They are both about Haiti. They are both worth reading. In my view, one is the best of op-eds and one is the worst. Please read them and say what you think and why.
Op-ed #1: In the February 7 New York Times, Ben Fountain takes us to rural Haiti in 1999. After driving for a few hours away from Port-au-Prince, he saw sprawling mansions in the hillsides. “Had oil been discovered in Haiti”? His Haitian friend shook his head: “Drogue. Drugs.” Fountain talks about how Haiti, 10 years ago, had become a major transshipment point for cocaine from South America to the United States. It still is. The Haitian military helps keep this billion-dollar-a-year trade going. Fountain concludes: “So it’s come to this: the richest country in the hemisphere and the poorest, the first republic and the second, trapped together in the New World’s most glaring modern failure: the war on drugs.”
Op-ed #2: In the February 5 Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Harrison writes from Boston about how the Haitian people’s widespread devotion to voodoo is its “curse.” He states that although Haiti has received billions of dollars in foreign aid over the past half-century, its progress indicators are more like those of Africa than Latin America. The reason: the powerful influence of voodoo, which, he explains came from Africa and continues to be an “obstacle to development” there. Harrison avers that that all Haitians feel its influence. His sources of data? A son-in-law of his “who is Haitian and holds a graduate degree from Harvard.” And an American missionary who lived in Haiti for 20 years. Shaky grounds? Not for Harrison, who sums it all up for us: “Haiti’s predicament is caused by a set of values, beliefs, and attitudes…”
Image: “Members of the Jordanian Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) take position during a drug seizure exercise. 22/Dec/2008. UN Photo/Marco Dormino.” Link. Creative commons licensed Flickr content.
anthropologyworks 
I’m pretty sure that journalists are using “voodoo” because they think it sounds scary to their readers. Because they all seem to be talking about the same cardboard cutout 19th century version that you’d expect to see in a bad crime novel. And their actual data on the subject, beyond “some guy I know over there” seems to be nil.
LikeLike
Three thoughts.
First it doesn’t seem credible that your approval of the first op-ed and disapproval of the second is based upon the evidence that either op-ed writer marshals in support of their arguments or on their individual qualifications.
Fountain is a journalist and award-winning fiction writer, not a Haitian expert, and cites “his friend” in support of his claim.
Harrison (who is not a journalist @ ryan a), on the other hand, does seem (from his CV) to be something of an expert on culture and development, and has even spent considerable time in Haiti. But he too cites mostly relations to support his argument.
My personal (completely uneducated) view is that both are probably right to some degree. It is likely that the drug trade has ravaged Haiti’s development efforts AND historical factors have helped shape a Haitian culture that in some ways hinders some development efforts. However both op-eds seem needlessly simplistic and one-dimensional in their diagnosis of Haiti’s “problem.”
From the standpoint of a sociologist/historian (my backgrounds) what I find most fascinating in your reaction to these op-eds is how deeply-rooted (conscious or unconscious) biases inevitably and inescapably shape how we all react to, and represent, stimuli, no matter how “educated” we think ourselves to be. To use the jargon, our awareness of reflexivity doesn’t allow us to overcome it.
LikeLike
Justin,
“Harrison (who is not a journalist @ ryan a), on the other hand, does seem (from his CV) to be something of an expert on culture and development, and has even spent considerable time in Haiti. But he too cites mostly relations to support his argument.”
Ok, he’s not a journalist. My mistake. Is that really an important point?
So Harrison is an expert on “culture and development”. Does this mean that I should sit back and accept everything he says? Does this mean that his word on the matter is final?
“My personal (completely uneducated) view is that both are probably right to some degree. It is likely that the drug trade has ravaged Haiti’s development efforts AND historical factors have helped shape a Haitian culture that in some ways hinders some development efforts.”
When you talk about culture, are you referring to some kind of inherent quality of the people themselves? What do you mean when you say that there is a culture that hinders development efforts? Is this the argument that Haitians are somehow resistant to progress?
To me, there is a massive difference between accounting for critical historical factors and making broad claims about the supposed “culture” of massive groups of people. There is a difference between taking a look at how foreign debt could severely affect economic opportunities and making the claim that the REAL problem is the cultural disposition of an aggregate of individuals.
“However both op-eds seem needlessly simplistic and one-dimensional in their diagnosis of Haiti’s “problem.” ”
Agreed.
“From the standpoint of a sociologist/historian (my backgrounds) what I find most fascinating in your reaction to these op-eds is how deeply-rooted (conscious or unconscious) biases inevitably and inescapably shape how we all react to, and represent, stimuli, no matter how “educated” we think ourselves to be.”
So we’re all just slaves to our biases? Are we all, in your view, simply responding to stimuli? Why is this fascinating to you? Are you able to rise above your biases? Is your reaction here yet another example of a deeply rooted inevitable bias?
LikeLike
I note that Harrison worked (briefly it seems) in Haiti in the 1970s for USAID. No doubt the failure of many aid projects has caused those involved to assume that the Haitian people were to blame for the failures as the managers of the programs cannot bring themselves to admit that the failures were perhaps due to poor design, theory and management (not to mention the bad politics behind much of it, even up til recently). A good review of the failures of US aid policy in during the 1970s and 1980s in Haiti is Josh DeWind’s book “Aid Migration” (I am blanking on the co-author’s name, but I believe the book came out in 1988 and was published by Westview).
