As you may have heard, New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote about how Haiti’s culture is mired down by vodou and is anti-progress. And as you might imagine, his comments drew a lot of criticism from cultural anthropologists and others who have spent time in Haiti and with Haitian people.
Brooks apparently adheres to the simplistic and misleading idea of culture as used by political scientist Samuel Huntington (pictured) and former USAID administrator Lawrence Harrison. Neither of these men is an expert on culture as it is understood by the social scientists whose central mission is to study it, understand it, write about it and teach about it: cultural anthropologists.
Brooks and other conservatives no doubt find comfort in the Huntington-Harrison approach to culture. Pro-progress cultures are winners. Funny enough, they are pro-capitalist cultures along the lines of the United States with its strong emphasis on individual economic success, competitive social relationships and multiple car ownership. Anti-progress cultures are losers: they value some degree of social equality and group relationships that might include, heaven help us, labor unions. Low on car ownership among other things.
The H&H model goes against basic principles in cultural anthropology by labeling “others” in ways that are blatantly U.S.-capitalist-ethnocentric. Moreover, adopting the H&H model means that you will never recognize the viability, sustainability and warmth of so many other cultural systems. In fact, you are likely to directly or indirectly participate in the destruction of those cultures through economic, political and cultural imperialism. This is where Huntington and Hirshman lead and where David Brooks has followed.
So here’s my challenge to David Brooks: take an introductory cultural anthropology course now. Open your eyes and your heart to “other” cultures that may look like losers according to H&H but in fact hold the clues to a better future for all of us. If we would only give them a chance. I teach a six-week, distance ed version of my intro class every summer: Anth 002.10 at George Washington University. Mr. Brooks is most welcome to enroll.
Image: Samuel Huntington by Flickr user World Economic Forum via Creative Commons.
anthropologyworks 
Yet another case in which the concepts of the social sciences–how they have been understood and utilized–comes back to haunt us.
Huntington–and Brooks–use(d) culture as if it refers to some bounded, static, and inherent quality…as if it’s possible to describe all Haitians according to some absolute “cultural” trait. The dynamic nature of culture is lost on Brooks, clearly.
One point: I think that Brooks kind of straddles the political fence between being conservative and liberal. He’s a little difficult to characterize in some regards, but I need to read more of his work. In this case his conceptions of Haiti and its people is pretty off the mark–not sure what political ideology is behind his recent statements though. Ignorance knows no political boundaries, that’s for sure.
Maybe this would be a good time for an op-ed in the NY Times?
LikeLike
One more. Compared to someone like Samuel Huntington, I actually think that Brooks might be open to another perspective about this. But I could be wrong…
LikeLike
Thanks, Ryan–
I totally agree with you about David Brooks. He is very very smart and often expresses opinions that appeal to my progressive spirit. So intro anthro might be just the ticket to help him move beyond the H&H comfort zone!
On the op-ed idea: yes, for sure, someone should do it. I was in communication last week with a cultural anthropologist who submitted one but I haven’t heard back from her. Will check in. What about you?
Barbara
LikeLike
I was in Haiti for two months prior to the earthquake and left just five days before it occurred. I write and take photos of cultural aspects, maybe the post are of interest and help.
Cultural Blindness is part of all of us..
.
Haiti Culture
Andy Graham of HoboTraveler.com in Dominican Republic.
LikeLike
Cultural anthropologists I often find are a little too eager to label lay-people such as Brooks as culturally unsophisticated or ethnocentric whenever they express even mildly critical statements about other cultures. The opportunity to trumpet the importance of their field nearly always proves irresistible. And while I believe that “culture matters” a lot, calling on Mr. Brooks to attend one of your courses strikes me as mildly patronizing.
Attempting to understand different cultures should obviously be given greater priority over criticizing them but does this mean that all such criticisms are never allowed or can always easily be deflected as ethnocentric?
I am certainly no expert on Haitian culture but if it is indeed the case that voodoo has had a stifling effect on Haiti’s economic development are we not allowed to say that for fear of being labeled ethnocentric or imperialist? Certainly people can accept such a statement (although again I plead ignorance as to its actual validity in this instance) and still have widely differing opinions about it’s normative character.
Some such as yourself may be critical of “pro-capitalist cultures” and so may think that voodoo’s stifling effect is a good thing, while Brooks, a fan of capitalism, might think it is more sinister. Disagree with him ideologically by all means, or alternatively show that his statement about voodoo’s stifling effect is simply false, but don’t patronize the man as if he were some boor or child lacking education and making crude and flippant judgments.
LikeLike
“I totally agree with you about David Brooks. He is very very smart and often expresses opinions that appeal to my progressive spirit. So intro anthro might be just the ticket to help him move beyond the H&H comfort zone!”
Thanks for the reply Barbara. Brooks is a little difficult to understand–he is kind of all over the place when it comes to social views and politics. But maybe he would be more amenable to some different perspectives.
“On the op-ed idea: yes, for sure, someone should do it. I was in communication last week with a cultural anthropologist who submitted one but I haven’t heard back from her. Will check in. What about you?”
I like the idea. This is the kind of thing that I want to work toward doing more of. Definitely.
LikeLike
Justin,
“Cultural anthropologists I often find are a little too eager to label lay-people such as Brooks as culturally unsophisticated or ethnocentric whenever they express even mildly critical statements about other cultures.”
With all due respect, Brooks was more than mildly critical. He dismissed some pretty real and serious factors in the history of Haiti and boiled the whole problem down to one of “culture,” which is pretty ridiculous. It’s a pretty reductionist and sloppy way of addressing the issue, IMO.
