary and secondary science curriculum, university science courses) are avenues that fall under contributing to science literacy.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VJkzWt9jRTQ/T74PGgvy6rI/AAAAAAAAAE0/xHtrV9AY2W4/s1600/235202082_27ead648e7_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="378" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VJkzWt9jRTQ/T74PGgvy6rI/AAAAAAAAAE0/xHtrV9AY2W4/s400/235202082_27ead648e7_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>The Avenues of Science Communication</b></div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There exist a number of problems with the way science curricula are taught. For many people science is something to be tolerated in high school, details of which are promptly forgotten after tests are over. This may be understandable since regrettably basic science curriculum can often consist of lectures on taxonomy or analogous facts about what science has discovered, along with the painful need to memorize long lists of strange words. Rather than learning the cold hard facts, it is important for students to experience and understand the scientific method and to critically, experimentally and sceptically engage with data and reality. Recently, the <a href="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1">National Science Education Standards</a> agreed on by the the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association, stresses teaching the paradigm of scientific thinking rather than the learning of facts. It serves as a curricula foundation for primary and high school science which emphasises an inquiry-based approach in the context of concepts and principles rather than vocabulary and rote memorisation. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
When it comes to science communication, the University of Oxford was the first university to established a Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science through an endowment from the Hungarian-American computer executive Charles Simonyi in 1995. Richard Dawkins was the inaugural holder of this Professorship and he lectured, published and broadcast widely to improve the public understanding of science. That said, I am inclined to criticise Dawkins for quite explicitly pushing his agenda of atheism and focused less offering science to the public in an accessible, non-polemical manner. Whilst the relationship of science and religion is indeed a contentious one and whilst I personally believe the calculus of the justification of faith is as dead-end in the logical pathway from science and thus the two are irreconcilable, it is not the role of science communicators to push atheism or to critique personal religious beliefs. Realistically, science and religious belief are commonly not mutually exclusive and it is quite alright to hold religious belief and value the scientific endeavour. But this is another discussion to be had. Dawkins’ successor, Professor Marcus du Sautoy, said he would be focusing “<i>very much on the science and less on religion</i>”.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Current practices and policies for science communication to the public are too top down. Whilst this may not be an issue for the classroom or university, but outside this educational context it becomes a massive problem. But more over it is not at all enough to recite the laws of thermodynamics or to know the boiling temperature of water. Indeed I. B. Cohen, a pioneering Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University from the 1950s, called this “the fallacy of miscellaneous information”. The average person does not take kindly to being lectured to by what they perceive to believe elitist and esoteric scientists in terms they don’t understand. Climate change science communication is a profound example of this. The Science Centre in Brisbane, and other similar institutions around the world, attempt to make science fun and visually stimulating without providing an avenue for critical thinking. Whilst these types of science communication have their place, they may be undermining the hard work and complexity of science. Science isn't a fun and visually stimulating endeavour for all scientists for all the time. To have children exposed to such perceptions is necessarily flawed. Outside of the high school laboratory it is important to incentivise the public to become scientifically literate – to make them stakeholders, to allow them to interact with the scientific method and to have their voices to be heard and to give them the chance to influence research priorities. Science is as much a part of society as the arts. As Jon Turney, a science communicator at University College London, states “<i>should we work to promote scientific literacy so everyone is up to speed, empowered and ready to contribute to the great debates about science, technology and the future? No. Invite them to participate, and really mean it and they will find the motivation to become as scientifically literate as you, or rather they, please</i>.”</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Overall, whilst the popular science industry is growing, this hasn't necessarily translated into a great science literacy in the general public. There still exists structural and <span style="text-align: justify;">pedagogical problems in communicating science from the classroom by the teacher to lounge room by the documentary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Economic Benefits of Science Literacy </u><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
A scientifically literate
public are more than likely to push for prioritising scientific research, be it basic research or applied research. Indeed there are an immensity of economic benefits in having a scientifically literate public. In an information and industrial economy there is a growing demand for SMET (science, mathematics, engineering and technology) graduates likewise as the markets begin transitioning to a greener economy. Investments in sustainable energy, space exploration and <o:p></o:p>nanotechnology all have immense long term benefits to the economy. The <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/37121/scienceoverview.pdf">2007
Public Support for Science and Innovation Report</a> by the Productivity
Commission lays out the economic basis for the public support of science. Economic
arguments for the public support of science come from recognising that science
has the elements of being a public good. First, it is non-rival in that it can
be widely applied without the cost of providing it to marginal individuals being
high. Second, it is partially excludable as when someone makes use of science
they can only appropriate a fraction of its returns and actions can be taken
that prevent excludability. The traditional argument for the public support of
science was first developed after the Second World War by Vannevar Bush, who
was Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, an
independent federal agency. In <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm">Science: The Endless
Frontier</a>, a report to President Truman in 1945 on future science and technology
policy, Bush outlines the distinction between basic research and applied
research. He propounded that basic research was a critical input into the production
of useful knowledge, being “the pacemaker of technological progress”. This is
the one-dimensional linear model: science leads to innovation leads to
productivity – the economic argument of spillovers. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Public Policy</u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>“By definition, I begin<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Alternative medicine, I continue<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Has either not been proved to work,<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Or been proved not to work.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>You know what they call </i><i>alternative medicine</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>That's been proved to work?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Medicine” </i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
Tim Minchin</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It is imperative for the
public to be engaged with science especially when it comes to government making policy decisions about science. <o:p></o:p>The existence of a democratic process, with voting rights and a transparent and representative governance structure, is fundamental but not sufficient. Individuals that are scientifically illiterate are increasingly at a disadvantage when they lack the information to engage in these important public policy dilemmas as a critical and independent thinker. For example, the many causes and effects that impact human health are questions of science: alternative medicine has no cause outside the placebo effect on treating disease; smoking is a cause of lung cancer; obesity is a cause of diabetes; lead poisoning is a cause of brain damage in the young; alcohol and drug use by pregnant women are a cause of brain damage to their unborn children. The public must also grapple with important public policy questions that must be informed by science. For example, an understanding of the science of embryonic stem cell research is critically important to inform policymakers who are advocating or opposing this research; an understanding of climatology is essential to those concerned with regulation of fossil fuel consumption and energy policy; astronomy and cosmology must inform wise investment in space exploration. Moreover, when it comes to the judicial system it is important to have a grasp of the scientific method. Legal principles when it comes to determining admissibility of scientific evidence, such as the Frye standard and the Daubert standard, are important is many cases. Once a population begins to start thinking critically and rationally about the world they are evidently less likely to support the
fringe or mainstream distortion of science by politicians and the media. A scientifically literate population would value and vote for evidence based public policy, especially when it comes to crime and public health.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Values, both Ethical and </u></b><span style="text-align: left;"><b><u>Aesthetic, </u></b></span><b><u>from a Scientific Outlook</u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
“<i>It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and
character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the
folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it
underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to
preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known</i>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Carl Sagan</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/cRmbwczTC6E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Science is beauty</b></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Normatively and empirically, I believe the scientific method lends itself to humanism and progressive social policy. Science is an incredibly humbling endeavour which allows us to understand our position in the immensity of the cosmos. The image of earth as a pale blue green dot, as Carl Sagan said,
“<i>underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known</i>”. Even Yuri Gagarin, the first human into space, stated
“<i>Orbiting Earth in the spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, let us preserve and increase this beauty, not destroy it!</i>” During the Cold War many scientists joined the disarmament and peace movements. The Russell–Einstein Manifesto of 1955 at Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs is a profound example of this. All this is not to exclude or play down the horrific outcomes of science - from the nuclear bomb itself or to the eugenics of the Nazi regime. But it is important to note that these horrific outcomes are not due to the failings of science, but rather the politics and public policies around the science. I certainly reach many of my personal ethical values from a scientific knowledge of the way the world is. Knowing the Newtonian physics behind the rotation of the earth around the sun does not at all detract from the beauty I see in a sunset. It enhances it. I am humbled to know that that sun is but a morning star in the cosmic immensity. I was a member of the
astronomy club at my high school and I still remember the feeling or gazing at
the rings of Saturn or looking at the craters on the moon. A scientific outlook is a sublime one.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CPaIdOrhVkc/T734RwelkFI/AAAAAAAAAEo/wi8bOYslGC8/s1600/inset-saturn-rings-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CPaIdOrhVkc/T734RwelkFI/AAAAAAAAAEo/wi8bOYslGC8/s400/inset-saturn-rings-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<b>The rings of Saturn as taken by NASA’s
Voyager 1</b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Conclusions </u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It is indeed perhaps a truism that education is a good and ideal aim for everyone. This is important when it comes to science. The public tends to be either apathetic and ambivalent to science or fearful and troubled by science. It is important to recognise that there is a cognitive diversity in society – different people have different interests and cognitive capacities when it comes to arts and sciences. Indeed the demographics involved would be those that will never be engaged by science, those that are aware of it but do not care, those that are on the fence either way, those that appreciate science, and those that are fully engaged with science. As Susan Greenfield, former Director of the Royal Institution and Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Oxford, stated “<i>Once we have a society where science is as exciting as football, and where attending a science lecture or debate is as relevant and fun as going to the cinema, only then will we be truly empowered as a society to harness science for what we want in life, rather than the other way round.</i>” This indeed an ideal that may not conform to the basic cognitive psychologies of the average person, but is an ideal we should strive for nonetheless. To suggest the average person can’t appreciate the scientific method, just like they can’t appreciate classical literature is offensive. It is a failing of our education and our cultural norms that the average person goes to sleep when they hear Newtonian laws of motion or Shakespeare. Indeed it is imperative that we rectify this. Science literacy is as fundamental for a society as access to clean water, sustainable energy, and healthcare. Amazingly, all these requirements for a healthy society stem from scientific knowledge.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Tasman Bain is a second year
Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International
Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He is interested
evolutionary anthropology, public economics and philosophy of science and
enjoys endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing the glockenspiel.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-24762895664441641902012-05-19T16:13:00.001+10:002012-05-21T14:46:36.130+10:00'You've Got a Friend in Me, When the Road Looks Rough Ahead': On Patterns of Friendship<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Introduction: 'I get by with a little help from my
friends'</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Humans are deeply unusual creatures- we are the only
species to form '<a href="http://www.nature.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/nature10736.html">long-standing,
non-reproductive unions</a>'- that is, we have friends! From C.S. Lewis and
J.R.R Tolkien to Boswell and Samuel Johnson to Gertrude Stein and Ernest
Hemingway to even fictional friendships like that of Achilles and Patroclus-
friendships are some of the most important relationships we have. Indeed, a
decline in friendships in the United States (an American Sociological Review<a href="http://sites.duke.edu/theatrst130s02s2011mg3/files/2011/05/McPherson-et-al-Soc-Isolation-2006.pdf"> study</a> found
the number of people with at least one close confidant has dropped from 80% to
57% from 1985 to 2004) has been linked to an increase in psychological
disorders. But why do we have friends at all? And perhaps more interestingly:
who are we likely to be friends with?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
I will trace evidence that cooperation is important in
human societies and that this likely explains the psychological rewards of
friendship. I will also explore new evidence that even in tribal societies we
tend to befriend people who cooperate similar amounts to us, have similar genes
to us (even among non-relations) and are physically and socially similar.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'Lean on Me, When You're Not Strong': The Evolution of
Human Cooperation</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There is strong evidence from chimps on the antecedents
of friendships- for chimps non-reproductive connections provide a form of
direct reciprocity- support in a fight, borrowing valuable tools, food in time
of scarcity (this has been particularly documented by <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/fv57574764k02l07/">Pruetz and
Lindshield</a>). While these aren't exactly friendships as we'd categorise
them- they are based too much in reciprocal giving and taking- they do provide
clues on why friendships make evolutionary sense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, it has been documented in primates that those
who have a better ability to form coalitions have an evolutionary advantage
over their competitors- which has been posed as a possible explanation- the
logic being that many of the same characteristics (a giving nature etc.) are
the same as we prize in friends and potential members of an alliance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Baboons who form strong non-reproductive bonds also have
better immune function and energy savings, which have been explained as being
relieved of the burden of being continuously vigilant of potential challenges
and attacks and the potential reduced sense of vulnerability.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
As Bowles and Gintis (who on a side note wrote papers for
MLK Jr.'s Poor People's March back in the day) document in <i>The
Cooperative Species</i>, the relatively warlike nature of the hunter-gatherer
existence and the rapid extinction of many groups precipitated the genetic and
cultural evolution of social emotions such as shame and guilt because they
conferred an advantage on any member of a relatively cooperative group. It is
theorised that these emotions provided the jump from so called 'contingent
cooperation' (think: if you buy coffee for your co-workers, then you expect
them to buy you coffee back at a relatively fixed point in the future) and true
friendship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
But can we thus shed any light on who we become friends
with?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk
beside me and be my friend': Who are we more likely to be friends with?</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Friendship is obviously a culturally contingent
phenomenon- witness the breakdown in affectionate male friendships in
particularly Anglo-American society that occurred after the Oscar Wilde trial
(and from which the Anglo-American world has never really recovered- men used
to walk arm in arm in Hyde Park- would many straight men ever do that again?).