LikeLike
“The Haitian military helps keep this billion-dollar-a-year trade going.”
A few comments:
There is no Haitian military actually, Aristide got rid of it but this did bring about an increase in paramilitary activity of various sorts. The police force in Haiti is estimated to be half the size needed, but even if it is grown, it is not clear if it will prevent or facilitate drug trade. Fortunately, reviews seem to be positive that the force has had some healthy purges of the most corrupt officers.
Much of the drug trade escapes interaction with the government, the government is just that small and weak. Many people wish to avoid dealing with the government in Haiti,but the international community needs to realize that you will reduce corruption by growing, not ignoring or shrinking, the Haitian government.
Finally, there are lots of mansions in Haiti but it has nothing to do with the drug trade, it has to do with the long standing and fairly large number of wealthy families in Haiti (or membesr of the diaspora that return to build homes now and then) and the presense of cheap labor/land. Plus, given the setting, even a modest home on a medium sized plot in scenic parts of Haiti can appear to be like a luxury home when it is really very “middle class.” American journalists are easily fooled into (or lapse into) coming to the most sensationalistic conclusions. It’s maddening.
LikeLike
Ryan,
You’ve asked a lot of questions, I will try to answer them all briefly.
“Ok, he’s not a journalist. My mistake. Is that really an important point?”
Accuracy is generally important, particularly when (I think) it changes the substance of your argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that your general argument is that journalists have a tendency to use sensational terms in order to attract readers, in this case by using the word “voodoo.” That’s certainly a defensible position. Except in the context of discussing these two op-eds it is simply not relevant. Neither writer matches that description. To make a relevant argument you could say that “Academics like Harrison have a tendency to use sensational terms in order to attract readers.” This is also a defensible (though I would judge more difficult) argument to make.
Which brings me to your next question, “Does this mean that I should sit back and accept everything he says? Does this mean that his word on the matter is final?”
Of course not. I never said or implied such. Generally I think society accords greater credibility to academics than journalists because it assumes them to be better informed, but this of course need not hold in every particular case. Mr. Harrison’s referencing was hardly extensive.
When you talk about culture, are you referring to some kind of inherent quality of the people themselves?
Culture, as any cultural anthropologist would tell you, is a notoriously difficult term to define succinctly or definitively. My general view of the subject has been heavily influenced by Geertz. I’m not sure how he fares these days within cultural anthropology circles (he has been a darling and a devil to many at different times) but I find his approach quite helpful in my studies.
“What do you mean when you say that there is a culture that hinders development efforts?”
We need to be very careful here, my original wording was more precise than that in your question, and for good reason. I said that it is “likely that…historical factors have helped shape a Haitian culture that in some ways hinders some development efforts.” Since I know nothing about Haiti, I don’t know what those “some[s]” are. Nor will I speculate if voodoo is one of them. However it is perfectly possible that a cultural practice could hinder a development effort. Take for example the refusal of some Roman Catholics to use condoms even when they are living in areas with high levels of HIV/AIDs. Or the fact that in many countries where patriarchy is the norm large amounts of “micro-finance” loans targeted for woman actually end up in their husband’s/father’s/brother’s hands. As I am sure Dr. Miller would agree, culture matters.
“So we’re all just slaves to our biases? Are we all, in your view, simply responding to stimuli? Are you able to rise above your biases?”
The (enormous) literature on reflexivity is as diverse as it is heated, but most anthropologists agree that it is a “problem.” So yes, to some degree we are all prisoners of our own biases/cultural backgrounds. Completely “rising above them” is a doubtful enterprise and in any case the metaphor is a troubled one around which to conceptualize the problem. It seems to imply that some objectivity exists out there to “rise” to and that bias is something low and primitive as opposed to common and natural. This is not an excuse for cultural boorishness, insularity, or on the other hand, relativism. Rather we should strive to learn from, appreciate, and respect, other cultures while at the same time acknowledging that our own “rose colored culture lenses” (the metaphor I find more helpful) are inevitably influencing what we think we “see.” Which is of course why being open to alternative viewpoints is so important. But all of this is simply Anthro 101 stuff so I will not belabor the point further.
Is your reaction here yet another example of a deeply rooted inevitable bias?
In part, yes. In my original response I very deliberately used “we” in order to include myself
We are all vulnerable. This isn’t a reason to dismiss others’ (or my) views, but on the contrary, to be humble about our own.
“Why is this fascinating to you?”
I’m quite a nerd when it comes to these things, some people are fascinated by the Superbowl, others prefer ballet. I like anthropology, this is an anthropology blog, am I in the wrong company?
LikeLike
Justin,
“To make a relevant argument you could say that “Academics like Harrison have a tendency to use sensational terms in order to attract readers.” This is also a defensible (though I would judge more difficult) argument to make.”