“Attempting to understand different cultures should obviously be given greater priority over criticizing them but does this mean that all such criticisms are never allowed or can always easily be deflected as ethnocentric?”
No, it means that Brooks had no idea what he was talking about when he was trying to explain “what is wrong” with Haiti. His explanation, while neat and readable, was pretty off the mark.
“I am certainly no expert on Haitian culture but if it is indeed the case that voodoo has had a stifling effect on Haiti’s economic development are we not allowed to say that for fear of being labeled ethnocentric or imperialist? Certainly people can accept such a statement (although again I plead ignorance as to its actual validity in this instance) and still have widely differing opinions about it’s normative character.”
People can accept anything they want to, but that doesn’t mean that such statements are actually historically accurate or useful. Feel free to explain how “voodoo” has been a primary problem for Haiti’s long-term economic development plan. This should be good.
“Some such as yourself may be critical of “pro-capitalist cultures” and so may think that voodoo’s stifling effect is a good thing, while Brooks, a fan of capitalism, might think it is more sinister. Disagree with him ideologically by all means, or alternatively show that his statement about voodoo’s stifling effect is simply false, but don’t patronize the man as if he were some boor or child lacking education and making crude and flippant judgments.”
This isn’t a PC issue, and this isn’t about being pro or anti-capitalist. Brooks explanation of the situation in Haiti WAS both flippant and ignorant. In essence, he took hundreds of years of history and politics and said that it all came down to “voodoo” and “culture.” Right. As if colonialism, international interventions, and economic debt had nothing to do with the matter. If Brooks took some more time to look into the histories of Haiti, he might have given that article some second thoughts. Hopefully, at least.
LikeLike
“Brooks was more than mildly critical.”
This is simply a judgement call, that I, with all do respect, disagree with. Brooks calling Haiti’s culture “progress-resistant,” though certainly not nice, is hardly a smackdown.
“Feel free to explain how “voodoo” has been a primary problem for Haiti’s long-term economic development.”
As I made abundantly clear, I know nothing about Haiti. As I also said, if you disagree with Brook’s claim, tell me WHY it is wrong. Simply calling his statements “flippant and ignorant” doesn’t help me, or anyone else, understand why they are inaccurate.
“This isn’t a PC issue”
I never said or implied that it was. The point of the quote that you highlight has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the influence that ideology plays in how we perceive facts.
“As if colonialism international interventions, and economic debt had nothing to do with the matter”
Actually Brooks deals with all of those issues in the article. He doesn’t say they “don’t matter” but rather that given the fact that other countries in the region have had similar histories, there must be more going on than just those factors. Far from being “reductionist” he is actually trying to add one more factor, i.e. cultural, into the long list of possible reasons for Haiti’s current situation.
Again I don’t know if he is right to do this, but although you obviously disagree, you haven’t told me why. If you need a place to start you could counter Brook’s claim that “the voodoo religion… spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile.” I’m guessing that doing so will be easy enough.
LikeLike
“This is simply a judgement call, that I, with all do respect, disagree with. Brooks calling Haiti’s culture “progress-resistant,” though certainly not nice, is hardly a smackdown.”
Ok, now we’re just going to devolve into relative opinions about what “critical” means, so this particular avenue is a little pointless. It’s good to be critical. I just happen to think that Brooks’ critique was less than informed.
“Simply calling his statements “flippant and ignorant” doesn’t help me, or anyone else, understand why they are inaccurate.”
Agreed. Here is the reason why boiling all of this down to culture and voodoo isn’t getting us anywhere. First of all, a large percentage of Haitians are Christians–and many of them combine this with other religious ideas. Not really anything new. Now, when Brooks makes the claim that one of the real problems is with voodoo, it makes me wonder what exactly he is talking about. What actual information or data is he working with? It’s just a really broad claim that only floats because “voodoo” sounds scary to NYT readers. Making these kinds of broad claims–without some kind of actual reason–might work to sell newspapers but what does it really tell us about the situation? It’s flippant because it’s an off the cuff remark. It’s ignorant because if Brooks took the time to really study the history of Haiti I doubt be would make such blanket charges.
There are lots of important things to keep in mind here–and somehow I doubt that voodoo is at the top of the list for explaining poverty in Haiti.
“I never said or implied that it was. The point of the quote that you highlight has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the influence that ideology plays in how we perceive facts.”
Yes, ideology certainly does have its effects. And in this case I think that some of Brooks’ views are clouding the issue. To me this has less to do with being pro- or anti-capitalist and more to do with taking the time to gain an understanding of the actual histories and politics of Haiti. Brooks’ article was lazy. His idea about being “progress-resistant” makes little sense if you actually look at what has happened–and continues to happen–in Haiti. His explanation comes straight from the 1960s or something. Sure, international intervention, massive foreign debt, and continued internal corruption are not the primary factors–the people of Haiti are just resistant to progress in some kind of inherent sense. I don’t buy it.
“Again I don’t know if he is right to do this, but although you obviously disagree, you haven’t told me why. If you need a place to start you could counter Brook’s claim that “the voodoo religion… spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile.” I’m guessing that doing so will be easy enough.”
You know, I just wonder exactly what he is talking about. What is he referring to? Does he have something specific in mind? You see, there is not just some single form of voodoo per se, so Brooks is just making big claims that sound neat in a newspaper. Has he studied the religion? Does he really know what the moral messages are? I doubt it. The religious systems in Haiti are syncretic, and combine ideas from West Africa and Catholicism–any there are various forms. Brooks is playing off some 19th century version of “VOODOO” that scares western audiences. But it seems that he really doesn’t know much about it.
LikeLike