However, studies have shown amongst groups as diverse as Americans and the
Hadza people of north-central Tanzania that there a few common threads amongst
those who we choose to be friends with. Broadly speaking, interpersonal
similarity is the strongest predictor: we are rarely friends with those who are
completely dissimilar to us (except in the case that through repeated
interaction we grow to like them).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Much like Erving Goffman's '<a href="http://www.elainehatfield.com/ch108.pdf">matching hypothesis</a>' for
couples, there is evidence that people often pick people of similar 'worth' as
defined by different cultural characteristics e.g. looks, intelligence,
interests etc. <a href="http://www.nature.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/nature10736.html">Apicella
et al</a> found that the strongest predictors of what they call
'social assortativity' (a measure of the regularity of interactions based
on the idea that we tend to interact more with our friends) is highest amongst
those who cooperate in similar amounts (this is unsurprising- we like friends
who are friendly!). A similar result has also been found for US students and
Honduran adult villagers- meaning it is likely to be robust to cultural
variation. Physical similarities are also prized amongst the Hadza -- after all
foraging is labour intensive and if you've got friends who can physically help
more, they are going to be contributing more to your life or group. This may also
explain why it has been observed that even in modern society we tend to group
with people of reasonably similar physical attractiveness to us- although this
is obviously also socially attuned- more attractive people are also more
popular. Similar positions in a social group are also a strong predictor of
friendship- they both bring people together more often and increase the desire
for continued social interaction. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There is also interesting new evidence that people may
befriend those with similar genotypes- in particular a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/5/1993">study</a> by James Fowler
found that whether a person carries DRD2 (which has been linked to alcoholism)
and CYP2A6 (which has been linked to openness) is strongly linked to whether
they befriend another person with or without those genes, even accounting for
social proximity. This of course is particularly bad news for alcoholics, it
turns out that not only are they more likely to be genetically predisposed to
drink to excess, they may be genetically predisposed to be friends with others
who are also predisposed as such. But it provides an interesting broader point-
is friendship also for the benefit of the genes? If we follow a Dawkins logic,
some of the purpose of friendship may actually be to benefit our genes. It
should also be noted that the Fowler study found that 4 other genes were not
linked to friendship- so this question needs further exploration. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Some Further Questions</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously this is an area where many new discoveries are
being made- studies of the evolution of cooperation more broadly are on the
frontier of science after having been largely ignored by evolutionary biology
for so long. But there is interesting evidence that far from just being social
constructs, friendships were evolutionary advantageous to humans as a form of
reciprocity, social association and possibly even genetic association. None of
this of course is to downplay how important and varied friendships really are-
it just asks an interesting question: how was I able to feel this way towards
others in the first place?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce
(Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming
publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and
nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern
consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the
institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-49028186710396193432012-05-12T19:54:00.000+10:002012-05-14T10:51:48.399+10:00'Baby I'm Your Biggest Fan, I'll Follow You Until You Love Me': Why pop culture isn't 'low culture'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AYQcWnxYU-o/T641NYq-wWI/AAAAAAAAAEE/Ys9RsU5Q3FQ/s1600/gaga.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AYQcWnxYU-o/T641NYq-wWI/AAAAAAAAAEE/Ys9RsU5Q3FQ/s1600/gaga.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Popular culture, in particular pop music is attacked from the right and the left- by the former for attacking 'traditional values' and the latter for embracing what Theodor Adorno termed the 'culture industry' (think EMI, the Murdoch Group, Disney etc.). It is also generally attacked by a lot of bourgeoisie, hipsters and other intelligentsia for lacking 'substance'- a charge I'm certainly guilty of making in the past.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is often ignored by academics (though this trend is changing)- which is deeply silly, because in examining popular culture we learn a lot more than by reading texts (some of which I certainly enjoy) which no one else reads. It is wrong to cast aspersions on all pop culture as 'valueless' and to treat it as an undifferentiated mass- both the music, books etc and the reactions to them are often as heterogenous and interesting as their alternatives.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I want to make to contend that the label of 'low culture' indicates more about those who wield this distinction than those any medium that fits into either category. I'd like to deconstruct two main arguments about the distinction between 'high' and 'low' culture: 1) whether pop culture is 'contentless' and 2) whether commercialisation has somehow 'cheapened' culture or enslaved us (the argument about whether the culture industry has captured as all has some merit I think- with qualifications).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'So, Call me Maybe': Is all pop culture free of 'content' and what is 'content', anyway?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is often claimed (perhaps fairly in the case of say Rebecca Black's 'Friday'), that pop culture lacks 'content' (Theodor Adorno in particular in <i>The Culture Industry</i>- claims that modern society had invented the concept of a contentless 'free time' and 'leisure' in order to tie entertainment to the culture industry).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first issue with this is<i> that the word 'content' is a loaded one</i>- for instance in what way does Beethoven's 9th Symphony contain more 'content' than say Lady GaGa's 'Alejandro'? One could claim that the 9th Symphony has stood the test of time and that is certainly true (but how can we tell what of modern culture will last? My guess is that it won't be an indie band, though). However, much of what we now think are classics were once 'pop culture' and some classics we might even consider crude and relatively 'content-free' now. I am thinking of many of Chaucer's <i>Canterbury Tales </i>in particular- they are more vulgar than most modern fiction, not to mention that The Prioress' Tale is one of the more anti-Semitic texts in existence. If we take 'content' as requiring 'skill', this is a problematic test as skill is both subjective and that which we now value isn't necessarily the most ornate- it is mostly just what previous generations valued (who says objectively for example that Shakespeare was a more skilful playwright than Marlowe?).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TSNZVN3xNf8/T64z5fAlbrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/IiesOku7qyA/s1600/Glee+(TV+Series).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TSNZVN3xNf8/T64z5fAlbrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/IiesOku7qyA/s320/Glee+(TV+Series).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second issue with this charge is that even if we take a less vague definition of culture- say 'emotional range' or 'thematic range', then <i>pop culture can live up to this test</i>. It is first worth noting that the judgment of the present will make little difference to what is remembered later- the Impressionists were considered vulgar in their day and Ernest Meissonier was considered the height of French art, yet who is remembered now? Conversely, popular culture of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has notable range- from the almost mythological <i>Lord of the Rings </i>to the wizarding world of <i>Harry Potter</i>, from the kitschy pleasures of <i>Glee </i>to the geeky <i>Big Bang Theory</i>, from the haunting satire of <i>American Beauty </i>to the classic romance of <i>Casablanca </i>and from the iconic Elvis to the rather controversially Grammy Award-winning Arcade Fire.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U3ebYUYtmuQ/T640ZrjjBDI/AAAAAAAAAD8/tf6BhcI5flM/s1600/artwork_warhol_elvis_triple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U3ebYUYtmuQ/T640ZrjjBDI/AAAAAAAAAD8/tf6BhcI5flM/s320/artwork_warhol_elvis_triple.jpg" width="231" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The key problem though is that the charge of 'lacking content' really indicates something about those who say it. Most people who reflexively claim to hate anything popular actually look <u style="font-weight: bold;">down</u> upon either the masses as commercial slaves or the masses as cultural proletariat. Disliking anything popular has become the social equivalent of sumptuary laws- one thing for a 'higher' class of connoisseur, another for the rest. I would not claim that certain aspects of popular culture can be without harm- it can be sexist, racist, voyeuristic and deeply glib at times (and I think a lot of it is terrible- but probably much of most media forms is terrible- you have to churn through a lot of any sort of music, literature or art etc. to get to a few gems, look at poetry). But it should not be dismissed out of hand <b>just </b>because it is popular. And these charges are not exactly new- ballads, the pop music of the Middle Ages, were accused by authorities of 'debasing' those who heard them (and indeed they were often deliciously subversive of chivalric or social norms).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But does the commercialisation charge have any weight, then? This brings us to whether culture has been 'cheapened'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'We are Living in a Material World, And I am a Material Girl': Are we the slaves of industry? Has Culture been Cheapened?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Adorno saw all mass culture as creating false needs, of supplanting the 'true needs' of freedom, creativity and genuine happiness. The issue with this theory is that for the longest time, humans have turned to others to produce entertainment for them that merely entertained- from ancient Greek theatre to modern television. Indeed, very little of modern culture is as debauched as the ancient Bacchanalia!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-DIfo5qrU/T64ztAY7cVI/AAAAAAAAADs/MmGQs9v2FAE/s1600/madonna.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-DIfo5qrU/T64ztAY7cVI/AAAAAAAAADs/MmGQs9v2FAE/s1600/madonna.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A more serious inditement might be that the 'culture industry' of which Adorno speaks has taken control of our culture- which carries weight given the influence of News Corp. and all its subsidiaries- Murdoch's tendrils run deep.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, while corporations have certainly used cultural media to make a profit they are not the only source of culture and various sub-cultures and counter-cultures demonstrate that hegemony can be resisted (e.g. gay subcultures, the Beatniks, mods etc.).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Certainly, modern pop culture is displacing many traditional cultures, which is a cause for concern throughout many societies. Further, even in Western societies it may be causing culture to be homogenised, an accumulation of American tastes and values. These are serious concerns- but rarely actually addresses by those who raise them. I have no comprehensive solution to note here, save that there may be a role for governments and other organisations to foster language and other cultural customs especially for indigenous groups- provided those customs do not actually harm the participants (practices which oppress women or minorities should not be encouraged, no matter their importance to anyone's culture).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On cheapness, I would argue that culture is as 'cheap' as it has always been- mostly people look for the same sorts of things from their entertainment- as Sherman Young points out in <i>The Book is Dead: Long Live the Book</i>, the idea that there was ever a vast, educated reading public reading literary classics is a fallacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>'Don't You Step On My Blue Suede Shoes': Some Conclusions</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pop culture can be as terrible as any art form, but it is wrong to hate something just <u>because</u> it is popular. So dislike Lady GaGa if you think she is derivative or dislike sex-positive feminism (I think you're missing out on how fun her music is but whatever), dislike Britney if you think her music doesn't mean anything to you, dislike <i>Game of Thrones </i>if you think it is too violent or bad fantasy, dislike <i>Glee </i>if you think it is poor quality music (again missing its kitschy fun appeal, but again whatever) and dislike <i>Lord of the Rings </i>if you think it is too long-winded. But don't hate anything just because it is mainstream, especially not if you consider the mainstream 'below' you. I certainly know I've been guilty of this in the past, but it is a poor error to make.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now certainly there are some questions that should be considered:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. How much do corporations really control modern culture and is this actually new?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. How much does modern culture alienate minorities, the poor etc.?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Is pop culture any more derivative than other art forms?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But none of these take away from my key point- pop culture is an important part of our society and doesn't deserve to be reflexively looked down upon or ignored by the chattering classes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And who knows, if you're like me up until recently and you'd ignored large swathes of pop culture- maybe you'll actually find a lot of it deliciously fun.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those who are interested, some interesting texts on this subject are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Theodor Adorno's <i>The Culture Industry</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>- </i>Ross King's <i>The Judgment of Paris </i>(on the rise of the Impressionists)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Ken Gelder's <i>Popular Fiction: The Logics and Practice of a Literary Field</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>- </i>Hannah Arendt's <i>The Crisis in Culture</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">---<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</span></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-62027636042820017682012-05-10T17:43:00.002+10:002012-05-26T15:04:10.751+10:00The State of Nature: Socioeconomics of Hunter Gatherers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i>I am as free as nature first made man,<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i>Ere the base laws of servitude began,<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i>When wild in woods the noble savage ran.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
The Conquest of Granada (1670)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
John Dryden (1631 – 1700)
English poet and playwright<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Introduction<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
This is the second part in the
series of comparative analysis of hunter gatherers and agricultural societies
which will be focusing on socioeconomics. <a href="http://reciprocans-reciprocans.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/comparative-analysis-of-hunter-gatherer.html">My other post</a> laid out the empirical nature of the health nutrition of both societies
demonstrating that the diet of hunter gatherers was far more healthy and
diverse than that of agricultural societies. I qualified this by conceding
that, in theory, through modern medicine and preventative health we can offset
the harms of the Western diet to our Palaeolithic genome and this has
translated into higher life expectancy since the Renaissance for Europeans.
This post I will be looking at three areas – cooperation and egalitarianism;
labour and leisure; and peace and conflict – and providing analysis and comparison
between hunter gatherers and agricultural societies. In this post I aim to
address some misconceptions commonly found about hunter gatherer socioeconomics
in an empirical manner without making any serious normative value judgements. Let
us begin with some context to this interesting topic. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XymRvlMdYJ8/T6tx9YH8U7I/AAAAAAAAADQ/iEZOYc6Nyak/s1600/481449a-f1.2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XymRvlMdYJ8/T6tx9YH8U7I/AAAAAAAAADQ/iEZOYc6Nyak/s320/481449a-f1.2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Hadza Bushmen of Tanzania having lunch<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The State of Nature from Leviathan to Stone Age Economics <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Throughout the history of
western philosophy the state of nature has been a central concept for
expounding and justifying various political, social, economic and moral ideals.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) was one of the first to
employ this though experiment in his book <i>Leviathan
</i>(1651) written during the English Civil War (1642–1651). In it he proposed
the necessity for an absolute monarchy and strong central government to
constrain and curb the brutish instincts of humans that are found in the
original position where there is no civil society. According to Hobbes, the
state of nature was marked by <i>bellum
omnium contra omnes </i>(the war of all against all) and that there was:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>No Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no
account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all,
continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed this perspective of the
state of nature by Hobbes has been one of the prominent interpretations for humanity’s
instincts and has been employed by various political philosophers and national
leaders to justify certain policies throughout history. Yet, in 1689, the
English philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704) offered and expounded a
fundamentally different perspective on the state of nature. In <i>Two Treatises of Government</i> Locke argued
for democratic governance in opposition to Hobbesian absolute monarchy and came
to a conclusion about the state of nature: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>The state of nature has a law of nature to
govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all humankind,
who will but consult it, that being all equal and interdependent; no one ought
to harm another in his life, health, and liberty. The natural state is also one
of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has
more than another. It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging
to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same
natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, this interpretation of
the state of nature as being far from the Hobbesian struggle lead to various
characterisations of those living in the state of nature as being “noble
savages”. This concept is commonly associated with the Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712 – 1778), but interestingly the first use of the term appears in
1670 in <i>The Conquest of Granada</i>, a
play by English poet and playwright John Dryden. Certainly, Rousseau took on
board this concept and in his <i>Discourse
on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men</i> (1754) he states: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>I know that civilized men do nothing but boast
incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains. But when I see
barbarous man sacrifice pleasures, repose, wealth, power, and life itself for
the preservation of this sole good which is so disdained by those who have lost
it; when I see animals born free and despising captivity break their heads
against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of entirely naked
savages scorn European voluptuousness.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
When the British explorer
Captain James Cook came across Australia he was of a similar opinion to Rousseau.
In the entry of 23 August 1770 into the Journal of H.M.S. Endeavour, Cook opinionated:
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>The natives of New Holland may appear to
some to be the most wretched people of earth, but in reality they are far happier
than we Europeans, as they are wholly unacquainted with the superfluous conveniences
so much sought after in Europe. They live in a tranquillity which is not disturbed
by the Inequality of Condition: The Earth and sea of their own accord furnishes
them with all things necessary for life, they covet not magnificent houses, household-stuff.