My point was that the word “voodoo” is being used in an overly simplistic way in the op-eds, and in other articles that have been published–so I was in part also referring to the earlier Brooks article. That was the point. I could really care less about WHAT we define the writers as–anthropologists, journalists, or otherwise. I should have used the word writers, or people, or “these two authors.” My mistake. I am not arguing about the difference between academics and journalists, which are subjective in many regards.
“Generally I think society accords greater credibility to academics than journalists because it assumes them to be better informed, but this of course need not hold in every particular case. Mr. Harrison’s referencing was hardly extensive.”
Agreed. The automatic assumption that journalists are merely mindless hacks is pretty ridiculous. As with everything, there are some good ones and some bad ones (same goes for academics, as you point out).
“My general view of the subject has been heavily influenced by Geertz. I’m not sure how he fares these days within cultural anthropology circles (he has been a darling and a devil to many at different times) but I find his approach quite helpful in my studies.”
Ok. So then you’re looking at culture as systems of symbols that people use to understand/navigate experience? So then, what is your argument about culture in relation to Haiti? Are you saying that there has been a fundamental change to their cultural/symbolic system which has made them resistant to development efforts? How so?
One of the major issues with Geertz is that he didn’t really deal with either power or politics very well.
“I said that it is “likely that…historical factors have helped shape a Haitian culture that in some ways hinders some development efforts.” Since I know nothing about Haiti, I don’t know what those “some[s]” are.”
How have they “shaped culture”? What do you mean by that? It sounds like you are making a claim about the inherent nature or tendencies of Haitian people. Especially considering the fact that you are using Geertz as your model, I am just not sure what you are actually arguing. I would not argue that the root problem is some fundamental change to Haitian culture. I think that argument leaves out a lot of other factors, and also characterizes culture as something that is pretty static–as if something can just come in and change the entire culture of a people in some complete sense. Do all Haitian people share the exact same “culture”? Not really. So what elemental cultural change has happened that has inhibited development?
“However it is perfectly possible that a cultural practice could hinder a development effort. Take for example the refusal of some Roman Catholics to use condoms even when they are living in areas with high levels of HIV/AIDs. Or the fact that in many countries where patriarchy is the norm large amounts of “micro-finance” loans targeted for woman actually end up in their husband’s/father’s/brother’s hands. As I am sure Dr. Miller would agree, culture matters.”
Of course culture matters. But it sounded to me like you were using “culture” in the generic sense of David Brooks, who basically argued that there was some “progress-resistant” element of Haitian culture. Brooks was taking a series of factors–history, politics, power, economic debt, corruption, AND culture and, I think, placing a little too much emphasis on culture as the primary issue. To me, that was a pretty unsustainable argument. Overall, I am not sure exactly what argument you’re making, since it’s unclear what you mean when you use the term culture.
“So yes, to some degree we are all prisoners of our own biases/cultural backgrounds. Completely “rising above them” is a doubtful enterprise and in any case the metaphor is a troubled one around which to conceptualize the problem. It seems to imply that some objectivity exists out there to “rise” to and that bias is something low and primitive as opposed to common and natural.”
It was a metaphor, not a literal statement. Don’t read too much into that. Also, your view of “culture” sounds pretty controlling. From what you are saying it sounds as if people simply react to symbols and stimuli. Your conception makes it sound as if readers are only able to respond in programmed ways to certain information or arguments. I agree that culture (and experience) conditions or influences behavior, but I am not sure if would say that it simply determines behavior in some straightforward sense.
If culture is so controlling, then how does change come about? if culture is this controlling force, does this mean that individuals do not make choices? Does this mean that they do not make strategic decisions?
“But all of this is simply Anthro 101 stuff so I will not belabor the point further.”
Thanks for the lesson. Look, I understand the arguments about objectivity, reflexivity, etc. What you wrote in your post above made it sound as if there was just some kind of patterned response going on–as if we are simply reading op-eds and reacting to stimuli automatically. Of course we all have our cultural lenses, and of course we can’t simply dismiss everything by “being reflexive”. At the same time, I think that your claim was a little on the deterministic side. But maybe that’s just your patterned response to a certain set of characters on the computer screen, and this is my patterned response to your patterned response. It’s all a big program!
“In part, yes. In my original response I very deliberately used “we” in order to include myself. We are all vulnerable. This isn’t a reason to dismiss others’ (or my) views, but on the contrary, to be humble about our own.”
I think that boiling down my reactions and your reactions about these issues to a series of deeply rooted biases is a questionable exercise. There are a whole series of factors involved, and you are claiming, ultimately, that we are both reacting to stimuli in a pattern-response kind of way? Sounds pretty formulaic. But maybe I am misreading you.
“I’m quite a nerd when it comes to these things, some people are fascinated by the Superbowl, others prefer ballet. I like anthropology, this is an anthropology blog, am I in the wrong company”
Anthropology is good stuff, no doubt about that. I guess when I see someone making blanket psychological claims based upon very limited information (a few comments on a blog), I start asking questions. If you’re going to diagnose motives and behaviors and tell people why they think/react the ways they do–be prepared to take a few questions from the audience.
LikeLike
Ryan a,
Thanks for the response. However, with all due respect, it is full of straw men. You are drawing dubious conclusions from my comments, ascribing them to me, and then arguing how they are unreasonable.
