The Dearing Dialogue

There is a curious relationship between democracy and market-capitalism.  On the one hand, they appear to support each other, whereas on the other hand, they appear to alter and confine each other.  This essay will examine that relationship under the assumption that these two concepts are inherently opposed to each other when examined under constraints of human necessity.  However, the ability for a society to find a balance between these concepts is dependent upon that society’s level of political culture.

Man is ultimately a biological creature with biological needs.  The need for food, shelter, and procreation brings man into a relationship with other men and women in order to provide the necessary resources for survival.  As Hannah Arendt aptly describes, man is not born free, nor equal, but is subject to the constraints of the human condition[i]. In the state of nature, this consists of a daily struggle in which only the strong survive.  To escape this predicament, man enters into a relationship; a society to ensure the survival of all members, strong or weak. 

Market-capitalism is premised on the promotion of self interest.  Democracy is based on the promotion of majority interests in society.  Karl Polyani suggests that market capitalism is “entirely unnatural” in a society; that economics were traditionally embedded within the social construct of society so as to justify one’s position within that social hierarchy[ii].  Throughout most of history, man’s needs were met through “reciprocity and redistribution”, which ensured society’s continuation and prevented winner-take-all transactions that could alter the existing social structure[iii].  Under conditions of economic distress, members of a community could look towards the existing political culture to reestablish equilibrium in society.  In such tribal societies, a balance of democracy and economics existed.  Economics were based on redistribution of goods, not an individualized capitalist system that prevented redistribution in order to justify profits.

Without equilibrium, market-capitalism will run contrary to democratic ideals.  A market-capitalist system must be balanced by a democratic form of government to ensure the reigns of capitalism are controlled by society.  Market-capitalism, as described by Marx, transforms traditionally social transactions (labor, money, materials) into commodities that lose their value over time[iv].  That labor provides nothing more to the worker but wages.  Under a pure market system, society would be as Marx describes, squeezing greater quantities of labor out of fewer workers until the costs are as minimal as possible.[v]  Looking at the historical Greek polis, slave labor was justified and used as a commodity, while the slaves were separated from the framework of the polis.  But, balanced with an all-encompassing democracy, market-capitalism is controlled and compelled to consider the interests of all in society.

Like the Greek polis, the birth of the United States forced difficult questions upon the founders of our republic.  Preaching equality of all people in their Declaration of Independence, the founders overlooked the dilemma of slavery, gave in to market forces, and ultimately wrote slavery into our Constitution.  By doing so, the slave class took on the burdens of necessity for male, white, propertied elites. Slaves were property, and property was a market force held outside the reigns of the limited “democratic” government.  By creating a structure where half of society was overlooked, market capitalism ran its course without the constraints of an impoverished class demanding representation or justice.  Thus democracy for all was set aside for the interests of a market-capitalist system.  It would ultimately require progress in the political culture of the United States for it to find equilibrium between market-capitalism and democracy.  As Larry Diamond alludes, the level of a political culture often determines the “status, strength, or stability” of a democracy.[vi]

The equilibrium we enjoy in the United States is constantly in jeopardy.  Markets are controlled by large corporations which are not reigned in by democratic governance.  Corporations are generally run as authoritarian regimes.  Equally dangerous is the role corporations play in public demands like a free press, electoral equality, and the environment.  Corporations are willing to buy legislation from candidates willing to sell it while the public often remains unaware or apathetic due to corporate control of the media and overall cynicism.  The level of political culture will ultimately decide whether democracy or markets will find their balance.

This week the American Anthropological Association (AAA) layed out their long awaited position on the Human Terrain System (HTS).  Essentially, they criticized the US military for thinking it can use anthropology in an unjust war (Iraq and presumably Afghanistan included), but left open the future use of anthropology in the military, but of course only under the guidance of the AAA.  However, the only idea of guidance they provide is what the AAA considers “ethical”.  Are we ever to be in a circumstance which they can agree is completely “ethical”?  Anthropologists can not even agree upon precise definitions.  Thus, it should be little surprise that support of the AAA is waning.  I would not be surprised to see it break apart into splinter groups over this very topic.  The level of elitism spewing out of the ivory tower of the AAA leadership is paramount to the same arrogance they accuse the US leadership of. 

AAA Resolution

In the context of a war that is widely recognized as a denial of human rights and based on faulty intelligence and undemocratic principles, the Executive Board sees the HTS project as a problematic application of anthropological expertise, most specifically on ethical grounds.  We have grave concerns about the involvement of anthropological knowledge and skill in the HTS project.  The Executive Board views the HTS project as an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise.  

 

The Executive Board affirms that anthropology can and in fact is obliged to help improve U.S. government policies through the widest possible circulation of anthropological understanding in the public sphere, so as to contribute to a transparent and informed development and implementation of U.S. policy by robustly democratic processes of fact-finding, debate, dialogue, and deliberation.  It is in this way, the Executive Board affirms, that anthropology can legitimately and effectively help guide U.S. policy to serve the humane causes of global peace and social justice.