In short they seemed to set no value upon any thing we gave them. This in my
opinion argues that they think themselves provided with all the necessities of life
and that they have no superfluities.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It must be noted that Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau all lacked any empirical evidence to substantiate their
claims of the original position and state of nature of humankind and even Cook
lacked the thorough methodology to make such empirical claims. Indeed, it is
contested to weather Hobbes even proposed his <i>Leviathan </i>as the reality of the state of nature or rather proposed
it as a philosophical though experiment. Either way, with the wax and wane of
colonialism and the decline of racist anthropology, by the 1960s a number of
anthropologists were conducting ethnographic fieldwork in some of the last hunter
gatherer societies in existence. A prominent radical anthropologist was <a href="http://anthropology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty_member/marshall_sahlins">Marshall
Sahlins</a>, now Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the University of
Chicago. In 1974 he wrote <a href="http://www.vizkult.org/propositions/alineinnature/pdfs/Sahlin-OriginalAffluentSociety-abridged.pdf">The
Original Affluent Society</a> in <i>Stone
Age Economics</i> arguing that hunter gatherer societies were actually affluent
insofar as their material expectations closely matched their means to obtain
those expectations and they had limited wants and unlimited means. As stated:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per
capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to
examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter and
gatherers in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To
accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present
human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants
and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
This concept of the <i>Original Affluent Society</i> seriously
challenged the orthodoxy of the time of Hobbes in political and social
philosophy and of <i>Homo economicus</i> in
classical economic theory. It is with this context that I shall begin my
analysis of the empirical evidence from the archaeological and ethnographic
records of hunter gatherer societies – the state of nature. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Cooperation and Egalitarianism: Equity, Gift Economy and Challenges to <i>Homo economicus</i><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Inequality is not an intrinsic
or natural feature of human societies – the social, political and economic
organisation of hunter gatherers, from the Hadza to the Inuit, inevitably tends
to be that of egalitarianism. This fact comes down to a number of factors
spurring it on: ecological constraints necessitating equity for the group, the
natural selection of cooperative and prosocial behaviours, but also through
cultural constructs and social networks to maintain, facilitate and enforce
equality. Cooperation is fundamental in these hunter gatherer societies, and as
a David Attenborough <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNeNTMmltyc">documentary
shows</a>, it is possible through cooperation that 3 Dorobo hunters of Kenya can
scare off 15 hungry lions from a recently deceased game and go home with free
meat to feed the tribe. Indeed James Woodburn, Emeritus Professor of
Anthropology at the London School of Economics, states that hunter gatherers
are “aggressively egalitarian” because this egalitarianism is a necessity for
their survival. Some of the most profound examples of <a href="http://www.chem.arizona.edu/courseweb/081/CHEM4361/reading_pdfs/professor/altruistic_punishment.pdf">altruistic
punishment of freeriders</a> occur in these hunter gatherer societies, and some
of the most profound examples of how <a href="http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/egalitarian_motive_and_altruistic_punishment.pdf">cooperative
and prosocial behaviours are incentivised</a> are found in hunter gatherers
societies. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/nature10736.html">Recent
ethnographic research and statistical modelling</a> – published in Nature by a
team of anthropologists and statisticians from Harvard University, University
of California at San Diego and University of Cambridge – has uncovered the <a href="http://christakis.med.harvard.edu/pdf/publications/articles/127_ed.pdf">networks
of cooperation</a> of the Hadza in Tanzania and how cooperators cluster
together in order to outcompete freeriders and egotists and how these networks
are found in modern social interactions (<a href="http://www.corenapicella.com/">Coren
L. Apicella</a> of Harvard University explains it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It-pHyDrkTM">here</a>). Hunter gatherers
are profoundly the antithesis to <i>Homo economicus
</i>– their <a href="http://goodmachine.org/PDF/mauss_gift.pdf">society is
based on the gift economy</a> where there is complete communal sharing of
resources and selfishness is fundamentally taboo and dominators are abhorred. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The market economy is a myth
when it comes to the subsistence gift economies of hunter gatherers, as <a href="http://homepages.rpi.edu/~gowdyj/index.html">John M. Gowdy</a>, Professor
of Economics and Social Sciences at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, shows
in the <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1157119/?site_locale=en_GB">Cambridge
Encyclopaedia of Hunters and Gatherers</a>. Among the Hadza people of Tanzania there
are elaborate rules to ensure that all meat from a hunting expedition is
equally shared. Hoarding, or even having a greater share than others, is
socially unacceptable and egotists are punished. Apart from personal items,
such as tools, weapons, or jewellery, there are sanctions against accumulating
possessions, not least because the nomadism of hunter gatherers makes possessions
a nuisance. Gowdy proposes that the study of the state of nature, that of our
first way of life as hunter gatherers, offers fundamental challenges to the economic
orthodoxy of the neoclassical and neoliberal philosophy of <i>Homo economicus</i>: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>The economic notion of scarcity is a social
construct, not an inherent property of human existence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>The separation of work from social life is not a
necessary characteristic of economic production.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>The linking of individual wellbeing to
individual production is not a necessary characteristic of economic
organization.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>Selfishness and acquisitiveness are aspects of
human nature, but not necessarily the dominant ones.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>Inequality based on class and gender is not a
necessary characteristic of human society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There has been extensive
ethnographic research on the socioeconomic structures of hunter gatherers around
the world and the majority of evidence suggests that there are indeed profound
egalitarian. In <a href="http://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf">Egalitarian
Societies</a>, published by the Royal Anthropological Institute, Woodburn lays
out the social and economic organisation and structures of hunter gatherer
societies that are egalitarian. These societies (such as the Mbuti of the
Congo, the !Kung of the Kalahari, the Hadza of Tanzania, the Batek of Malaysia,
the Paliyan of South India, the Awá-Guajá of Brazil, the Aeta of the Philippines,
and Mardu of western Australia) display profound social, economic and gender
parities which are maintained by cultural constructs to enforce and coerce
egalitarianism and social networks of clustering cooperative and prosocial
behaviours. Woodburn establishes four key characteristics of such immediate
return societies that are conducive for egalitarianism:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>Social groupings are flexible and constantly
changing in composition. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>Individuals have a choice of whom they associate
with in residence, in the hunting and gathering food quest, in trade and
exchange, and in ritual contexts. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>People are not dependent on specific other
people for access to basic requirements.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">- </span>Relationships between people, whether
relationships of kinship or other social exchanges, stress sharing and
mutuality not involving long-term binding commitments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The equality found in these hunter
gatherer societies is achieved through direct individual access to resources;
through direct individual access to means coercion and means of mobility which
limit the imposition of control; through procedures which prevent accumulation
and impose sharing; through mechanisms which allow goods to circulate without
making people dependent upon one another. With these value systems of
non-competition, egalitarian hunter-gatherers limits the development of social
stratification and in principle extend equality to all. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Ethnographic research on the Mardu
people in Western Australia by <a href="http://www.uwa.edu.au/people/robert.tonkinson">Robert Tonkinson</a>, Emeritus
Professor of Anthropology at the University of Western Australia and author of <a href="http://www.ausanthrop.net/resources/reviews.php?id=13">The Mardu
Aborigines: Living the Dream in Australia’s Desert</a><span class="MsoHyperlink">,
</span>shows similar structures and characteristics. The potential for
inequality in Mardu society is submerged due to the considerable weight of an
ethos and praxis of mutual aid and a notable stress on individual autonomy. Relationships
that are structurally asymmetrical, as is the case between most adjacent
generational members, have both parties appealing to the same imperative,
namely of nurturance, reciprocity, and to assert equality of responsibility. The
ecological constraints, such as unreliability of rainfall, are fundamental for
such social and economic organisation. The dominant cultural logic – which
favours permeable boundaries, a decidedly regional world view, and strong
stress on interdependence rather than competition – is thus underlain by an
ecological imperative. Whilst individual autonomy is stressed, egotism by
individuals is not tolerated. Selfishness and egotism are considered <i>Gurndabarni</i>, or shameless, and the group
will outcast individuals that abuse the ethos of mutual aid. Much time is spent
together, in family groups and as parts of multifamily bands whose members camp
in close proximity to one another. In these domestic situations, there is not
gender dominance of the males over the females due to the norms of kinship that
significantly constrain behaviour after being enculured from a young age. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The distain for arrogance is
also observed with the !Kung. !Kung groups are typified by strong and continual
socialisation and enculturation processes against hoarding and against displays
of arrogance and authority. The proper behaviour of a !Kung hunter who has made
a big kill is to speak of it in passing and in a deprecating manner; if an
individual does not minimise or speak lightly of his own accomplishments, his
friends and relatives will not hesitate to do it for him. As <a href="http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/fac_anthropology.html#lee">Richard B.
Lee</a>, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology of University of Toronto, stated in
<a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Kung_San.html?id=9085AAAAIAAJ">The
!Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society</a> (1979):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>None is arrogant, overbearing, boastful, or
aloof. In !Kung terms these traits
absolutely disqualify a person as a leader and may engender
even stronger forms of ostracism.
Another trait emphatically not found among traditional camp leaders is a desire
for wealth or acquisitiveness. Whatever their personal influence over groups
decisions, they never translate this into more wealth or more leisure time than
group members have. Their accumulation of material goods is never more, and is
often much less, than the average accumulation of the other households in the
camp.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Comparatively, every single
agricultural society throughout history until modernity, from Ancient China to
Tsarist Russia, have been totalitarian, fascist or authoritarian and based on
profound social stratification and hierarchies of power. Private property,
competitive trade, asymmetrical access to resources, and formalised rules led
to the formation of classes. The philosophies of nationalism in ancient
civilisations (or namely its abuse by leaders and the upper classes) and
individualism in modern nation states completely disregarded the common good
and egalitarianism became impossible. The development of agricultural societies
placed new barriers between individuals and flexible access to resources,
because trade often siphoned resources away, because some segments of the
society increasingly had only indirect access to food, because investments in
new technology to improve production focused power in the hands of elites so
that their benefits were not widely shared, and perhaps because of the outright
exploitation and deprivation of some segments of society. The clear class
stratification of health in early and modern civilizations, and the general
failure of either early or modern civilizations to promote clear improvements
in health, nutrition, or economic homeostasis for large segments of their
populations until the very recent past all reinforce competitive and
exploitative models of the origins and function of civilized states.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Labour and Leisure: Hunter Gatherers as the Original Affluent Society<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There has been an immensity of
ethnographic research showing that the average weekly working time for a hunter
gatherer is far less than their horticultural, pastoral, agricultural and early
industrial counterparts. Indeed this may seem counterintuitive for a hunter and
gatherer to have an easily life in terms of labour and leisure, but there is
substantial energy expenditure involved in non-hunter gatherer economies. The
seasonal nature of harvesting, the susceptibility to pests and plagues, the
grounds for epidemics, and the incentive for conflict over land all contribute
to offsetting the benefits of surplus and the division of labour that
agriculture yields. Whilst hunter gatherers are subject to episodic patterns of
starvation due to natural disasters and limited ability to store food, <a href="http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17339/1/MPRA_paper_17339.pdf">these costs
are offset</a> by their nomadic mobility to search for new food sources and
natural resources. The BBC documentarian Bruce Parry found out this leisurely
existence <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pro6X_Kc5wA#t=1m46s">when he
lived with Babongo</a> people of Gabon. Indeed, the Hadza are ingenious
survival experts when it comes to their harsh environmental conditions and yet
they still manage to live an affluent life when all their material wants easily
met. A BBC documentary by Ray Mears
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOlhs45-J9A">shows the rather straightforward
life</a> they Hadza people have. The !Kung people are another profound example
of the effectiveness and ease of hunting and gathering. As Yehudi Cohen, Emeritus
Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, points out in <i>Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present and
the Biosocial Background</i> (1974):</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>In all, the adults of the camp worked about
two and a half days a week. Since the average working day was about six hours
long, the fact emerges that !Kung Bushmen, despite their harsh environment, merely
devote from twelve to nineteen hours a week to getting food. Even the hardest
working individual in the camp, a man named Oma, spent a maximum of 32 hours a
week in the food quest.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Conversely, the agricultural
process is a long and labour intensive one: the land must be cleared and the
crops must be planted, irrigated, tended to, protected from pests, harvested
and transported, processed and stored and then prepared for consumption.
Animals as cattle must be domesticated and reared, grazing grounds must be
cleared, cattle must be tended to and protected, herds must be culled, sheep to
be sheared, cows to be milked or butchered, and waste must be disposed of. The
amount of work per capita increases and the amount of leisure decreases with
the development of agriculture where inversely a subsistence labour intensity
is characteristically intermittent, a day on and a day off. Thus agriculture is immensely labour
intensive and agricultural land has diminishing marginal returns due to soil
depletion, water erosion and other environmental weathering processes. As Mark
Nathan, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New
York, notes in <i>Health and the Rise of
Civilization</i> (1999 Yale University Press): <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>The strategies that sedentary and civilized
populations use to reduce or eliminate food crises generate costs and risks as
well as benefits. These advantages may be outweighed by the greater
vulnerability that crops often display toward climatic fluctuations or other
natural hazards, a vulnerability that is then exacerbated by the specialised
nature or narrow focus of many agricultural systems. The advantages are also
offset by the loss of mobility that results from agriculture, the limits and
failures of various storage systems and the vulnerability of sedentary
communities to epidemic disease, raiding and sacking, and political
expropriation of stored resources.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Peace and Conflict: <i>Mengalah</i>
and <i>Naklik</i> or <i>Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes</i><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There are many perceptions of
violent intertribal warfare and brutish conflicts plaguing hunter gatherer
societies. Indeed, some hunter gatherer societies have been and are ones of
warriors (such as the Surma people of Ethiopia and their stick fighting, and
various Native American tribes), but the misperceptions stem from the
misunderstanding of what hunter gatherers are, what constitutes conflict and
violence, but also an inability to reflect on the history of violence in
agricultural societies. Douglas P. Fry, a Professor of Anthropology at Abo
Akademi University in Finland and the University of Arizona in America, has
done extensive research in cultural variations of conflict resolution and the
nature of peace and violence in societies around the world. His <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Anthropology/SocialCultural/?view=usa&ci=9780195181784">The
Human Potential for Peace: An
Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence</a> (2006
Oxford University Press) challenges the flawed perceptions of the innateness
and inevitability of violence and warfare in our species and provides an
overview of the existence of peaceful societies throughout history. Fry argues
that the inevitability of conflict is real for all societies but that this does
not at all translate into violence and warfare, and that hunter gatherers have
some of the best examples of conflict resolution systems and norms of peace. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The Semai people, of the Orang
Asli hunter gatherers in the centre of the Malay Peninsula, are a profound
example of this. Their way of life is marked by the archetypal gift economy and
the dichotomy between public and private is non-existent. The Semai proverb “<i>there are more reasons to fear a dispute
than a tiger</i>” is the basis for their social interactions and all conflicts
and disputes are resolved through <i>Becharaa</i>,
a public assembly whereby justice is distributed through communal consensus.