“It was a metaphor, not a literal statement.”
Who said/implied it was a literal statement? In fact I dealt with the phrase in question specifically as a metaphor and said why it was troubled in that sense.
“Your conception makes it sound as if readers are only able to respond in programmed ways to certain information or arguments. I agree that culture (and experience) conditions or influences behavior, but I am not sure if would say that it simply determines behavior in some straightforward sense.”
It’s not “my conception” it’s the conception that you have ascribed to me and I don’t agree with it, nor did my writing reasonably allow you to draw that conclusion about what my conceptions might be.
“What you wrote in your post above made it sound as if there was just some kind of patterned response going on–as if we are simply reading op-eds and reacting to stimuli automatically.”
Really? Where? I never said anything like “patterned response” or “simply…reacting to stimuli automatically.”
“How have they “shaped culture”? What do you mean by that? It sounds like you are making a claim about the inherent nature or tendencies of Haitian people.”
How does it sound like I am making such a claim? I do not even understand the argument about the “inherent nature…of Haitian people” that you are ascribing to me.
“I guess when I see someone making blanket psychological claims based upon very limited information (a few comments on a blog), I start asking questions. If you’re going to diagnose motives and behaviors and tell people why they think/react the ways they do–be prepared to take a few questions from the audience.”
Where did I make blanket psychological claims? The only one of these I see is yours, i.e. “I’m pretty sure that journalists are using “voodoo” because they think it sounds scary to their readers.” Where am I diagnosing (I assume you mean Dr. Miller’s?) motives and behavior?
In general, by ignoring all my qualifying words such as “In part” “some” “to some degree” you are making my argument more extreme than it really is, and by probing the meaning of some of my fairly straightforward and uncontroversial statements, you are attempting to make it more complicated than it really is. Let me try to repeat the argument very succinctly in point form.
1. Whatever your opinion of their conclusions, neither op-ed from an academic standpoint (I believe) supports its argument very well.
2. Dr. Miller seemingly disagrees with this, judging one to be the “best” and one the “worst.”
As someone who likes anthropology, this presents me with a “fascinating” anthropological situation. There are a few ways that could understand how 1 and 2 relate to each other.
a. I could be wrong. There IS a substantive difference between the two op-eds, one is better referenced, more accurate, more logically consistent, in short, more academically rigorous than the other one.
b. She made a poor judgment and if she read the op-eds again would likely conclude that, whatever her feeling about the article’s conclusions, neither one is very academically rigorous and so calling one ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’ is not really warranted.
c. She is bringing in outside (of the two op-eds) knowledge to make her judgment, and/or approaching the articles from a different perspective (of which biases are a part) than my own.
I chose (c.) and then made the fairly mundane and uncontroversial point that “biases inevitably and inescapably shape how we all react to, and represent, stimuli, no matter how “educated” we think ourselves to be.”
From that you cannot reasonably or responsibly make the extreme conclusion that I think we are all “simply” “programmed” or “controlled” by culture, that we are capable of nothing but “patterned responses,” that “It’s all a big program!,” or that I have a “formulaic” understanding of culture.
As far as my statement about historical events shaping cultures, I am not sure why this so unclear. Saying that historical events influence, shape, affect, cultural beliefs and practices is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, and certainly doesn’t imply that I have a “static” understanding of culture.
Finally, despite our lengthy discussion, I actually think we probably we agree more than we disagree about the two op-eds and generally about the role and influence of culture in our lives. We both agree that the op-eds are “needlessly simplistic and one dimensional” which makes me (and perhaps you too?) curious as to why Dr. Miller thinks otherwise. And we both agree that, to combine your and my own words, we all, “no matter how educated,” have “cultural lenses” that affect how we view and interpret the world. We probably marginally disagree on the extent and character of that effect, but not on much else as far as I can see.
LikeLike
Justin,
“You are drawing dubious conclusions from my comments, ascribing them to me, and then arguing how they are unreasonable.”
I don’t think you’re unreasonable; I am just asking you exactly what you are arguing. We had this discussion about how David Brooks used the term culture, and now I am just asking you where you are coming from. People use that term all the time as a kind of black box that explains everything, so I was attempting to clarify what you mean when you use it.
So you answered that you take your understanding of culture from Geertz, and so I asked you specifically how you think that Haitian “culture” is resistant to development. What changes to the culture–in In my view, there is really no single Haitian culture that applies to all Haitians at all times. So saying that there is some overarching cultural factor that explains the lack of development success doesn’t really address all of the factors. The problem I have with Brooks’ use of culture is that he seems to assume that culture is a bounded thing that all Haitians possess in some monolithic sense. I disagree with that idea of culture, and therefore with his use of culture for explaining what we are seeing in Haiti.
“Really? Where? I never said anything like “patterned response” or “simply…reacting to stimuli automatically.””
Here is your statement:
“From the standpoint of a sociologist/historian (my backgrounds) what I find most fascinating in your reaction to these op-eds is how deeply-rooted (conscious or unconscious) biases INEVITABLY and INESCAPABLY SHAPE how we all react, and represent, stimuli, no matter how “educated” we think ourselves to be.”
This sounds pretty formulaic and to me. While I think that culture shapes our perceptions, I doubt that Dr Miller’s reactions to these op-eds are “inevitably” and “inescapably” shaped by her biases. What you’re saying sounds really programmatic to me, but that’s just my opinion. It’s really not that big of deal, in the end. Sure, culture plays a role in how we understand situations and react to them, but so does choice, contextual analysis, and consideration of new ideas/data.
“How does it sound like I am making such a claim? I do not even understand the argument about the “inherent nature…of Haitian people” that you are ascribing to me.”
You seem to be making the claim that there was some complete or uniform change to Haitian “culture” that has lead to resistance to development. I am just trying to figure exactly what you mean by that. If there was some widespread change, and this explains the situation in Haiti, then how exactly did this change come about? You see, I don’t think this broad argument about “culture” in Haiti really says very much–and that was the argument that Brooks was making.
Again, I am not sure where you stand on this.
“Where am I diagnosing (I assume you mean Dr. Miller’s?) motives and behavior? ”
See the above quote of yours about about biases, reactions, and stimuli. But maybe you didn’t mean it to come across that way.
“From that you cannot reasonably or responsibly make the extreme conclusion that I think we are all “simply” “programmed” or “controlled” by culture, that we are capable of nothing but “patterned responses,” that “It’s all a big program!,” or that I have a “formulaic” understanding of culture.”
Ha. Ok. I should have put and /sarcasm tag after that. I was exaggerating and being sarcastic.
Also, I have been asking you what you mean by culture, which as you already noted is an unwieldy term. You referred to Geertz, and I again asked you to clarify what you mean in regards to Haiti. That’s all. Some of what I have read so far sounds formulaic–that’s just my impression, not some judgment of your overall understanding of culture or your understandings of anthropology. I can only base my impressions and questions upon a limited amount of information here. That’s why I asked you a lot of questions.
“Saying that historical events influence, shape, affect, cultural beliefs and practices is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, and certainly doesn’t imply that I have a “static” understanding of culture.”
Sure. If that’s all you’re saying then there is definitely no issue. But you seemed to be supporting Brooks’ claim that Haitian “culture” can explain the poverty and devastation in Haiti. I am asking for more specifics, since the argument falls really short of the mark in my opinion. Brooks’ use of culture REALLY oversimplifies the concept of culture, and it does not really take into account other important factors. I found his argument to be pretty useless. But maybe you don’t agree with Brooks, and instead are just making general statements about culture and its relationship to history.
“Finally, despite our lengthy discussion, I actually think we probably we agree more than we disagree about the two op-eds and generally about the role and influence of culture in our lives.”
Yes, I believe we probably do. So we are arguing the finer details, which is interesting. Especially since writers like Brooks–and Samuel Huntington–take a watered down conception of culture and attempt to use it to make some grand claims.
“And we both agree that, to combine your and my own words, we all, “no matter how educated,” have “cultural lenses” that affect how we view and interpret the world. We probably marginally disagree on the extent and character of that effect, but not on much else as far as I can see.”
Agreed. Basically I was asking questions to see where we disagree, and to clarify my understanding of your argument.
LikeLike
Ryan a
A final few thoughts
Simply put your tendency to make unreasonable inferences (every time you say “you seem to be”) from my writing is leading you to misunderstand my position. Although my writing style is not above reproach, in this instance I do not see how I could be clearer. Please be more careful.
Case in point. Your statements about “patterned response” and “simply…reacting to stimuli automatically” cannot reasonably be drawn from my statement “biases INEVITABLY and INESCAPABLY SHAPE how we all react, and represent, stimuli.” The meanings just don’t match AT ALL.
To illustrate: (1)“Life inevitably and inescapably leads to death” is a true statement that really tells you a limited (but not unimportant or uninteresting) amount of information about Life. It says nothing about what ELSE might happen on the way to death. And of course quite a lot of different ‘stuff’ can happen right? Lives are wonderfully diverse and unpredictable. Contrast that with (2), “Life is a patterned response that simply and automatically leads to death.” Here you’re born, you react to a pattern, you die, you’re done. (1) and (2) are not remotely equivalent statements, one cannot “seem” at all like the other. Nor can SHAPE when discussing immaterial entities, mean DETERMINE, it means INFLUENCE. The statement that a “mother’s prejudices will shape her daughter’s prejudices” is uncontroverisally true, while the statement “a mother’s prejudices will determine her daughter’s prejudices” is uncontroversially false.
Case in point 2.
“You seem to be making the claim that there was some complete or uniform change to Haitian “culture” that has led to resistance to development. I am just trying to figure exactly what you mean by that.” Again you make an unreasonable inference that leads you to an inaccurate understanding of my comment. You inappropriately say “complete” and “uniform” when I said “Haitian culture in SOME WAYS hinders…SOME development efforts.”
And finally, you ask me again, “specifically how [I] think that Haitian “culture” is resistant to development?”