Gilpin’s thesis is that a group or state with greater relative power than others, will try to modify the political system in its interests until the cost-benefit of doing so is no longer in its advantage.  Gilpin presents the reader with a framework for understanding this concept, similar to that of Max Weber’s ideal types.  Gilpin’s concept is based off of a few assumptions.  First, that political systems can be understood with the same theories as economic systems, namely the logic of cost-benefit analysis in decision making.  Second, the fundamental nature of international relations has not changed; it “continues to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy”.  Third, historical experiences are relevant to understanding the international system.

To support his arguments, Gilpin presents examples of dominant powers exerting their control over the international system in order to advance their self interest.  He provides three forms of such control: imperial or hegemonic, bi-polar, and balance of power (between 3 or more).  He explains that a legitimate international order, or an equilibrium, is one in which no state is dissatisfied with the status quo.  Wars are thus fought in order to preserve the prevailing balance of power. 

My analysis of his arguments is that he provides a solid interpretation of the neorealist school of thought.  His economic approach takes on a “neoMarxist” character in that he alludes that economics tends to “influence human action” (69).  In fact it does within Gilpin’s framework, as the effects of changing the political order are weighed for their utility.  His analysis of hegemons is somewhat unconvincing.  One has to question the existence of a hegemon in a system of economic interdependence.  However, the rational objective of any hegemon that actually operates in an interdependent system will be to sustain the status quo.

Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, is a description of the way the West (Occident) studies and analyzes the East (Orient).  His thesis is that the Occident ultimately frames all analysis of the Orient in a critical paradigm relating differences as inferiority to the West.  According to Said, Orientalism is a deeply rooted, subconscious thought process that exists within most studies of the East (language, arts, literature, politics, etc).  He explains that all cultures appear mystical in foreign eyes, but that the relation is one ultimately rationalized and described by the bearer of power and authority, and in the relationship between the East and West, it has most often been the latter.

Said presents his arguments with historical analysis of a variety of subjects involving relationships between East and West.  His examples show bitter racism and misunderstanding on the side of the West towards the East, with the West often applying a broad stroke in describing cultural differences or behaviors.  The mystical descriptions applied to the East ultimately perpetuated themselves and became their own logical means of defining the perceived absence of reason.  They also provided justification for imperialist institutions and policies and part of the reasoning to “civilize” the East.

Said’s arguments can be criticized in that he limits his analysis to West on East, where plenty of historical examples of Eastern, Russian, or African Orientalism exist.  It is a thesis that could be applied to all cultures and all in power or not.  In this sense, the study is left somewhat incomplete. 

I’m in grad school now and with that is the responsibility of organizing my readings in a coherent and concise fashion for easy access and a quick grasp of the author’s main ideas and arguments.  So each of the books I read (about 5-10) a week will require a short synopsis which I can refer back to towards the final exam.  As well, this will help when research for my thesis starts.  I’ve also created a database to catalogue the books I read and have added hyperlinks to their respective synopsis.  So, here is my first, and many more to follow… 

The Human Condition is an analysis of society through the organizing principle of labor and society’s evolving concept of work as technology freed man from the burdens of necessity.  Arendt opens with the Greek idea of the polis, in which free citizens were liberated from the burden of necessity (labor) and thus permitted to freely operate in a political system of equals.  Arendt further analyzes the condition of slaves, comparing their treatment to animals.  She concludes that the state of slavery is a biological desire by men with power to free themselves from the “burden of biological life”, to create a cycle of consumption that takes the place of the production process[1].  The effect of such a program is to place the burdens of life onto another segment of society.  In the end, mankind is faced with the evolving desire to create ever greater technology that will lift the load of life away, but this ultimately threatens the polis with the creation of dangerous technology (nuclear weapons).

Arendt’s arguments are carefully referenced and analyzed with historical examples. She examines the Greek polis as a relationship between free and non-free (slaves and non-citizens) individuals, that was also a “spatial construct”[2], void of justice and run by oligarchs with an interest in keeping the state of affairs fixed.  She adds that societies are often guided by path dependence, often setting processes in motion without knowing the consequences that lie ahead.  This dependence can be seen in the institution of slavery in the Greek polis, as in societies prior to and following.  As Arendt explains, not only are slaves deprived of their liberty, likewise, the oligarchs and “intellectuals” are bounded to the demands of the polis – providing resources, defending in battle, and holding a monopoly on violence. 

The New York Times posts a thought twister that bends the semantic reach of “rational” warfare (my own quotes).  Talking about the assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Reesha, a Sunni tribal leader in Iraq, the Times explains that he was the “leader of the American supported Sunni tribal uprising against extremist Islamist insurgents”.  This indeed, forced me to sigh and attempt to digest the meaning. 

It is an interesting suggestion that we accept some insurgents are not “extremist”, this is what I gather from the descriptive nature of the quote.  If that be the case, that gives the non-extremist insurgent a cassu belli; legitimacy against occupation? against the Iraqi government? legitimacy of some sort.  A question worth observation, but not when being observed from the eyes of the occuping power.  At this stage of the insurgency, it matters little which side has a legitimate role, in reality legitimacy is an illusion that greases the wheels of the insurgent or the state to go from one violent act to another.  An opiate that clouds reality, veils the guilt, and feeds the insatiable hunger of vengence for the insurgent and power for the empire.