The philosophy of <i>Mengalah</i>, or to
yield, is the norm with the Semai and, through the process of enculturation,
children are taught these principles of peace, cooperation and the preservation
of harmony. Overall, <i>Mengalah</i> manages
to manifest in Semai society as the complete absence of noncompetitive
children’ games, the essential absence of murder and rape, and the
characterisation of social interactions through mutual benefit. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Another hunter gatherer
society where violence is rare is with the Inuit. <a href="http://www.mun.ca/anthro/faculty_staff/briggs.php">Jean L. Briggs</a>,
Emerita Professor of Anthropology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, has
conducted an immensity of ethnographic surveys on the Inuit of the central
Canadian Arctic. In <a href="http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/Archtext/Briggs94.pdf">The Dynamics of Peace
in Canadian Inuit Groups</a> in <i>The Anthropology
of Peace and Nonviolence</i>, Briggs examines the emotional, educational and
developmental processes of Inuit children in a society of contradictory
beliefs. Whilst a hunting and fishing people, values of nonviolence are equally
essentially in maintaining Inuit society. Briggs observed an essential lack of
interpersonal aggression, from pushing and shoving to even shouting. Children
are taught to internalise cooperative values, abhor interpersonal conflict, to
associate danger (environmental risks) with aggression (animal or personal
hostility), and to realise the possibility of revenge. Moreover, potentially
hostile requests are pacified through non-threatening jokes, the proposals of
commitments are frowned upon, conflicts are expressed through subtle hints and
people counterbalance escalated disputes with emphasised nurturance. The philosophy
of <i>Naklik</i> underscores Inuit social
interactions entailing the warm concern for the welfare of others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It can be seen that the
majority of peaceful societies through history and around the world of been
hunter gatherers. The <a href="http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/Society/intro.html">Encyclopaedia of
Peaceful Societies</a> collated by a team of anthropologists from the United
States provides a systematic overview of the existence and nature of peaceful
societies through history and around the world. Identified are twenty five
peaceful societies where war and violence are essentially absent and twenty of
these societies are indeed hunter gatherer societies. This comes down to the
socioeconomic organisation of these societies as well as the cultural norms
that are taught to children and enforced through various measures.
Comparatively, agriculture fundamentally incentives and leads to warfare. With
the first cities thanks to agriculture came the first standing professional
militaries to protect land and trade routes and to expand land due to
population growth, along with an immensity of other social and economic issues.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y4C8UiW4eyE/T6tyFzw45QI/AAAAAAAAADY/WhxLSpAPW0I/s1600/organisation+structure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y4C8UiW4eyE/T6tyFzw45QI/AAAAAAAAADY/WhxLSpAPW0I/s320/organisation+structure.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>The Agricultural Path to Warfare <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Every agricultural society
from the ancient civilisations to the modern nation states have been to war on
large scales – from the Peloponnesian War to the Saxon Wars, from the Crusade
to the Mongol conquests, from the Thirty Years War to the American Independence
War, from the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War, and from the First World War
to the immensity of civil and ethnic conflicts in Africa and Asia. Overall, far
from being the Hobbesian <i>Bellum Omnium
Contra Omnes</i>, many hunter gatherer societies are far more likely to be
peaceful and some display profound norms of this, such as Semai <i>Mengalah </i>and Inuit <i>Naklik</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b>Conclusion <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the state of nature is
not as brutish or as poor as Hobbes proposed in 1651. Indeed, whilst living as
a nomadic foraging might not be everyone’s cup of tea, it does indeed seem that
is one of less work, less violence and more social and economic equality – not that
these traits are normatively good or bad. Empirically, the average person in a
hunter gatherer society would have more access to food, have to work less and
have more leisure time and be subject to less violence than the average person
in an agricultural society throughout history. Hunting and gathering has all
the strengths of its weaknesses. Periodic movement and restraint in wealth and
adaptations, the kinds of necessities of the economic practice and creative
adaptations the kinds of necessities of which virtues are made. Precisely in
such a framework, affluence becomes possible. Mobility and moderation put hunters
and gatherers ends within range of their technical means. An undeveloped mode
of production is thus rendered highly effective. The hunter gatherers life is
not as difficult as it looks from the outside. Indeed the higher level of
inequality agriculture permits allows some people to be completely better-off
than any hunter-gatherer, but average living standards plummet even as pure
quantity of people alive goes way up, as per Derek Parfit’s <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/">repugnant
conclusion</a> along the lines of the Malthusian growth model. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Even if the Hobbesian Leviathan
was accurate in being the life in the state of nature is brutish and poor, what
does that make the life in the state of agricultural based societies? The
archaeological and palaeopathological evidence shows that life expectancy in
the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Middle Ages, and Early Modern period right
up until the Renaissance and scientific revolution was far less than that of
hunter gatherers. Indeed, the Swedish life expectancy
in 1750 was on par with hunter gatherers around the world.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b5Ak0eB-9R8/T6tyMM4M6lI/AAAAAAAAADg/1XbSsF3UcQc/s1600/sweden+hunter+gatherer+comparison.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b5Ak0eB-9R8/T6tyMM4M6lI/AAAAAAAAADg/1XbSsF3UcQc/s320/sweden+hunter+gatherer+comparison.png" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i>The Swedish Life Expectancy of the 1750s and
Hunter Gatherer Life Expectancy<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Life in agricultural societies,
from the Neolithic to early modern history (and still for developing nations) was
a plagued, unfair, chronic, violent, and politically exploited existence. It
has only been with the scientific revolution and the spread of liberalism and
civil rights have agricultural based societies been able to match the health
and socioeconomic benefits of hunter gatherers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 281.3pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The only reason agriculture
has become dominant through history is because of the massive capacity for reproduction
of the human species it allows. Natural selection does not care about the
social, economic or indeed medical realities an organism exists in – all it
cares about is replicating and thanks to agricultural surplus this can take
place. Population density dramatically and exponentially grew with the
invention of agriculture during the Neolithic transition, and yet was marked by
lower life expectancy than those living in the Palaeolithic hunter gatherer
subsistence. Agriculture does indeed have benefits, but these <a href="http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/2861/1/gunwpe0057.pdf">benefits are largely short term</a>. Even if you reject the normative position taken by Jared Diamond
in describing agriculture as the worst invention in human history, his analysis in <i>Guns, Germs and Steel </i>as to how agricultural societies dominant others is still completely valid. But
just because agricultural societies have been the dominant and yielding the
largest populations, it does not necessarily make them the best empirically to
live in. Natural selection does not care about subjective wellbeing or the
socioeconomic conditions an organism lives in and agricultural societies,
whilst producing massive inequalities and health hazards, enabled the human
species to exponentially grow. Indeed hunter gatherers would have all taken the
step to agriculture if their environmental conditions allowed.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Tasman Bain is a second year
Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International
Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He is interested
evolutionary anthropology, public economics and philosophy of science and enjoys
endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing the glockenspiel.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-20971506271556078572012-05-07T18:16:00.000+10:002012-05-12T14:37:56.235+10:00Memory and Feasibility: Why Ethnic Conflicts Happen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3uPAA5ZIRgM/T6eDOK1lt0I/AAAAAAAAAC8/v-6-1SZMhzw/s1600/darfur.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3uPAA5ZIRgM/T6eDOK1lt0I/AAAAAAAAAC8/v-6-1SZMhzw/s320/darfur.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Janjaweed Militiamen </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ethnic rivalries have spawned some of
the most vicious conflicts of our time- the Wars of Yugoslav Succession, the
Rwandan Genocide and the Second Congo War (the most deadly conflict since the
end of World War II) being some of the deadliest. There have been many theories
on why they happen from Robert Kaplan's idea of 'ancient hatreds' to
instrumentalist accounts of ethnic groups vying for power. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Recently, there has been an increasing
recognition that both ethnic identity and nationalism are reasonably modern and
very malleable. As such research into ethnic conflict has proceeded along two
lines: an 'identity' stream associated with sociological ideas such as memory,
the construction of identity/barriers to identity etc. and a 'feasibility'
stream associated with conflict studies which looks at whether parties have the
resources to commit to such conflicts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to unpack some key ideas from
both lines of study, before drawing some very tentative conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>'Every
Foetus is a Croat': Ethno-national Identities as a Source of Conflict</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I use ethnicity here to mean any group
of people who identify with each other as having a common heritage, with
barriers to group entry meaning anyone cannot just declare themselves a member
of that group (heritages are often deeply fictitious but often involve shared
myths, language, customs etc.). In ethnic conflict, the key aim of the actors
who are driving for ethnic conflict (e.g. Milosevic, Tudjman etc) is to both
legitimate their own violent actions and delegitimise ethnic 'others'. In
constructing a frame of mind for collective action I theorise that there are
three components (after Gamson): injustice, identity and agency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Injustice</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Injustice is constructed by reframing
collective memory to make past events into reasons to hate the 'others', either
by playing up differences or blaming events on others (e.g. Milosevic blaming
bad financial circumstances on Bosnians and bringing back images of World
War II Croatian-aligned fascists etc). This triggers what cognitive
psychologists call “hot cognition” where language or symbols trigger an
emotional response via a series of associations. I would like to note I do not
mean 'collective memory' in the sense used by Carl Jung to refer to a
collective unconscious- what I mean here is the social framework through which
ethnically conscious individuals can organise their identity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6truEDCqLvk/T6eDyuDA-tI/AAAAAAAAADE/Td9WxZ8U8xg/s1600/_41430068_milosevic98_416.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6truEDCqLvk/T6eDyuDA-tI/AAAAAAAAADE/Td9WxZ8U8xg/s320/_41430068_milosevic98_416.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Milosevic Addressing the National Assembly</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As
previously noted in a post about the <a href="http://reciprocans-reciprocans.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-trade-in-ideas-free-interrogating.html">Marketplace for Ideas</a>, Price in his
‘Market for Loyalties’ propounded the strategy of attempting to monopolise the
construction of collective memory by dominating media discourses, where a
government may use “regulation of communications to organise a cartel of
imagery”. It has often been a strategy of national governments in particular
(but also other groups e.g. the Interahamwe in Rwanda) to monopolise the media
in order to induce a sort of 'war psychosis' whereby a group will feel they are
surrounded by enemies who are trying to wipe them out. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Identity</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Actors may also seek to emphasise
ethnic difference, for example by forms of 'state chauvinism', including
enshrining a national religion or language, or as suggested by this section's
title, banning abortion to create more "fighting Croats". Often,
previous economic differences are emphasised e.g. between the Tutsis and Hutus
in Rwanda. For example, the Croatian government actively tried
to turn Croatians on their neighbours, especially in areas outside of the
Croatian republic proper, which had historically been harmonious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Agency</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Stressing agency is also a vital
factor. Governments or rebel groups often imply a sense of being able to
solve the ‘problem’ as a group and deny the “immutability of some undesirable
situation” (Gamson). They seek to construct the
collective memory to express the embodiment of individual agency only through
the collective of the nation. Appeals to collective solidarity are particularly
common, for example Serb People’s Council calls on the Serb people to resist the
terror of the Ustashoid government” and “Protecting Serbs from the vampirical
Ustashe” (Ustashe being the Croatian World War II Nazi-aligned government).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In all, ethnic difference is clearly an important factor and is
often constructed around injustice, identity and agency. Interestingly, in a 2009 study by Collier it was found that ethnic polarisation was the <i>only </i>socio-political variable found to be a predictor of civil conflicts of any kind.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>'A Spiral of Silence': Feasibility and Conflict</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> However, this isn't a complete explanation for why ethnic conflict goes on- it does little to discuss what the incentives of certain groups to actually declare war might be. So, I am going to borrow from a broader series of studies on civil conflict to discuss how feasibility, that is having the resources to actually fight a war is important to understanding even ethnic conflicts. </span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In Collier's study five feasibility factors are particularly important to triggering conflict: terrain, foreign support and an abundance of young males and resources. </span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Terrain</span></i></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Terrain tends to be more relevant when the conflict is between a civil insurgency and the government who are both ethnically different (e.g. Kurds v Turkish government) rather than the government or some other group slaughtering innocent civilians. In those cases, mountains and forests are relatively good predictors of all kinds of civil conflict as they make guerilla warfare significantly easier. </span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Foreign Support</span></i></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Foreign support comes in all different sources- sometimes ethnic actors are backed by foreign governments for ideological or realpolitik reasons, diasporas are a key to funding many ethnic military groups or armies (particularly the Jewish and until recently Tamil diasporas) and other organisations (often religious). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is particularly important in terms of conflict-specific capital e.g. weapons stocks to fight the war and keep military forces equipped.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Young Males</span></i></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Particularly in impoverished countries, young men are often either the main source of productive labour or the main source of soldiers. Hence, when returns to labour are low, this increases their drive to be soldiers in a conflict (this is also a partial explanation for the relationship between economic conditions and the incidence of ethnic conflict).</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Poverty and inequality both induce disadvantaged young males to fight against those they see as 'oppressors'. Further, there are many opportunists who seek financial rewards in such conflicts- one side or another may be the only way of providing for a family- particularly if the conflict itself is making other economic activity too risky.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Overwhelming support also leads to what the title of this section refers to, which is the idea that a strong ability to enforce an opinion may
suppress a minority viewpoint or one held by a weaker group because any
individuals in that group or minority will not speak out. This was particularly used by ETA to convince wavering Basques to support their cause.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Resource Curse Redux</span></i></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Resources cause all kinds of curses, but in this case there are two particularly important ones: military financing and increased motive. Resources obviously provide a way of getting military capital- particularly if countries are able to trade petroleum for guns and other hardware, often in violation of sanctions. It also changes the motives of ethnic insurgents in particular- if an ethnic group can control the country it now has more to gain economically.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Thus, feasibility is an important component to any conflict, even ethnic ones.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some Tentative Conclusions</span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ethnic conflict is obviously a very complex issue- it goes beyond any 'ancient hatreds' Kaplan chooses to dream up and is rooted in issues of history, identity and feasibility of conflict. In particular, I have examined how groups construct ethnic (and often ethno-national) differences to legitimise conflict and how feasibility plays an important role in sparking and enabling conflict.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">How do we go forward? Other nations should be careful in how they deal with ethnic conflict. For example, in the Yugoslav case it was almost certainly a mistake to give the nations a right to self-determination as this led to the collapse of a previously multi-ethnic state into warring ethnic factions- more work should have been done to keep a post-Communist Yugoslavia together. Preventative diplomacy may help in some cases, but it is my personal belief that military intervention may often be necessary where practical (justified under either R2P if you so choose or UNSC sanction). Enforcing sanctions is vital, particularly on military equipment (though this is difficult if the supplier is the PRC or Russia). In some cases, states may want to fund or support pro-democracy movements (though this comes with its own problems- are they tainted by Western funding?). More generally, Western nations in particular need to be more proactive at dealing with conflict and not sitting back and watch it pan out and either intervening at the last minute or not at all.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">---<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dan Gibbons is a third year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</span></div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-17872012319375552542012-05-05T20:15:00.001+10:002012-05-12T14:38:20.192+10:00If You've Got It, Flaunt It: The Rise and Rise of Consumerism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HtKAK-1GXu0/T6T-OWDC4PI/AAAAAAAAACw/fBoo-SAgocg/s1600/consumerism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="86" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HtKAK-1GXu0/T6T-OWDC4PI/AAAAAAAAACw/fBoo-SAgocg/s320/consumerism.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>What is consumerism?</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I take consumerism to mean
the 'expression of the apparently ubiquitous act of consumption' (Miles), which
particularly occurs in capitalist economies. Consumerism has become
the dominant mode of identity in modern ‘globalised’ culture-- from the
mods of 1960s England to the cosplayers of modern Japan, “without consumer
goods, acts of self-definition in this culture would be impossible”
(McCracken). Understanding why it is so successful is vital in a world where
final consumption accounts for 61% of world economic activity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I should note that this
piece assumes no negative or positive outcomes from consumerism- there have
been a mixture of both (envrionmentalism vs. new identities and empowerment)
but seeks rather to explain <i>why </i>it
has been so successful. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>What are the current approaches?</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There are three primary
explanations so far proffered: those of cultural anthropology, social
anthropology and neoclassical economics. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Cultural anthropologists
have proposed that consumerism is an outgrowth of a 'consumer society', that is
products confer a 'moral' authority to those who have them because proper
use of objects indicates that a person knows how the world works. Cultural explanations
often err in assuming that culture is a static object rather than a field of
connections, which often means they are of limited use by themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Social anthropologists have
proposed that consumerism is largely used as a way of purchasing recognition in
particular groups (students, hipsters, mods etc) and part of the acts of mutual
recognition and association. The problem with this approach is that it neglects
how social attitudes are actually formed and makes Durkheim's mistake in
assuming that groups agree on a 'totality' of beliefs and practices. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Neoclassical economists
have proposed that rational actors will always act as if 'more is better' and
in essence that consumerism is just a particular manifestation of this desire.
