Some time ago this blog visited the contribution
of David Landes[1] in a
very influential reader, Culture Matters, edited by two giants in the study
of human affairs, Lawrence E. Harrison, and Samuel P. Huntington. This collection of articles had at the time
of its publishing, 2000, a good deal of influence among the academics of that
time. For example, Landes’ article, “Culture Makes Almost All the
Difference,”[2] begins by asking a very insightful
question.
It
asks: when a problem pops up, does one inquire
into “what went wrong” or “who did this to us”?
The latter question seems to be what one’s emotions push to the fore,
while the former is a more reasoned concern.
Eventually, both questions are important in not only fixing what’s wrong
but also devising strategies that might prevent a recurrence of whatever the
problem is.
In
line with Landes’ writing, today the nation is confronted with a problem that takes
up a lot of concern among the nation’s news sources in their reporting. That is the influx of immigrants through the
southern border. In the realm of blame,
a lot of that reporting comments on the politics: is the President to blame due to a lack of harshness
– closing the border to these immigrants – or is it due to the opposition party’s
reluctance to meaningfully address the problem in Congress?
Neither of these options looks at why
this immigration is taking place – it is treated simply as a given. This blogger finally heard, in passing, a
commentator on TV suggest that perhaps a program of extensive investment into
the economies of the nations of origin – from where these immigrants come – could
address the problem and supply a solution.
Of course, this is not a quick or easy fix; it presupposes many factors
being lined up and working in productive ways.
To begin with, one can question the viability of moving in this
direction.
But the first step is asking
why this immigration is going on with the intent of addressing the causes in a
way that is true and accurate. This
posting does not make an argument for this investment plan – it doesn’t argue
against it either – but addresses what all is involved with such an
approach. And with that concern, Landes
provides a historical case in which a traditional society did cross the line
from being a traditional and agriculturally based economy to one in which it
became a leading industrial and post-industrial nation, that being Japan.
To make a comparison between south of
the border nations, from Central and South America, and Japan of the 1800s, one
needs to go through several different stages.
The first stage is to compare the global landscape Japan faced with the
one that exists today. Very profound
differences exist between that world of nearly two centuries ago and
contemporary times. At the earlier time,
there were the beginnings of what today one calls dependency relationships and
what some consider to be the post dependency era.
Simplified, dependency relationships divided
lesser developed countries (LDCs) among the developed countries in which a
given developed country controlled the export/import markets for a set of
LDCs. An LDC would be limited to which
countries it could export its mostly agricultural/natural resources products
and from whom it could import industrial products. This would be to the benefit of both the upper
classes of each type of nation. The rich
of the poor countries were/are equally rich as those of the developed
countries.
Some argue today that due to advanced
countries not limiting themselves to “their” LDCs, the whole system has been
compromised. Others think this is
overstated. Here is what a Global
South article determined to be the case on this question:
In
today’s realm, dependency thoughts are still useful in analyzing the widening
inequalities between the poor and rich countries, or in analysing the divisions
within a developed or a developing country context. Our societies are vastly
divided, and dependent relations exist within our own social facbric [sic].[3]
Whatever the situation is today, one can suppose
that there are vested interests that benefit from what is and they enjoy
significant political power or influential status. So, the first challenge would be to address
this imbalance of power and financial resources.
And
here, this blogger believes Karl Marx had a point, not in terms of justice –
although one can see injustice being an element of this arrangement – but from
a practical point of view. Treat people
with disregard, especially if there is any experience of better times, and they
will seek reciprocity. They will believe
they have the right to seek revenge. Can
one see this in operation?
This
blogger believes one can. And one does see
it in the politics of today here in the US.
The Global South article comments on this practical reality:
In other words, the
financial crisis of 2008 showed the inefficiency of the global capitalist
system and questioned the strengths of the new liberal economic philosophy in
contributing to economic equality. Aaccording to [James] Petras & [Henry] Veltmeyer
… capitalism in the form of new liberal globalisation provides very poor model
for changing society in the direction of social equality, participatory
democratic decision making and human welfare.[4]
And it is this aspect that motivates this
posting. Before one looks at any
historical example to address contemporary conditions, one needs to consider
how social/economic/political landscapes of the compared nations are one to the
other.
Another
factor is how comparing nations addresses basic, relevant social elements or
resources. If the aim is to transform a
nation from an agriculturally based economy to an industrial one, certain
infrastructure assets need to be in place or developed before any such effort
begins. And in this, Landes describes
how advantaged Japan was before they began the transition.
Landes
reports:
The
Japanese went about modernization with characteristic intensity and
system. They were ready for it – by
virtue of a tradition (recollection) of effective government, by their high
levels of literacy, by their tight family structure, by their work ethic and
self-discipline, by their sense of national identity and inherent superiority.
That
was the heart of it: The Japanese knew
they were superior, and because they knew it, they were able to recognize the
superiorities of others.[5]
And that overview sets up this blog to address
the steps Japan took to make Japan the modern, developed nation one observes
and admires today. It wasn’t a smooth
development – World War II didn’t help – but one can safely determine that
nation has made the transition. The next
posting will trace a number of the broad strategies Japan employed in that
process.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Is It Better to
Ask Who or What?,” Gravitas: A Voice
for Civics, September 30, 2019, URL:
https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019_09_15_archive.html.
[2] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the
Difference,” in Culture Matters: How
Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P.
Huntington (New York, NY: Basic Books),
2-13.
[3] “Is Dependency Theory Still
Relevant Today? A Perspective from the
Global South,” Global South: Development Magazine, November 18, 2020,
accessed December 23, 2023, URL: https://www.gsdmagazine.org/is-dependency-theory-still-relevant-today-a-perspective-from-the-global-south/#:~:text=In%20today's%20realm%2C%20dependency%20thoughts,within%20our%20own%20social%20facbric.
British spelling.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the Difference,” in
Culture Matters, 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment