I was most struck by Robert Bates' short article, "Ethnicity and Development in Africa." When one thinks of ethnic, tribal, or other sectarian groups in the African context images of genocide and other violent acts come to mind. It was startling to be confronted by a an article that demonstrates a positive side to those divisions, not least of all because because my preconceptions about African sectarian groups ran contrary to those of other societies.
Bates describes a generational cycle whereby the material improvement of the developing area is initiated and sustained by ethnic groups. The system operates much like any pay-as-you-go retirement benefits system. Those of adult working age allow for the education of their young to increase long-term earnings and support the old in retirement. The expectation is that they in turn will be supported in their old age and that the rising adults will afford their children the same educational opportunities afford them.
The cultural paradigm Bates describes is actually not all that surprising when you think of it outside the context in which its set. Look at the experience of immigrants from America. Intergenerational support was par for the course. During the Depression (admittedly America was not then a "developing" country) elders commonly lived with one of their children and their families. They had worked low wage jobs and sent their children to private schools with their religious affiliations. Those children in turn were the first to start sending their kids to college, and so the eventually these immigrant groups were no longer impoverished groups. Ethnic themed groups became important instruments for engagement with civil society.
So, we have seen in our own history that tight-knit social groups actually do help their own people advance in a pluralist society. We spent a great deal of time studying electoral formula that mitigate negative effects of sectarian strife, and I think that can engender a mindset that feels these groups need to be broken down or assimilated into some greater whole. It's important for scholars and students to be wary of preconceived notions when they attempt to study the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Since this is the last week of class, I thought it'd be nice to reflect on the class as a whole using the readings from this week. Thus, An interesting question I had to the Robert Bates article was: how did we get to the assumption that ethnic diversity means conflict or that it has the potential to dampen growth in society in the first place?
Did it come from data? Some social scientist decided to put together a controversial theory? Preconceived notions of others imposed by the West?
What's more, social scientists are interested in observing the world around them, trying to disentangle the social intricacies that make up behavior in individuals, society, and the world at large. But at the same time, social science and all the associated sciences with it often times imposes presumptions, is that correct? And then it's, ironically, the social scientist's job to wipe clean these (now classified as "assumptions") and start all over again.
In lecture, we found that Professor King was dispelling "myths" of sorts about the Post-Cold War period. While to Westerners, the Cold War seemed "peaceful," in fact, it was a terrible period for others peoples (on the continents of Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe). But while we managed to discover that we had been wrong in these assumptions that the Cold-War Period was peaceful, we seemed to have not been adequately able to answer the question: what brought us to that assumption in the first place?
I like to see it as the social scientist traveling beyond borders, gathering his data. If the studies that we are reading about now were conducted in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc, then what factors, I suppose, pushed social scientists or theorists or what you to say "this is this and that is that."
In short, then, I guess what I'm trying to ask is, the theories that are falsifiable (last lecture of class) such as the Clash of Civilizations, is it just by nature the fault of the social scientist in jumping to conclusions too early? What legitimizes his claim in THAT era only to have that same claim contradicted in THIS era?
I leave this class with these questions in mind. If anyone has thoughts, please feel free to respond!
Happy Holidays everyone!
Post a Comment