The first flaw is that this may not apply culturally, for instance certain
societies such as the Tzeltal directly limit wealth by making wealthy
individuals have expensive feasts for the whole village and even in our own
society there are social and cultural limits on excessive consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>A Memetic Explanation: What is a Meme? Why is Consumerism a
Meme? </b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Memes are a concept of
Richard Dawkins' that are best defined as “elements of a culture … passed from
one individual to another by imitation” (Blackmore). Memes are selected
for or against, because of the nature of humans as imitators or the memes
themselves and their groupings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I argue that consumerism is
a meme because it succeeds by spreading through people imitating others'
choices, either because of what they see in advertising, their peer group,
observing others etc. The consumerist meme has flourished because
companies shaping culture and promoting social reinforcement now define
economic value and this system of value is propagated by the production of consumer
goods and a pervasive system of market exchange. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I will explain consumerism
along three axes: consumption, production and exchange.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-US">‘I do love new clothes’: Consumption
Patterns and the Modern Corporation</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">The
meme of consumerism has sought to manipulate the environment in which it exists
culturally to make it more favourable to itself by changing attitudes to wealth
and consumption.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">The
value of wealth accumulation has changed from the medieval view of public
virtue arising from private virtue to the economic idea that public virtue can
arise from private vice</span>. In the 20th century in
particular there has also been a popularisation of modern hedonism,
characterised by the creation of cultural value in the self-conscious seeking
of personal pleasure. These concepts have spread widely to the point where
self-interest is taken for granted in most of modern Western society and
through global media, much of the world. Daniel Miller, for example has
documented how contact with the West has made this idea spread to Trinidad,
where independence signaled the potential for new wealth and thus new
possibilities, which an oil boom helped perpetuated. The existence of a
normative type of wealth accumulation, centered around elaborate ornamentation
is evidence of a changed material culture. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Companies
have also sought to associate “sign values” with consumer goods through
“commodity aesthetics” in which people ascribe value solely on the basis of
design or promotion</span>. This is an outgrowth of
what Marx called “commodity fetishism” or the mystification of human
relations resulting from market trade. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Further,
the idea of fashionability where “to be and not to be in fashion are nowdays
important components of choice” (Ilmonen), allows for a strict dichotomy between
those who consume what the group consumes and those who break the bonds of
commonality. This relates to what Jonathan Friedman calls “<i>homo consumens</i>, whose fragmented identity is constantly rearranged
by the winds of fashion”</span>, which he explains by examining
how Swedish culture has come to privilege the modern.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But this does not explain
how consumer products are effective meme vehicles, so we move to production.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-US">'Work must not Cease’: Consumer Goods as
effective Meme Vehicles</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Any
meme needs to be transmitted and its vehicle thus needs to have three
characteristics: high copying-fidelity or the ability to be copied accurately,
high fecundity or the ability to make many copies and a level of longevity
adapted to its environment (Blackmore 58). </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">High
copying-fidelity is ensured by industrialised production technologies, which
can produce millions of copies of the same good. This form of production also
relies on disembedding production from social relations, for example the Kubo
system where they own the means to complete production but do not own products
because consumption is immediate could not sustain consumerism alone</span>. Without the disembedding, fidelity is impossible because goods
have different sign-values due to their relations to a specific person’s
labour. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">High fecundity is perhaps
the chief feature of the production of consumer goods, which often leads to
overproduction when more supply is produced than consumers demand.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">The
longevity of consumer goods can be selected for the producer’s benefit due to
planned obsolescence or the building in of faults so products can only be kept
for a certain period.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But this does not explain
how consumer products are sold successfully, so we move to exchange.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-US">‘The
Invisible Hand’: Consumerism and Market Exchange</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Market exchange is predicated on the idea
that commodities have value because of the relationship between things,
especially in terms of the translation into a monetary value. Trade is
predicated on the substitutability of unlike goods and each participant having
a different scale of values in order to produce mutually beneficial trades. For
consumerism to work, markets have to be efficient at allowing a relatively free
flow of goods. To do this, markets have to be embedded and naturalised within
society, because</span> as Polanyi observes,
‘free markets’ are instituted processes that must be articulated through
social, legal and political strategies. Markets also act as a distribution
network for consumer goods and help to coordinate economic action.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">This
system of exchange is predicated on social acceptance, which is why Western
development projects often include help setting up market economies, as a
‘charitable’ venture. Therefore, when confidence is lost in markets they cease
to function and consumerism should also fail. This occurred amongst the Nentsy
people of Northern Siberia when the bank accounts the Soviets had given them
became valueless due to the depreciation in the value of the ruble in the early
1990s. As predicted, the herders switched from buying consumer goods off the
Russians back to solely reindeer herding. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b>Conclusion</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Companies have manipulated
cultural and social capital to propagate the meme of consumerism through
changing the worth of wealth accumulation and the nature of identity itself.
The consumerist meme is able to spread because it has an effective vehicle in
the consumer good and associated production processes and an effective
distribution network in the form of the ‘free’ market. The memetic approach
builds on all three of the current approaches within a coherent theoretical
framework. It shows that the success of consumerism should not be taken for
granted-- it has been a product of complex social, political and cultural
processes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
---<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Dan Gibbons is a third year
Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has
a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology
(about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise
of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and
the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public
speaker.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-32187962574793039832012-04-30T06:32:00.002+10:002012-05-12T14:38:43.198+10:00Happiness: From Epicurus to Economics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<i>He who is not satisfied with a little is satisfied with nothing.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
Epicurus, Greek philosopher
(341 BC – 270 BC)<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<i>Pursuit of individual self-interest is not necessarily a good formula for personal happiness.</i><br />
Richard Layard, British economist (1934 AD - present)<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b>Introduction<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
We live, to say the least, in
an age of stark contradictions. Whilst the world enjoys the wonders of
technology, over one billion people live in hunger each day. The world economy has
developed new heights of productivity, yet the natural environment is degraded
in the process. National income levels have risen yet so have social harms and
health hazards from obesity, declining literacy and numeracy standards, teenage
pregnancies, substance abuse and addiction, suicide, anorexia, diabetes, cardiovascular
diseases, cancer, depression and other ills. Indeed, many of the developed
nations with the highest levels of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), such as the
United States, have achieved striking economic and technological progress over
the past half century without gains in the self-reported happiness and social wellbeing
of their citizenries but with widening socioeconomic inequalities, declining
levels of trust and apathy to government. Economists and policymakers, both
from the left and the right, have placed priority in utilising GDP as a means
to measure social progress and yet rates of life satisfaction and subjective
happiness have stagnated or even decreased since the 1950s according to a number of data, including from Gallup World Poll and the World Values Survey. This article will look at why measures of happiness
should be prioritised as a policy and index by governments around the world for
achieving and measuring social progress.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>From Epicurus to Easterlin <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Ever since the invention of
agriculture which bequeathed opportunities for private property, wealth generation
and fiscal improvement, humans have studied that causal relationship between
financial income and personal happiness. Indeed the Greek philosopher of Epicurus
stated that pleasure is the greatest good and that pain is the greatest evil
and combined a theoretical hedonism with a practical asceticism. He stressed frugal
life of pleasure, as the mere absence of pain is the greatest good, through
achieving three fundamental tenets of friendship and love, self-analysis, and
self-sufficiency being the key to the gate into wellbeing. He suggested that wealth
is important for attaining various rudimentary needs, such as water and food
and basic wants, but wealth for its own sake or wealth past the requirements to
afford comfort is unnecessary. Rather we should focus on our friends and relationships,
on self-reflection and philosophy, and on achieving self-sufficiency or merit
in a chosen a subject or activity. Indeed “wealth beyond what is necessary is
no more use than an overflowing container” is an apt statement whereby GDP past
what is necessary for a developed economy is akin to an overflowing container. A
simple meal and the company of friends in a modest garden is suffice for Epicurus
and he tells us this should be and is suffice for our happiness too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
From the wellspring of the Enlightenment
came the school of Utilitarianism as first developed by British philosopher Jeremy
Bentham (1748 AD – 1832 AD), influenced amongst others by David Hume’s <i>Treatise
of Human Nature</i>. For Bentham utility is the test and measure of all virtue and
the sole origin of justice and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number
is the foundation of morality. In Utilitarianism, it is the greatest happiness
in society that is the criterion by which the affairs of a state should be judged.