Another interesting notion is our support for tribal uprisings.  How thin must that support be?  What conditions are paramount for that support.  Just listen to history shout at our ignorance and lack of attention.  Can we really expect Sunni “support” to be something more than a temporary conveniance for disempowered Sunnis to regain what they’ve lost. 

A last thing to consider.  Many of the Sunnis we’re arming now to rise up agaisnt the insurgents have killed Americans in battle.  This should be enough to infuriate the most ardent patriot and at least frustrate the apathetic. 

United Democratic Front (UDF) and Malawi Congress Party (MCP) officials threw in the towel on their long (over a year) fight to implement section 65 of the Malawi Constitution that calls for MPs, “who defect from the party that sponsored them, which is described as ‘crossing the floor’, are to be declared vacant. Rather than joining the DPP, those MPs who crossed the floor would now be excluded from parliament” (Relief Web).  While many have called Section 65 an “important” guideline in the Constitution to ensure the rule of law and democratic goverance is followed in this young democracy, I would say that is somewhat narrow thinking, given the current state of economic affairs.

Malawi and its MPs in Parliament need to concentrate on poverty alleviation measures, not avenues for redemption of loss power, something both MCP and UDF members face today (even though UDF holds a majority in Parliament, it fails to pass effective legislation).  President Mutharika, who moved from the UDF to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 2003, did so in order to be an effective policy-maker.  He knew the crutch of Bakili Muluzi’s presence as both former President and present UDF party chairman (and hopeful future Presidential contender) were matters that would hold back a progressive agenda of economic change.

With the recent end in the Sect 65 fight, Malawi has the opportunity to bring forward effective legislation.  Instead of bickering over power and political nuances, legislators can argue over how to implement poverty alleviation programs, issues they were elected to solve.

This week is a bit hectic, with a trip to New Jersey, solidifying our new rental contract, selling furniture, buying furniture, boxing up, packing up…We’ll be moving Saturday morning to Monterey and will be finished by that afternoon, hopefully. 

Moving is like trying a new bottle of wine.  You are a bit apprehensive; you tend to second guess your decision; you sit around comprehending the process of the new experience, preparing yourself for disappointment; you get yourself all worked up over the process of splitting the seal, twisting thru the stopper, and popping the cork from the bottle.  As you pour the wine into whatever physical barrier your hands compel you to embrace, the euphoria of something new begins to hit like a jolt of caffeine after a long break without.  Your glass willingly fills with the excitement of new beginnings; the flowery embrace of tannins and ancient Napa oak barrels brings a youthful glare of future premonitions.  You raise the glass and inhale the years of past toils and tribulations that bring you to this enigmatic moment.  And as you embrace the future and all your glass holds, you hope the taste is as elegant as you always envisioned it.

Last week, President Clinton and Scottish philanthropist, Sir Tom Hunter, visited Malawi to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the people of Malawi through President Bingu wa Mutharika.  The MOU is designed to provide private money for rural development projects.  The unique quality of this MOU is that it keeps power and decisions in the hands of locals in the community, as opposed to outsiders with little understanding of local needs.

 

Too often in the past, development aid initiatives had been disconnected from the participation and fundamental ownership of the people at grass root level who were the ones heavily affected by poverty,” said Clinton.

Speaking with locals in Malawi, I learned that many programs failed to fund the needest people because of a lack of both local and cultural understanding.  While the intent of international donors may be noble and altruistic, they often fail to meet the needs at hand due to misunderstandings and a lack of local control.  This program looks like it can solve many of the past shortcomings, and will be one which researchers of development should follow.

See Video of Clinton visit: Clinton Foundation

Packer writes a bit on the use of Human Terrain Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan in his New Yorker blog on July 20th.  He sees a growing relationship between social scientists and soldiers, a mixture typically considered taboo in the past.  The professionalization of both sides of the spectrum, coupled with theoretical and practical “antagonisms” led to what Packer explains as “isolated American sub-culutres”. 

This year, the Army is actually deploying teams of social scientists with units in Baghdad and Afghanistan (…) The best soldiers I met in Iraq were eager to share critical views with professors and journalists. This past spring, when McMaster led a group of officials and private citizens to Iraq to assess progress there, he picked as one member an anti-war British political-science professor who happens to know a great deal about the country. Desperate times breed desperate measures. 

While the disconnect between American culture and military culture has often caused the military to be shunned from college campuses in the past, and created contempt amongst the military community (as international relations professor Andrew Bacevich often writes about), the divisions are becoming less prominent.  Both sides are beginning to realize the utiliy of the other and that moral and political compromises are essential towards forging a coherent plan of success in US foreign policy.  Packer is indeed correct when he ends: 

But a superpower can hardly afford to have its thinkers and its warriors despise and avoid one another.

Also see:  DNI Conference