But as I said before, and will repeat again, because I don’t know anything about Haitian culture, I don’t know “specifically” how. However, my comment (almost banal) was simply that it is likely that Haitian culture is not unique in the world in being completely suited for all development efforts, so that Brook’s and Harrison’s arguments, although poorly articulated, are likely to have some measure of truth to them. And if they do not, it is up to the experts (you guys) to tell us why with data, not accuse them of having poorly developed understandings of the concept(s) of culture.
To close and return to the original topic of this post, I will repeat my question since you didn’t answer it, are you too not curious as to why Dr. Miller thinks Mr. Fountain’s op-ed is so great, since we both agree that it is “simplistic and one-dimensional”?
LikeLike
First of all, we should just call a truce about the argument between determinism and influence, etc. We are soon going to devolve into arguing about semantic understandings…I think that you might lean a little more in one direction and I a little more toward another when it comes to what shapes/influences/determines human behavior.
“Again you make an unreasonable inference that leads you to an inaccurate understanding of my comment. You inappropriately say “complete” and “uniform” when I said “Haitian culture in SOME WAYS hinders…SOME development efforts.””
You’re missing my point. You keep asserting the idea that there is some singular Haitian culture, as Brooks did. You just wrote it again. What “Haitian culture” are you talking about? What Haitian “culture” is Brooks talking about? How does this “culture” apply to all of the people in Haiti, and why is it something that we can use to characterize and analyze millions of people? Do you think there is just one overarching cultural system that all these people adhere to?
My problem with Brooks’ use of the word culture is that he is using it in an abstract way as a means to make general claims about millions of people (about 9 million)–as if their actions can be explained by uniform shared cultural predilections. Hardly. This assumes that there is some kind of complete, uniform, or monolithic culture that all people in Haiti share, Well, there isn’t, so his argument falls flat. They may share geographic territory, and many people certainly do share certain histories and cultural ideas/behaviors, but by no means do all Haitians think and act according to one overarching (cultural) system. So we might need to look elsewhere for more answers. Again, culture is important, but there are lots of other factors here.
“However, my comment (almost banal) was simply that it is likely that Haitian culture is not unique in the world in being completely suited for all development efforts, so that Brook’s and Harrison’s arguments, although poorly articulated, are likely to have some measure of truth to them.”
First of all, can you explain to me how a culture becomes suited for development efforts?
Brooks and Harrison would actually have to supply some kind of data that proves that certain widespread cultural practices inhibit development efforts. Otherwise the argument is little more than a baseless generalization that some people are willing to accept for some reason or another.
Since you’re a historian and a sociologist, I seriously do not understand why you find either Brooks’ or Harrison’s arguments convincing in any meaningful sense. The problems with economic development are less due to VOODOO than they are to a long history of colonialism, war, and conflict (internal and external). The problems we are seeing today are due to years of corrupt leadership, foreign intervention, and serious economic debt. There is also considerable inefficiency in how NGOs operate on the ground–and plenty of issues with how funds are handled/distributed. There are massive structural issues (govt, infrastructure, etc) and Brooks and Harrison think voodoo is the real problem?
How are the values, beliefs, and practices of all Haitians ill-suited to clean water, access to food, and improved infrastructure? How is Haitian “culture” in any way ill-suited to improved human rights? Making the argument that “it must be the culture” is ridiculous. This is why I think that what Brooks tried to argue was completely off the mark.
“And if they do not, it is up to the experts (you guys) to tell us why with data, not accuse them of having poorly developed understandings of the concept(s) of culture.”
I HAVE been referring to all kinds of other factors, but those don’t seem to matter. The point is that Brooks is using the idea of culture as if it can be employed in this all-encompassing sense. This isn’t some academic issue; Brooks is using the term as a tool to explain why a whole nation of people is mired in poverty, and his use of the concept is absolutely flawed and baseless. This is similar to the baseless conclusions that Samuel Huntington used to make about “Hispanic” culture. So Brooks should be challenged, especially since I doubt he can actually back up his claim with any real examples or data.
As far as data…how about HISTORY? I would argue that the history of Haiti is one good place to start, and as a historian I assume you would agree. Maybe start with the anti-colonial struggles, head into the relationships with larger nation states (with a key focus on military interventions), and then talk about a series of corrupt governments. Then add massive international debt. Throw some military coups in the mix. How about inefficient yet abundant international aid organizations that don’t really accomplish much. There is plenty of data.
Now, in light of the histories and contemporary realities of Haiti, I am not sure how or why David Brooks or anyone else would make the claim that the TRUE issue at hand must be some “progress-resistant” aspect of the Haitian people themselves. Nonsense, if you ask me.
LikeLike
First I’ll note that this discussion has reverted back to focusing on the “culture issue” of the Brooks posting rather than on the actual topic of this post, and of my comment, which is concerned with comparing Fountain and Huntington’s articles. The question that I posed to you in that regard remains unanswered.