The <i>Felicific Calculus</i> was an algorithm developed by Bentham to calculate the
specific degree of pleasure accrued by a certain action. This calculus and the
entire <i>An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation</i> can be synthesized
by his own mnemonic doggerel: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Intense,
long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure–<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Such marks
in pleasures and in pains endure.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Such
pleasures seek if private be thy end:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
If it be
public, wide let them extend<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Such pains
avoid, whichever be thy view:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
If pains
must come, let them extend to few. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Bentham can be seen as a
foundational figure when it comes to studying and measuring happiness and the
role of government in promoting it. If we agree that the normative role of
government is to increase utility and promote the greatest happiness in
society, than utilising GDP is a flawed manner in doing so. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In 1974, <a href="file:///C:/Users/Joy/Documents/www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/">Richard Easterlin</a>, a Professor of Economics
at the University of Southern California, published a revolutionary paper entitled
“<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/16/business/Easterlin1974.pdf">Does
Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence</a>” which
established an essential paradox in economics. Easterlin discovered, through quantitative
analysis of economic and social trends of developed and developing nations, that
past a certain amount of income for an individual and past a certain GDP for a
nation, subjective levels of happiness and social wellbeing do not increase and
indeed sometimes decrease. In 2010, Easterlin returned to the paradox and <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22463.full">published his findings</a>
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. In it Easterlin utilised
long term surveys from 17 developed countries, 11 countries transitioning from
socialism to capitalism, and 9 developing countries to firmly re-establish the happiness–income
relationship, come to be known as the Easterlin paradox, that over time a
higher rate of economic growth does not result in a greater increase of
happiness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://inequalitiesblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/easterlin-paradox.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://inequalitiesblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/easterlin-paradox.png" width="338" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Bhutan and the United Nations <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The concept of <a href="http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/">Gross National Happiness</a> (GNH)
was developed in 1972 by the King of Bhutan Jigme Singye Wangchuck who opened
Bhutan to modernisation but was committed to developing the national economy
based on Buddhist spiritual principles. The Centre for Bhutan Studies, along
with various academics from around the world, then began to develop both
objective quantitative and subjective qualitative indicators for GNH culminating
on a measurement based upon a robust multidimensional methodology known as the <a href="http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/docs/GNH/PDFs/Sabina_Alkire_method.pdf">Alkire-Foster
method</a>. In 1990 the <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/">Human
Development Index</a> was established by the United Nations Development
Programme and was used as the yardstick of measuring socioeconomic progress. It
was established in response to the flaws of GDP being a holistic measure of progress
and incorporated the measures of Life Expectancy Index, Education Index, Mean
Years of Schooling Index, Expected Years of Schooling Index, and Gross National
Income. However, HDI is also not a true measure of utility as it misses the
important indicators of mental health, sustainability and environmental
conservation. In July 2011 <a href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/420/70/PDF/N1142070.pdf?OpenElement" target="_blank">Resolution 65/309</a> was proposed by the Kingdom of
Bhutan advocating for GNH as the primary measure of progress and was unanimously passed by the United Nations General Assembly. In
April 2012 the <a href="http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Brochure-final-final.pdf" target="_blank">High Level Meeting on</a> <a href="http://www.2apr.gov.bt/" target="_blank">Wellbeing and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm</a> was
held at United Nations Headquarters in New York hosted by Bhutan discussing the
value of utilising GNH as a measure for social progress.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<b>“We buy
things we don't need, with money we don’t have, to impress people we don’t like”<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2005 the Australian economists <a href="http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=affluenza">Hamilton and Denniss</a>
developed the concept of affluenza defined as:<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that
results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and debt caused
by the pursuit of the increased income.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the crux of affluenza is that despite some of the highest
levels of affluence in wealth, happiness has not increased, and rather the
ideals of consumerism and materialism have led to a number of social harms. As Hamilton
and Denniss state “above a certain level, increases in income have little or no
effect on well-being, yet the single-minded pursuit of growth may come at the
cost of personal relationships, social equality and cohesion, job security and
the quality of the environment, all of which do add to personal and national happiness.” Indeed, affluenza reaffirms the Easterlin paradox and presents tangible
harms that exist in society due to it. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Dismal Science of Economics to the New Science of Happiness<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Economics, once described as
the dismal science, is now at the fore of new discoveries in explaining our
behaviour, emotions and indeed happiness. This new science of happiness is informed
by insights from cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary anthropology, behavioural
economics and positive psychology, and is making its mark. Richard Layard of
the London School of Economics and <a href="http://www.bsfrey.ch/">Bruno Frey</a> of the University of Zurichis are pioneering figures in this new field and
they respectively lay their findings out in Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (2011) and Happiness: A Revolution in Economics (2008). <a href="http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/">Richard Davidson</a> of the University of Wisconsin Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience is making new discoveries in the neurosciences of emotions, and Nobel Economics Laureate Daniel Kahneman has been <a href="http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/PDF%20of%20Kahneman%20Krueger%20paper.pdf">developing measures for subjective wellbeing</a>. All the findings have profound
implications, such as for the measurement of experienced utility and subjective
wellbeing, for how human beings value goods and services and social conditions,
and also for public policy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>World Happiness Report <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In April 2012 <a href="http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">The World Happiness Report</a> (I definitely recommend having a read through), compiled by <a href="http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1804">Jeffrey Sachs</a> of the
Earth Institute at Columbia University, <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=970">Richard Layard</a> of
the London School of Economics
and <a href="http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jhelliwell/">John Helliwell</a> Professor
of Economics at the University of British Columbia, was released. It is a tour
de force promoting Gross National Happiness as a measure for sustainable
development and socioeconomic progress. It provides a comprehensive overview
of current world state of happiness, summarises findings from the emerging
science of happiness, and offers analysis for further implications and benefits
of using Gross National Happiness as the yardstick for development. It
also looks at three major case studies (Bhutan, United Kingdom, OECD) where
focusing on happiness has proved the most effective public policy in addressing
poverty, development and a host of socioeconomic harms. The report shows that:</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Happier
countries tend to be richer countries. But more important for happiness than
income are social factors like the strength of social support, the absence of
corruption and the degree of personal freedom.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-indent: -24px;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Over
time as living standards have risen, happiness has increased in some countries,
but not in others (the majority of developed nations). On average, the world
has become a little happier in the last 30 years (by 0.14 times the standard
deviation of happiness around the world).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Unemployment
causes as much unhappiness as bereavement or separation. At work, job security
and good relationships do more for job satisfaction than high pay and
convenient hours.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Behaving
well and acting selflessly makes people happier.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; text-indent: -18pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Mental
health is the biggest single factor affecting happiness in any country. Yet
only a quarter of mentally ill people get treatment for their condition in
advanced countries and fewer in poorer countries.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusions<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The twenty first century is an
epoch already infamous for unprecedented individualism exemplified by the
Global Financial Crisis. The highest obligation that many people feel is to
realise their own potentials and make the most of themselves. This has proved a
terrifying and lonely objective and the epitome of anomie. Whilst we are finding
solace in online social networks, these are simply lacking the face to face
interaction that we humans long for and are ironically making us feel
disconnected. Indeed, we feel obligations to others, but there exists no
unifying social fabric. The old religious worldviews are fast losing
congregations, the post war and Cold War ideals of national solidarity are gone, and the
neoliberal ideologies of consumerism and individualism from Regan still percolate into the psyche of the population of the developed world and we have been left suffering from affluenza. In response to this status quo, a
number of organisations and figures have made their marks on the
intellectual and social topography. Using the philosophies of Epicurus to Bentham
and the economics of Easterlin to Layard as inspiration and theory,
organisations such as <a href="http://www.actionforhappiness.org/">Action for
Happiness</a> and the <a href="http://www.neweconomics.org/programmes/well-being">New Economics
Foundation</a> have been at the fore of the intellectual and social fray, taking on board the research from the insights of economics and neuroscience. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The <a href="http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf">World Happiness Report</a> (again, definitely have a look) is a milestone. Economics is no longer the dismal science and, just as Bentham developed his felicific calculus to measure pleasure, we can measure happiness. A generation of studies by psychologists, economists, pollsters, and social scientists have shown that happiness, though indeed a subjective experience and perhaps culturally relative to an extent, can be objectively measured, assessed, correlated with observable brain functions, and related to the characteristics and indicators of an individual and the society and economy. Asking people whether they are happy, or satisfied with their lives, offers important information about the society. We understand certain predictable factors that cause and facilitate happiness that reflect various facets of our human nature and social lives. Focusing on happiness provides a broader range of possible ways to build a better world, including more effective solutions for poverty, development and health. Indeed there
are profound implications for public policy (<a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/events/lectures/layard/RL050303.pdf">Layard also lays them out here</a>): improving mental health services,
promoting volunteering and investing in communities, conserving the
environment, regulating commercial advertising, making flexible workplaces, and
valuing empathetic education. The United Nations has recognised this
and many nations around the world led by Bhutan, such as the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/well-being/index.html">United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics Measuring National Wellbeing Programme</a>, and even the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_201185_47822731_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD is developing measures for wellbeing and progress</a>, are beginning to realise the importance of
happiness for all aspects of society and the economy. It seems that Epicurus was accurate in this philosophy of a frugal life of pleasure, that Bentham was on the right track with his <i>Felicific Calculus</i>, and that the Easterlin paradox that we are all subject too points to a certain truth in our happiness-income relationship.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 115%;">Create all the happiness you are able to create: remove all the misery
you are able to remove. Every day will allow you to add something to the
pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains. And for every
grain of enjoyment you sow in the bosom of another, you shall find a harvest in
your own bosom; while every sorrow which you pluck out from the thoughts and
feelings of a fellow creature shall be replaced by beautiful peace and joy in
the sanctuary of your soul. </span></i><br />
Jeremy Bentham, British philosopher (1748 AD – 1832 AD)<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Tasman Bain is a second year
Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International
Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He is interested evolutionary anthropology, public economics and philosophy of science and enjoys endurance running, reading Douglas Adams, and playing the glockenspiel.</div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-11891334123160690722012-04-29T17:00:00.000+10:002012-05-12T14:39:13.068+10:00Is Trade in Ideas Free?: Interrogating the 'Marketplace for Ideas'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Freedom of expression is often analogised to a marketplace, as if there are traders in 'ideas' that can freely trade with each other their religious, political, analytical or even banal gossipy ideas. This idea isn't especially new- it is often traced to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but in reality many of the ideas of John Milton, Thomas Paine or even Plato could be recast as a 'marketplace for ideas'. The problem is that this marketplace is in no way free and much of the time instead of 'ideas' being traded in what is really traded is loyalty, either corporate or political. A few specific flaws are worth discussing here in detail: 1) what is being traded and why are loyalties likely to create monopolisation, 2) markets are in reality institutions which constrain the scope of ideas that are discussed, 3) information does not always make for better decisions and 4) individuals are not all rational truth-seekers.<br />
<br />
<b>What is being traded?: A Marketplace for Loyalties?</b><br />
Monroe Price theorised that any government or 'power holder' will seek to monopolise the media in order to control the production of 'identity' as a kind of good with loyalty as the price of identity. As Price illustrates "The buyers are citizens, subjects, nationals, consumers—recipients of packages of information, propaganda, advertisements, drama, and news propounded by the media. The consumer 'pays' for one set of identities or another in several ways that, together, we call loyalty or citizenship". Price theorised that this would lead state-owned media to attempt to maintain a monopoly over the media because any competition over ideas would lead to the weakening over control over identity and thus political structures. The problem with this market is Price's conclusion that breaking up state-owned monopolies would lead to a liberalisation of this market. <br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">With the rise of a new generation of press barons, in particular the ever-present Rupert Murdoch and his vast News Corporation the idea of media as separate from the 'power holders' has become very tenuous indeed. The media now have the incentive (because jingoistic prose often sell best) or at least the power to create and shape identity, meaning they don't just trade in writing or opinion- they trade in loyalty. The consequence of this is that there is scope for media regulation when power over different channels gives a media proprietor to reinforce their conception of loyalty across multiple platforms (such regulation might include cross-media ownership laws, for example). It is also an argument for more closely restricting how the media accesses government and the role of media as lobbyists for corporate or their own interests. Media companies have (sometimes successfully attempted) to monopolise particular media markets- I would claim not just for profit-related reasons but also for ideological reasons (witness The Australian being run at a loss but being hugely powerful over the cognoscenti in Australia).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><b>Institutional Constraints</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">The idea that the marketplace for ideas is 'free' is absurd: in reality, the availability of quality substitutes for mainstream media in most countries is low and the barriers to entry are high (it is very expensive to run a media company and most small ventures fail). This market is an institution like any other, as Oliver North noted acting like 'humanly devised constraints that constrain society'. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">Why is this important here? Libertarians either implicitly or explicitly assume that the marketplace for ideas will contain the full scope of ideas so a fair contest can occur- which is clearly not the case here. It is particularly dire in Australia, which has very high media concentration (Ray Finkelstein covers this point much better than I can in the media inquiry- http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/146994/Report-of-the-Independent-Inquiry-into-the-Media-and-Media-Regulation-web.pdf, especially see p. 59-60). </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">Ideas may succeed not because of their truth valency but instead just because of how they are packaged by an increasingly unipolar media industry or indeed just because of whether they get aired at all. The cursory debates over drug legalisation and euthanasia in Australia are evidence of this- where the government, opposition and Murdoch empire conspire to dismiss a viewpoint it will never get any hearing at all.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><b>Information: Not always a 'social good'</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">It is often claimed that more information always makes for better decisions- by economists, political scientists, information theorists or even government agencies ('if only people knew that'...). The truth is rather more complicated- in low information environments in particular, small pieces of information that ill-informed actors get from the media may lead to incredibly poor decision-making. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">An example of such a bias is the 'anchoring bias' where even completely irrelevant information can be relied on heavily to make a decision when the actor hasn't got much time or other information to consider. Daniel Ariely found in a seminal behavioural economics study that if you get audience members to write down the last two digits of their social security numbers before valuing items that they don't know the value of- (wine, chocolate, computers etc.) that you will get much higher valuations (60-120% higher) for numbers between 80-99 when compared to low numbers i.e. 0-19. How is this relevant to the media? Highly gossipy reporting or just very selective reporting may actually make consumers less informed about an issue- Fox News is notorious for this in particular. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><b>Our Readers are Rational? Really?</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">John Hartigan in particular loves to pine that his readers are fully capable of making up their own minds. Apart from the aforementioned problem of media concentration, this is also unlikely because of time and cognitive constraints that mean that consumers tend to 'satisfice', that is basically to pick a goodish alternative instead of optimising their choice over all possible choices. This means that even in a better functioning market consumers might well just stay with the default option and only hear one opinion (which is also cognitively convenient- no one wants to fall into the trap of cognitive dissonance, this can be physically painful to one's brain). Behavioural economics and social psychology have done a very good job at showing that <i>Homo oeconomicus </i>is largely bunk- humans are bad at being rational choosers and quite bad at processing information, often.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><b>Conclusion: Consequences?</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">Freedom of expression is an important right, indeed indispensable to our democracy. But media companies should not getting away with being much less regulated than other industries under the cloak of the 'marketplace for ideas'. This metaphor is deeply flawed and damages the discussion around media regulation by making a completely free media a sacred cow. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">--</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 19px;">Dan Gibbons is a 3rd year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</span></div>
</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-87193184507258735132012-04-17T11:40:00.000+10:002012-05-12T14:39:45.010+10:00Nationalism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>This content is largely taken from a forthcoming paper entitled: </i><span style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><i>‘We Have Made Italy, Now We Must Make Italians’:
On Anthony Smith’s ‘ethnic cores’ and New Institutionalist Theory</i></span></span><br />
<div>
<div id="ftn">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Almost all people think of
nations as inevitable, hegemonic structures- permanent features of the cultural
and political landscape. I want to tease out a different conception- that
nations are instead tied to the fate of their constituent institutions and why
this implies that a particular nationalism at least, is not destiny.
Nationalism is often conceived as tied to an ethnicity in particular-, which is
not a necessary feature.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First off, it is worth considering what a nation is,
precisely. The working definition of sociologists is generally that of a group
of people who believe they belong to a particular territory who often claim a
shared language, history or descent, however fictitious this may be. For
example, Serbian and Croatian, which are mutually intelligible oral languages
are subtitled in the respective other country to pretend that they are
completely separate languages. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then, why can’t nations be
ancient, perhaps ethnically based entities? In medieval Europe, national
consciences simply did not exist- the ordinary person might have been conscious
of belonging to a town, language group, the great corporation of Christendom;
but never the ‘nation’. Nations require a particular territorial consciousness,
an attachment to a system, which passes itself off as a large family,
basically. Nations are not natural entities- they appeal to our ‘tribal
imagination’ but they are largely a product of a post-Renaissance emphasis on
strengthening the state and constructing an ‘imagined community’ around them.
Further, even the ethnic consciences that are allegedly inextricably tied to
nations are very modern.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What does an institutional view
look like then? I propose that nations should be analysed in terms of the
structure and viability of their constituent social and political institutions.
This allows for the national project to be an object in flux, rather than a
fixed conception. I will illustrate this briefly with two examples- Basque
nationalism and the breakup of Yugoslavia.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Basque national project has
spread through social institutions like the education system and an emphasis on
the Basque language, in particular. Further, Basque nationalist groups like ETA
have expertly used intimidation and propaganda to create a ‘spiral of silence’:
where individuals feel less able to express their opinion if they feel like
they are in the minority. However, Basque nationalism is still a contested
space: Basque feminists have begun challenging the linguistic and social privileging
of the Basque male in national spaces. It should also be noted that the idea of
a unique Basque nationalism is in fact very recent, owing to institutions
founded in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, not an ethnic consensus.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The post-conflict Yugoslav
situation is often blamed on ‘ancient hatreds’, yet the actual religious milieu
of the pre-modern Balkans was generally free of conflict and barely delimited.
Two events doomed the Yugoslav project: first, the central government lost
legitimacy as the state was unable to provide basic welfare and second,
national elites like Tudjman and Milosevic played up ethnic tensions. They used
the provincial apparatuses of Croatia and Serbia respectively to create
artificially blame on the ethnic ‘others’ and the West. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The effect of this institutional
view isn’t clear- perhaps it allows for the bettering of all national projects,
perhaps it dooms them to manipulation. That much is unclear.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Dan Gibbons<br />
<br />
--<br />
Dan Gibbons is a 3rd year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-80950997117560410992012-04-16T16:46:00.000+10:002012-05-12T14:40:18.680+10:00A Comparative Analysis of Hunter Gatherer Societies and Agricultural Societies<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i>“The
adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better
life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With
agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and
despotism, that curse our existence…”</i> Jared Diamond in <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=">The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race</a><br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.waldeneffect.org/20100910bushmen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://www.waldeneffect.org/20100910bushmen.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It has been a few times that I
have found myself arguing in defence of hunter gatherers or propagating the
empirical realities of non-agricultural societies that are all too
misconceived. One intensive example happened on the first day of semester
holidays in 2011 whence I found myself arguing about cooperation in human
nature with two others at 2AM in the cold morning in the Great Court of the
University of Queensland. Thus I have been proverbially labelled at parties and
such as the one who advocates the Palaeolithic lifestyle, and what a brutish,
improvised and unhealthy one it is assumed. Let the record show that I do
not advocate and am not advocating for a return to the hunting and gathering of
our Palaeolithic ancestors. I do not advocate for such on normative and
empirical grounds. Firstly, this would require an immense amount of death and
suffering due to the inevitable nature of the low population density of
subsistence living and the large population struggling over resources.
Normatively, I believe this is morally indefensible to advocate for. Secondly,
even if it were morally defensible, it is empirically physically impossible for
the wholesale return of the human species to hunter gathering due to the
obvious changes to the natural environment, resource depletion and changes to
ecosystems and thus is moot point. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
A recent book that provides a systematic overview of hunter gatherers and agricultural societies that I also ascribe to is <i><a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/pandoras_seed/">Pandora's Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization</a></i> (2010) by <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/bios/spencer-wells/">Dr Spencer Wells</a>, a geneticist, the Frank H. T. Rhodes Professor of Cornell University and the Director of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society. In it is asked is there some sort of fatal mismatch between western culture and our biology that is making us ill? And if there is such a mismatch, how did our present culture come to dominate? Wells argues that all of the diseases and faults of modern society, from terrorism to depression and from obesity to economic inequality, stem from the advent of agriculture. Growing grain crops ultimately made humans more sedentary and unhealthy and made the planet more crowded. The expanding population and the need to apportion limited resources such as water created hierarchies and inequalities. The desire to control and no longer cooperate with nature altered concepts of religion, making deities fewer and more influential, foreshadowing today’s fanaticisms. The proximity of humans and animals bred diseases that metastasised over time. Freedom of movement and choice were replaced by a pressure to work that is the forebear of the anxiety and depression millions feel today.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
But onto those criteria that I will
be using to compare hunter gather societies with agricultural societies to
establish which provides the better way of life for the average person. I will
be looking at two essential areas of comparison – nutrition, and socioeconomics –
which I will lay out individually. This is part one and therefore the article
looking at nutrition. Let us begin.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Part One: Nutrition</u></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.karmony.com.au/dynamic_page/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hunter_gatherer1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://www.karmony.com.au/dynamic_page/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hunter_gatherer1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The area of nutrition is a
very interesting one and has been subject to substantial study in debate both
in the academic literature and in popular culture. With the rise of the fad of
the Palaeolithic diet to counter the rising levels of chronic diseases, there
has been a rekindling in the interest of the study of hunter gatherers and the
disease of affluence. Through studying hunter gatherers of the past through the
fields of palaeopathology and Palaeolithic archaeology and through studying the
hunter gatherers of present through the fields of nutritional anthropology and
ethnomedicine, it is straightforward to establish the nutrition and health of
hunter gatherers in general. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/14663757/Nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-huntergatherers">landmark study</a> by <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/109265553/Nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers">DrClaire Cassidy</a>, whilst a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Smithsonian Institute and
the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, of 296 skeletons of isolated American
Indian agriculturalists of Hardin Village off the Ohio River in Kentucky of CE
1500 and CE 1675 and 285 skeletons of isolated Native American Indian hunter
gatherers of Indian Knoll off the Green River in Kentucky of 3300 BCE to 2000
BCE, is very insightful for the comparison of nutrition. The study is fascinating
due to the climatic, ecological and genetic similarity of the two cases with
the only major differences being socioeconomics, chronology and diet. Through
analysis of the skeletons and other archaeological evidence, the study
concludes that infant mortality was higher, life expectancy was lower, and infectious
diseases, tooth decay, and anaemia were more prevalent for the Hardin
agriculturalists. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
“1. Life expectancies for both sexes at all
ages were lower at Hardin Village than at Indian Knoll.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
2. Infant
mortality was higher at Hardin Village.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
3. Iron-deficiency
anaemia of sufficient duration to cause bone changes was absent at Indian
Knoll, but present at Hardin Village, where 50 per cent of cases occurred in
children under age five.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
4. Growth
arrest episodes at Indian Knoll were periodic and more often of short duration
and were possibly due to food shortage in late winter; those at Hardin Village
occurred randomly and were more often of long duration, probably indicative of
disease as a causative agent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
5. More
children suffered infections at Hardin Village than at Indian Knoll.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
6. The
syndrome of periosteal inflammation was more common at Hardin Village than at
Indian Knoll.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
7. Tooth
decay was rampant at Hardin Village and led to early abscessing and tooth loss;
decay was unusual at Indian Knoll and abscessing occurred later in life because
of severe wear to the teeth. The
differences in tooth wear and caries rate are very likely attributable to
dietary differences between the two groups.” (Cassidy 1980: 145) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It is pertinent to extrapolate
this comparative study to analyse nutrition for many other hunter gatherers and
agriculturalist. Indeed, Professor Tim Roufs of the University of Minnesota
<a href="http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anthfood/PowerPoint/af-dietary_rev_nutritional-consequences.pdf">gives a systematic overview</a> of the study and corroborating cases, as well as
further analysis of the biocultural consequences of the agriculture from the
Neolithic to this day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It is also important to study
the state of health and nutrition in agricultural, post-agricultural and industrial
societies. A comprehensive research paper by an international group of
dieticians, epidemiologists, anthropologists, biologists and medical scientists, entitled "<a href="http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/2/341.abstract">Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century</a>" published in the eminent American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, posits that the
diseases of civilisation, from chronic diseases to preventative illnesses, have
causation with the mismatch of our Palaeolithic genome and the new foods of
modernity that stem from agriculture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
“In the
United States and most Western countries, diet-related chronic diseases
represent the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality. These diseases
are epidemic in contemporary Westernized populations and typically afflict
50–65% of the adult population, yet they are rare or non-existent in
hunter-gatherers and other less Westernized people. Although both scientists
and lay people alike may frequently identify a single dietary element as the
cause of chronic disease (eg, saturated fat causes heart disease and salt
causes high blood pressure), evidence gleaned over the past 3 decades now
indicates that virtually all so-called diseases of civilization have
multifactorial dietary elements that underlie their etiology, along with other
environmental agents and genetic susceptibility. Coronary heart disease, for
instance, does not arise simply from excessive saturated fat in the diet but
rather from a complex interaction of multiple nutritional factors directly
linked to the excessive consumption of novel Neolithic and Industrial era foods
(dairy products, cereals, refined cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable
oils, fatty meats, salt, and combinations of these foods). These foods, in
turn, adversely influence proximate nutritional factors, which universally
underlie or exacerbate virtually all chronic diseases of civilization: 1)
glycemic load, 2) fatty acid composition, 3) macronutrient composition, 4)
micronutrient density, 5) acid-base balance, 6) sodium-potassium ratio, and 7)
fiber content. However, the ultimate factor underlying diseases of civilization
is the collision of our ancient genome with the new conditions of life in
affluent nations, including the nutritional qualities of recently introduced
foods.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus it is clear that in terms
of nutrition, hunter gatherers had a far healthy diet than agriculturalist and that
many of the chronic diseases of the contemporary stem from the mismatch of
agricultural based foods and our Palaeolithic genome. Although, it is obvious
that the Western diet is poor through the mere observation of the high chronic
levels of obesity, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes that plaque our
society. It should be known that I am not advocating the Palaeolithic diet as
the cure to all this. The consumption of the agricultural based foods and other
products is only a danger to health when it is combined with the sedentary
lifestyle we have and when preventative health measure (such as health
education, dental care, exercise) are ignored. In
summation, it is clear that the nutrition of hunter gatherers led to healthy
lives for the average person than in agricultural societies. Although through
modern medicine and preventative health, all the general nutrition and
therefore health of the average modern person is improved in theory if not in
practice.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Tasman Bain is a second year
Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology) and Bachelor of Social Science (International
Development) Student at the University of Queensland. He debated at the 2012
World Universities Debating Championship in Manila, was a Member of the 2011
Queensland Youth Parliament and was an Australian Representative at the 2010
Asia Pacific Young Leaders Summit in Singapore.</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-69757706420722265922012-04-15T16:06:00.000+10:002012-05-12T14:40:40.959+10:00The "Fairness Instinct" and the Biosocial Contract by Peter Corning<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It seems that fairness is an idea whose
time has come.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">True, some
cynics view fairness as nothing more than a mask for self-interest. As the playwright George Bernard Shaw put it,
“The golden rule is that there is no golden rule.” But the cynics are wrong. One of the important findings of the
emerging, multi-disciplinary science of human nature is that humans do, indeed,
have an innate sense of fairness. We
regularly display a concern for others’ interests as well as our own, and we
even show a willingness to punish perceived acts of <i>un</i>fairness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The accumulating
scientific evidence for this distinctive human trait, which is reviewed in my
new book <i>The Fair Society: The Science of
Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice</i>, suggests that it has played
an important role in our evolution as a species. It has served to facilitate and lubricate the
close-knit social organization that has been a key to our success as a species.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Among other
things, the evidence for this trait includes anthropologist Donald Brown’s
finding, reported in his landmark study, <i>Human
Universals</i>, that altruism, reciprocity, and a concern for fairness are
cultural universals. Likewise, in the
field of behavior genetics, many studies have documented that there is a
genetic basis for traits that are strongly associated with fairness, including
altruism, empathy and “nurturance.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In the brain
sciences, the experiments of Joshua Greene and his colleagues have identified
specific brain areas associated with making moral choices. Another team, headed by Alan Sanfey, pinpointed
a brain area specifically associated with feelings of fairness and unfairness
when subjects were participating in the so-called “ultimatum game” in his
laboratory. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">There is also
the extensive research by evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmedes and John
Tooby and a number of their colleagues on what they term “social exchange” (or
reciprocity) – which they point out exists in every culture. Cosmedes and Tooby have concluded that humans
possess a discreet “mental module” -- a dedicated neurocognitive system – for
reciprocity behaviors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In a similar
vein, the work on “strong reciprocity theory” in experimental and behavioral
economics has repeatedly demonstrated that even altruistic behaviors can be
elicited in cooperative situations if there is a combination of strict
reciprocity and punishment for defectors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Finally, it has
been shown that even some nonhuman primates display in a rudimentary form some
of the traits associated with fairness behaviors in humans. For instance, primatologist Frans de Waal, in
a classic laboratory experiment, clearly demonstrated the existence of reciprocity
behaviors in capuchin monkeys.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It seems evident
that a sense of fairness is an inborn human trait. It means, quite simply, that we are inclined
to take into account and accommodate to the needs and interests of others. However, it is equally clear that our sense
of fairness is labile. It can be subverted
by various cultural, economic and political influences, not to mention the lure
of our self-interests. And, of course,
there are always the “outliers” – the Bernie Madoffs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In fact, our predisposition
toward fairness, like every other biological trait, is subject to significant individual
variation. Numerous studies have
indicated that some 25-30 percent of us are more or less “fairness challenged.”