Second in re-discussing the Brooks article you do not really make any new arguments so I don’t have much to respond to. I refer you back to my original comments. Very briefly, of course “Haitian culture” is a crude generalization, so too are “colonialism,” “Debt,” and “corrupt leadership.” Making such generalizations is not an unpardonable sin in a general discussion of this sort. If you can say “corrupt leadership (whats that?)” has hindered Haiti’s development (without citing any examples) I can say aspects of Haitian culture (whats that?) have likely in SOME ways hindered SOME development efforts. Let’s not discuss above our pay grades, neither of us are experts, so lets relax a little on the pedantry. Finally I said that if you disagree with their conclusions, you should provide data to contradict them. Instead you talk about the presence of a lot of other factors that likely inhibit Haiti’s development. Fine, those factors are of course important, but don’t you recognize how this is not what I asked for? Here is a parallel situation. Imagine I say “That man is poor because he doesn’t have a high school diploma,” and you say “No that’s a baseless assertion. He is poor because his father abused him as a child.” Now not only does the second statement NOT refute the first, they BOTH can be theoretically true at the same time. Returning to the claim in question, Brooks said, for example, that “Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.” You can’t refute this by saying “Child rearing practices are not a problem because corrupt leadership (etc.) is the real problem.” That simply doesn’t address or contradict the first claim. To refute Brooks’ claim you can’t cite other reasons for Haiti’s poverty, you must address it directly either by (a.) saying it is simply false, and providing the data to prove it, or (b.) saying that it is not false but that such a practice, within a Haitian cultural context, is not “progress-resistant” because of X, Y, and Z. You have to stay on topic.
Finally you are continuing to, likely unintentionally, distort Brooks and Huntington’s positions, just as you did mine. Parse your words and theirs yourself this time, you will see that they don’t match remotely. Both recognize that “culture” is only one reason, among many others, that Haiti is in it’s current situation. That doesn’t mean it is not worth discussing.
LikeLike
Hey Justin,
“First I’ll note that this discussion has reverted back to focusing on the “culture issue” of the Brooks posting rather than on the actual topic of this post, and of my comment, which is concerned with comparing Fountain and Huntington’s articles. The question that I posed to you in that regard remains unanswered.”
This post, and the post about Brooks, follows a related thread as I see it. That’s how I read it. Brooks’ argument about the “culture” of Haiti comes straight from Harrison. They are both using ridiculously simplistic and unsubstantiated arguments about “culture” in Haiti, and dismissing the importance of other factors. And yes, they DO dismiss those factors. More about this later.
As far as your question about why Dr Miller thinks what she does–I have no idea. And I am not sure why you are so insistent on asking me. I think that both of these op-eds fall short of the mark. I am not sure why Dr Miller thinks op-ed A is stellar. So what’s your issue here?
“To refute Brooks’ claim you can’t cite other reasons for Haiti’s poverty, you must address it directly either by (a.) saying it is simply false, and providing the data to prove it, or (b.) saying that it is not false but that such a practice, within a Haitian cultural context, is not “progress-resistant” because of X, Y, and Z. You have to stay on topic.”
Brooks’ claim about child-rearing practices isn’t even relevant. He doesn’t even illustrate how this has ANY actual relationship to development. He just makes the statement, as if that proves something. Further, Brooks doesn’t cite any sources, and does not refer to anything specific. His statement is meaningless. Yet you think it’s convincing? And you want me to disprove a statement that doesn’t even really make an argument? This is just stupid. First of all, how can Brooks generalize about ALL Haitian child-rearing practices? Second, what in god’s name does that have to do with international development and aid efforts? He doesn’t even make a solid connection between the two. My argument is that Brooks isn’t even SAYING anything. I am astounded that you find his argument even remotely worthwhile.
“Finally you are continuing to, likely unintentionally, distort Brooks and Huntington’s positions, just as you did mine. Parse your words and theirs yourself this time, you will see that they don’t match remotely. Both recognize that “culture” is only one reason, among many others, that Haiti is in it’s current situation. That doesn’t mean it is not worth discussing.”
No, I am not distorting their positions. Harrison is quite clear. Read his op-ed. And Brooks is just repeating what Harrison says. The two arguments are one and the same. Brooks basically cut and pasted Harrison’s argument. Second, while Harrison mentions other factors, he clearly argues that culture (values, beliefs, attitudes) are the main issue. He completely dismisses history and other socio-political factors. That’s the WHOLE POINT of his op-ed.
Read some of Harrison’s other work, and some of the work of Samuel Huntington. They have a specific way of talking about and using the concept of culture–and what they are doing certainly does NOT align with the ways in which anthropologists talk about culture. It is a highly biased and political use of the concept to serve certain agendas. If you are so interested in the work of Geertz, I am not sure why you find their work compelling in any way. Brooks and Harrison butcher anthropological notions of culture.
Here is where Harrison makes his argument (and it’s pretty unmistakable):
“While these and other factors may be relevant, none of them, even collectively, adequately explains the unending dysfunction of Haitian society. Haiti’s predicament is caused by a set of values, beliefs and attitudes, rooted in African culture and the slavery experience that resist progress.”
Right. The real problem isn’t about the troubled history of the government, and it’s not about historical figures like the Duvaliers (a 30 year corrupt dictatorship), and it has nothing to do with foreign intervention. The real problem in Haiti–according to Mr Harrison–is a set of values rooted in “African” culture and the slavery experience that resists progress. Harrison doesn’t explain ANY of this, he just states it. And, despite the work of anthropologists such as Paul Farmer, who argue forcefully about the impacts of history, corruption, and foreign debt (which Harrison acknowledges but dismisses), you find Harrison’s argument defensible. Why? Just because he says so?