Some of us are so self-absorbed and egocentric that we are totally insensitive
and even hostile to the needs of others. Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens’s “A
Christmas Carol,” and the banker Henry F. Potter in Frank Capra’s timeless Christmas
movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” were caricatures, of course, but many of us have
seen likenesses in real life. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Thus fairness is
not a given. It’s an end that can only
be approximated with consistent effort and often in the face of strong
opposition. And in the many cases where there
are conflicting fairness claims, compromise is the indispensable solvent for
achieving a voluntary, consensual outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">At the
individual level, fairness is an issue in all of our personal relationships --
in our families, with our loved ones, with friends, and in the workplace. We
are confronted almost every day with concerns about providing, or doing, a
“fair share,” reciprocating for some kindness, recognizing the rights of other
persons, being fairly acknowledged and rewarded for our efforts, and much more.
<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">However,
fairness is also an important, “macro-level” issue in our society, and the
debate about what is often referred to as “social justice” can be traced back
at least to Plato’s great dialogue, <i>The
Republic</i>. For Plato, social justice
consists of “giving every man his due” (and every woman, of course). His great student, Aristotle, characterized
it as “proportionate equality.” Plato
also advanced the idea that every society entails a social “compact” – a tacit
understanding about the rights and duties, and benefits and costs, of
citizenship – and he viewed social justice as the key to achieving a stable and
harmonious society. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The idea that
there is a more or less explicit “social contract” in every society is more
commonly associated with the so-called social contract theorists of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – such as Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke –
and more recently, John Rawls. Rousseau
fantasized about free individuals voluntarily forming communities in which
everyone was equal and all were subject to the “general will.” Thomas Hobbes, in contrast, envisioned a
natural state of anarchic violence and proposed, for the sake of mutual
self-preservation, that everyone should be subject to the absolute “sovereign”
authority of the state. John Locke, on
the other hand, rejected this dark Hobbesian vision. He conjured instead a benign state of nature
in which free individuals voluntarily formed a limited contract for their
mutual advantage but retained various residual rights. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The philosopher
David Hume, and many others since, have made a hash of this line of
reasoning. In a devastating critique, <i>A Treatise of Human Nature</i> (published in
1739-40), Hume rejected the claim that some deep property of the natural world
(natural laws), or some aspect of our past history, could be used to justify
moral precepts. Among other things, Hume
pointed out that even if the origins of human societies actually conformed to
such hypothetical motivations and scenarios (which we now know they did not),
we have no logical obligation to accept an outdated social contract that was
entered into by some remote ancestor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">With the demise
of the natural law argument, social contract theory has generally fallen into
disfavor among philosophers, with the important exception of the work of John
Rawls. In his 1971 book, <i>A Theory of Justice</i>, Rawls’ formulation
provoked a widespread reconsideration of what constitutes fairness and social
justice and, equally important, what precepts would produce a just
society. Rawls proposed two
complementary principles: (1) equality in the enjoyment of freedom (a concept
fraught with complications), and (2) affirmative action, in effect, for “the
least advantaged” among us. This would
be achieved by ensuring that the poor have equal opportunities and that they would
receive a relatively larger share of any new wealth whenever the economic pie
grows larger. Although Rawls’ work has
been exhaustively debated by philosophers and others over the years, it seems
to have had no discernable effect outside of academia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">However, there
is one other major exception to the general decline of social contract theory
that is perhaps more significant. Over
the past two decades, a number of behavioral economists, game theorists,
evolutionary psychologists and others have breathed new life into this
venerable idea with a combination of rigorous, mathematically-based game theory
models and empirical research. Especially
important is the work of the mathematician-turned-economist Ken Binmore, who
has sought to use game theory as a tool for resuscitating social contract theory
on a new footing. In his 2005 book, <i>Natural Justice</i>, Binmore describes his
approach as a “scientific theory of justice,” because it is based on an
evolutionary/adaptive perspective, as well as the growing body of research in
behavioral and experimental economics regarding our evolved sense of fairness
plus some powerful insights from game theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Briefly, Binmore
defines a social contract in very broad terms as any stable “coordination” of
social behavior – like our conventions about which side of the road we should
drive on or pedestrian traffic patterns on sidewalks. Any sustained social interaction in what
Binmore refers to as “the game of life” – say a marriage, a car pool, or a
bowling league -- represents a tacit social contract if it is (1) stable, (2)
efficient, and (3) fair. To achieve a
stable social contract, Binmore argues, a social relationship should strive for
an equilibrium condition – an approximation of a Nash equilibrium in game
theory. The rewards or “payoffs” for
each of the players should be optimized so that no one can improve on his or
her own situation without exacting a destabilizing cost from the other
cooperators. Ideally, then, a social
contract is self-enforcing. As Binmore
explains, it needs no social “glue” to hold it together because everyone is a
willing participant and nobody has a better alternative. It is like a masonry arch that requires no
mortar (a simile first used by Hume).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The problem with
this formulation – as Binmore recognizes -- is that it omits the radioactive
core of the problem – how do you define fairness in substantive terms? As Binmore concedes, game theory “has no
substantive content…It isn’t our business to say what people ought to like.”
Binmore rejects the very notion that there can be any universals where fairness
is concerned. “The idea of a need is
particularly fuzzy,” he tells us. In
other words, Binmore’s version of a social contract involves an idealization,
much like Plato’s republic, or free market (utopian) capitalism, or Karl Marx’s
utopian socialism. Fairness is whatever
people say it is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I have taken a
different approach. What I call a “biosocial contract” is distinctive in that
it is grounded in our growing understanding of human nature and the basic
purpose of a human society. It is
focused on the content of fairness, and it encompasses a set of specific
normative precepts. In the game theory
paradigm, the social contract is all about harmonizing our personal
interactions. Well and good. But in a biosocial contract, the players
include all of the stakeholders in the political community and substantive
fairness is the focus. <sup><o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">A biosocial
contract is about the rights and duties of all of the stakeholders in society,
both among themselves and in relation to the “state”. It is about defining what constitutes a “fair
society.” It is a normative theory, but
it is built on an empirical foundation.
I believe it is legitimate to do so in this case, because life itself
has a built-in normative bias – a normative preference, so to speak. We share with all other living things the
biological imperatives associated with survival and reproduction. If we do, after all, want to survive and
reproduce – if this is our shared biological objective -- then certain
principles of social intercourse follow as essential means to this end. <sup><o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">First and
foremost, a biosocial contract requires a major shift in our social
values. The deep purpose of a human
society is not, after all, about achieving growth, or wealth, or material
affluence, or power, or social equality, or even about the pursuit of happiness. An organized society is quintessentially a
“collective survival enterprise.”
Whatever may be our perceptions, aspirations, or illusions (or for that
matter, whatever our station in life), the basic problem for any society is to
provide for the survival and reproductive needs of its members. However, it is also important to recognize
differences in merit and to reward them accordingly. Finally, there must also be reciprocity -- an
unequivocal commitment on the part of all of the participants to help support
the survival enterprise, for no society can long exist on a diet of
altruism. Altruism is a means to a
larger end, not an end in itself. It is
the emotional and normative basis of our safety-net. <sup><o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">As discussed at
length in my book, a biosocial contract encompasses three distinct normative
(and policy) precepts that must be bundled together and balanced in order to
approximate the Platonic ideal of social justice. These precepts are as follows:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">(1)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Goods and services must be
distributed to each according to his or her basic needs (in this, there must be
equality);</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">(2)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Surpluses beyond the
provisioning of our basic needs must be distributed according to “merit” (there must also be
equity);</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">(3)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">In return, each of us is
obligated to contribute to the collective survival enterprise proportionately
in accordance with our ability (there must be reciprocity).</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 55.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 55.5pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -19.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The first of
these precepts involves a collective obligation to provide for the common needs
of all of our people. To borrow a term
from the TV series <i>Star Trek</i>, this is
our “prime directive.” Although this
precept may sound socialistic -- an echo of Karl Marx’s famous dictum -- it is
at once far more specific and more limited.
It refers to the fourteen basic biological needs domains that are
detailed in my book. Our basic needs are
not a vague, open-ended abstraction, nor a matter of personal preference. They constitute a concrete but ultimately
limited agenda, with measurable indicators for assessing outcomes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">These fourteen
basic needs domains include a number of obvious items, like adequate nutrition,
fresh water, physical safety, physical and mental health, and waste
elimination, as well as some items that we may take for granted like thermoregulation
(which may entail many different technologies, from clothing to heating oil and
air conditioning), adequate sleep (about one-third of our lives), mobility, and
even healthy respiration, which can’t always be assured. Perhaps least obvious but most important are
the requisites for reproduction and the nurturance of the next generation. From this perspective, our basic needs cut a
very broad swath through our economy and our society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The idea that
there is a “social right” to the necessities of life is not as radical as it
may sound. It is implicit in the Golden
Rule, the great moral precept that is recognized by every major religion and
culture. Furthermore, numerous public
opinion surveys over the years have consistently shown that people are far more
willing to provide support for the genuinely needy than the Scrooges among us
would lead one to believe. (Some of
these surveys are cited in my book.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Even more
compelling, I believe, are the results of an extensive series of social experiments
regarding distributive justice by political scientists Norman Frohlich and Joe
Oppenheimer and their colleagues, as detailed in their 1992 book <i>Choosing Justice</i>. What Frohlich and Oppenheimer set out to test
was whether or not ad hoc groups of “impartial” decision-makers behind a
Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” about their own personal stakes would be able to
reach a consensus on how to distribute the income of a hypothetical society. Frohlich
and Oppenheimer found that the experimental groups consistently opted for
striking a balance between maximizing income (providing incentives and rewards
for “the fruits of one’s labors,” in the authors’ words) and ensuring that
there is an economic minimum for everyone (what they called a “floor
constraint”). The overall results were stunning: 77.8 percent of the groups
chose to assure a minimum income for basic needs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The results of
these important experiments also lend strong support to the second of the three
fairness precepts listed above concerning equity (or merit). How can we also be fair-minded about
rewarding our many individual differences in talents, performance, and
achievement. Merit, like the term
fairness itself, has an elusive quality; it does not denote some absolute
standard. It is relational, and
context-specific, and subject to all manner of cultural norms and
practices. But, in general, it implies
that the rewards a person receives should be proportionate to his or her
effort, or investment, or contribution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">A crucial
corollary of our first two precepts is that the collective survival enterprise
has always been based on mutualism and reciprocity, with altruism being limited
(typically) to special circumstances under a distinct moral claim -- what could
be referred to as “no-fault needs.” So,
to close the loop, a third principle must be added to the biosocial contract,
one that puts it squarely at odds with the utopian socialists, and perhaps even
with some modern social democrats as well.
In any voluntary contractual
arrangement, there is always reciprocity -- obligations or costs as well as
benefits. As I noted earlier,
reciprocity is a deeply rooted part of our social psychology and an
indispensable mechanism for balancing our relationships with one another. Without reciprocity, the first two fairness
precepts might look like nothing more than a one-way scheme for redistributing
wealth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">As detailed in
the book, a greater emphasis on reciprocity in our society would include such
things as a more equitable tax code, higher taxes as necessary to support the
basic needs of the 30 million (plus) Americans who suffer from extreme poverty,
and a lifelong public service obligation beginning with a year of national
service for everyone who is able to do so, or two years for those who receive special
benefits like educational assistance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Some critics
might object to such incursions on their freedom, but John Rawls’s definition
of fairness under a social contract provides a definitive rebuttal, in my
view: “The main idea is that when a
number of persons engage in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture
according to rules, and thus restrict their liberty in ways necessary to yield
advantages for all, those who have submitted to these restrictions have a right
to a similar acquiescence on the part of those who have benefited from their
submission.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">To conclude
then, what the biosocial contract adds to Plato’s great vision is the
recognition that there are in fact three distinct categories, or types of
substantive fairness and that these must be combined and balanced in
appropriate ways. The substantive
content of social justice consists of providing for the basic needs of the
population, along with equitably rewarding merit and insisting on reciprocity.
The biosocial contract paradigm also enlists the growing power of modern
evolutionary biology and the human sciences to shed light on the matter, and it
identifies an explicit set of criteria for reconciling (if not harmonizing) the
competing claims that have been promoted by political ideologues of the Left
and the Right.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I believe that
this framework offers our best hope for achieving and maintaining that elusive
state of voluntary consent that is the key to a harmonious society – a Nash
equilibrium writ large. This is an ideal
worth striving for, because our own survival, and more certainly that of our
descendants, may well depend upon it. As
the great American public park designer Frederick Law Olmstead put it, “The
rights of posterity take precedence over the desires of the present.” Nothing less than our evolutionary future is
at stake.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US">--</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Dr. Peter Corning is the Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems. He was Professor in the </span>Interdisciplinary Human Biology Program at Stanford University and is the author of over 150 scientific articles and books, most recently “The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice” (University of Chicago Press 2011).</div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5886291203346106131.post-45187969624019998142012-04-14T11:46:00.001+10:002012-05-12T14:41:37.701+10:00Review of The Culture Industry<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;">
<i>The Culture Industry </i>by Theodor Adorno</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;">
This book provides a generally interesting analysis of the workings of the ways culture has been transformed by the arrival of capitalism. I happen to not agree with many of Adorno's conclusions because I find the Frankfurt School's style of neo-Marxism to be not especially good criticism and I find that Adorno substitutes personal taste for analysis a lot of the time. Further, there is a bizarre detour into a Freudian analysis of Hitler's regime (which like all psychoanalysis is bunk and pseudoscience). He argues quite forcefully and well (on the whole) though that the 'culture industry' that produces what we might call 'mass culture' systematically attempts to manipulate the masses into passivity and to make them accept their economic conditions. I found the book a good intellectual exercise and did certainly agree with some of his analysis (for example the distinction between 'free time' and actual hobbies in a leisure class society etc). On the whole though, I am troubled by the lack of nuance- is all TV really that evil?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;">
<br />
--<br />
<span style="line-height: normal;">Dan Gibbons is a 3rd year Bachelor of Commerce (Economics) student at the University of Melbourne. He has a forthcoming publication in Intergraph: A Journal of Dialogic Anthropology (about memory and nationalism) and is currently submitting papers on the rise of modern consumerism, the role of criminology theory in literary criticism and the institutional theory of nationalism. Dan is a keen debater and public speaker.</span></div>
</div>Reciprocanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04245881763489676413noreply@blogger.com0