Brooks, adopting Harrison’s view, makes similar broad and unsupported claims:
“As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.”
Notice how it’s Harrison’s argument with a little rewording?
So, Brooks makes these assertions–with no data whatsoever to back them up–and you argue that my job is to go around dispelling each one point by point. I brought up the other historical, political, and economic factors because that is the argument being made–and substantiated–by anthropologists such as Paul Farmer, Sidney Mintz, and others. But sure, these statements (with no backing) by Harrison and Brooks need serious consideration.
All Brooks is making are general, unsubstantiated claims. Ironically, you profess to know NOTHING about Haiti, yet you keep rising to defend these ridiculously biased and baseless arguments. At the same time you claim to be interested in anthropology. I know of no anthropologists that are making claims that would support any of this nonsense.
What does either Brooks or Harrison know about the content, meaning, and practice of Voodoo in Haiti or elsewhere? Where do they get the idea that life is capricious and planning is futile according to this religious system? Should we just take these statements as fact? Since you claim to be a fan of Geertz, I am surprised you find these simplistic statements even worth considering. If they had something specific they were actually referring to, that would at least help. But this is just as useless as blaming colonialism on “Christianity”. And, unless I write a thesis about religion in Haiti, you seem absolutely unwilling to question these asinine assertions.
What does it even mean to say that there are high levels of “social mistrust”? Among whom? When? In what situation? That statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Yet you think it holds some explanatory power–I have no idea why. This doesn’t even refer to anything specific.
Responsibility is often not internalized? By whom? When? In relation to what? This is another general claim that has also little meaning–where is the data? What is this even referring to?
“Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.” By EVERYONE? Did they survey the entire population? What study is this from? Did they make it up? What data supports this? Is this a value judgment, a guess, or what? More importantly, how does this relate to international development efforts? How does it relate to economic development? How does either Brooks or Harrison make a logical connection between these vague child-rearing practices and the lack of successful development? This is an absolutely useless argument. There is no actual substance beyond a mere set of assertions.
What, EXACTLY, do you want me to disprove? Brooks and Harrison aren’t even really making any solid claims. They are just throwing around some terms, with no supporting data, and pretending that they have reached a conclusion. Meanwhile, there is plenty of anthropological literature that illustrates the historical, political, structural, economic, and social factors that are critical to take account of. Yet you think that the vague statements about “culture,” “mistrust,” and “child rearing practices” by Brooks and Harrison are really informative.
Throughout our little debate here, you have played the ignorance card. You have repeatedly claimed ignorance when it comes to the histories and cultures of Haiti. Fine. I am no expert on the particulars of Haiti, but I have read enough to know that the arguments that Brooks and Harrison are pushing are hopelessly simplistic and myopic.
Maybe it’s time to do some reading before you keep up with this defense of Brooks and Harrison. I am actually amazed at your persistence with this. And, considering your issues with careful argumentation and debate, I find it astounding that you buy into anything that either Brooks or Harrison are putting forth. I don’t get it.
For some starters:
Colonialism in this context refers to the French occupation of Haiti, and the subsequent slave rebellion. The slave rebellion set up a series of relationships with other nations that were reluctant to recognize Haiti for numerous reasons. Harrison mentions this, but of course dismisses it in favor of his arguments about child care practices.
Foreign debt refers historically to the deal that Haiti made with France that put the country into severe debt right from the start. The more contemporary reference to debt refers to the MASSIVE international economic debt that Haiti held for decades. Definitely an impediment.
Corrupt government refers in part to the dictatorships that held sway over the country from the 1950s up to 1986. By corruption I mean stealing money from the treasury and other assorted crimes that hinder economic stability. Aristide has also been charged with corruption as well.
When I talk about the inefficiencies of development and aid orgs, I refer to the fact that Haiti has more NGOs per capita than any other nation–yet there is little success. Part of the problem is that promised aid never gets delivered. Another issue is the fact that there many of these NGOs are horribly inefficient.
Anyway, there is plenty of literature about all of these histories. But if you want to keep buying into–and defending–the arguments of Brooks and Harrison, by all means feel free. But please spare me of your condescending responses about the proper procedures of debate and argumentation when you aren’t even willing to read the first thing about the subjects at hand.
LikeLike
One more;
Just in case you try to claim that I don’t cite sources.
Paul Farmer
An Anthropology of Structural Violence
Haiti’s Wretched of the Earth
Pathologies of Power
Recent Senate testimony:
http://standwithhaiti.org/haiti/news-entry/pih-co-founder-paul-farmer-testifies-at-senate-foreign-relations-committee/
Sidney Mintz (1995):
Can Haiti Change?
M. Catherine Maternowska:
Reproducing Inequalities: Poverty and the Politics of Population in Haiti
James Ferguson:
Papa Doc, Baby Doc: Haiti and the Duvaliers
Happy reading.
LikeLike