As chief proofreader at my company, which shall remain nameless for reasons that will become obvious, I really work not for my technical boss, but for whomever requests and conceives a project to be turned into something that can be mass-produced and sent to the sales force. This morning, I got an assignment from a very special project requestor, a Peruvian immigrant in her late twenties who arrives and leaves at this building long before I do, and whose job is to keep it sparkling for us suits (well, today is casual Friday, but you get the idea).
She had written four paragraphs in response to four questions selected from the takehome final she got in the sociology course she is taking at our local community college. Reading what she wrote, I really wished she was single, as I recently became.
I can only hope that her instructor is not a Kossack, because she's turning this in today. Perhaps if he is, he will let me buy him a beer, over which we can discuss my changing careers.
Choosing the questions I will answer on this test and actually answering them has been a more painful experience than I anticipated. In a way, all four answers that I have composed could be considered in fact a single answer to question 16, "What is meant by modernity?" Since long before I was born, it has meant the dominance of the industrialized West and the poverty of everyone else. The chief characteristics of a modern Western society are militarism and capitalism, which means Russia and China are Western too, and do not really represent a threat to longer-established Western countries. It also means there is a way out (see "Modernization theory" below) for non-Western countries; but at what cost in terms of their values? Various movements have sprung up around the world to resist modernity, of which the most powerful currently is al-Qaeda. As you will see below, however, I identify more with the thinking of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and their predecessors, Che Guevara and Tupac Amaru.
- I must fundamentally disagree with the pro-competition view of Davis and Moore. While it is potentially a good thing to have the example of the upper class spurring everyone else’s productivity, this cannot outweigh the basic inequality of the system. Americans should ask themselves why they have now privileged competition above not only examples from their own history when it was reined in (the New Deal, the Great Society) but, some would say, above the very Constitution that immigrants like me are made to learn more carefully than the average citizen. As I have said, competition creates incentives which can lead to higher productivity – but what I actually see around me in my day-to-day life is productivity of a sort no one would desire. Specifically, the teenagers I know are far more likely to act on these incentives by dropping out of school and choosing a dangerous way to make easy, fast money. This is rationalized with a declaration to the effect that the budding young criminal has no discipline for study or even an entry-level job like mine. Some people would dismiss this generation as not worth saving, but I cannot be so judgmental. Indeed, perhaps the youngsters choosing the route I have described are simply more perceptive than the ones slightly more like me. The problem is definitely worse here than it was when I was in school in Peru. Of course, as I have written elsewhere, the drug culture is a bigger factor here than there. Celebrity culture (one might leave off the last syllable of the last word) encourages young people to get the finest things in life by whatever means will enable them to possess them quickest. I am thinking in particular of gangsta rappers. Other musicians with more positive messages simply can’t compete with the images they present of a life of drugs, weapons, fighting, and women. Even before the advent of the contemporary drug culture, competition did more harm than good. I am thinking now of neo-colonialism, which has held Peru back just as surely as if it were still a Spanish colony.
- (Question 3) The redistribution of national wealth must be re-conceptualized as a basic function of the American and other governments. No one denies the reality of poverty. This is especially true for single mothers with multiple children. Occasionally, a person who has never been in need experiences a tragedy which enables them to glimpse the hardship some people go through every day, which can and should be a transformative moment in their lives. However, this is true only to a certain extent. Without a doubt, a person should not allow themselves to be inured to "money for nothing." Welfare reform was finally passed in 1996 because of the inevitable public revulsion at women whose actual purpose in having children was a bigger welfare check. The drain such women represented to the economy could no longer be ignored. However, the right solution to this problem was actually to increase the number of case workers and gradually instruct such women in the fundamentals of American life, as we do with immigrants. This calls for a level of responsibility and accountability both on the part of the government and on the part of the poor. To give you an idea of what I would expect from the poor, homeless people in Peru invariably find some way to eke out a living, be it washing the windows of passing cars or selling candy. Homeless people in the United States should also be steered away from panhandling and towards these activities.
- (Question 6) The dependency theory can be boiled down to those countries with more means than others turning the latter group into dependencies as the former group exploits its means. As I have observed, Peru is a good example of such a society, but there are scores of others throughout the world. The modernization theory tweaks this basic theory by encouraging the latter group of societies not to pass up opportunities to copy the best practices of the wealthy countries. Inverting 19th-century imperialism, poor countries today have an opportunity to exploit the markets for their products which wealthy countries represent. The dependency theory, however, is ultimately more realistic as the rich countries will mostly buy products with less value added from the poor ones, consciously avoiding the destabilization of the existing order. Japan, for example, makes and sells many supplements with natural resources obtained cheaply from Peru -- so cheaply in fact that Americans would see it as theft if they were forced to accept similar prices. The deposition of the ethnically Japanese dictator Alberto Fujimori in 2000 has done little to stop this phenomenon. The current government and its allies in the mining and agricultural industries continue to appease Japanese investors by accepting the prices they offer for Peruvian natural resources. If Peru had a significant fraction of Japan’s diplomatic and military power, Peru would be able to control the exploitation of its resources and benefit more.
- (Question 11) The central pillar of most homes throughout the world is the family; family is defined at least in part by religion. Of course, in some cases the new generation adopts a new religion. American society seems divided between those who do and don’t believe that you should consider marrying someone from a different religion. I fall into the latter camp. After all, having the same or very similar beliefs will make any couple’s lives together easier, although they could conceivably argue about the best way to follow their shared religion’s rules. Conversely, wildly divergent religious beliefs could act harshly, dragging the relationship down. This is especially true if one member joins a cult, which is certain to drive a wedge between him and his partner. When approaching marriage, most individuals, even in the United States where the possibility of divorce is very real, intend to share the rest of their lives with other individuals whom they love. Some feel they know their mate well enough after dating for a while, while others choose to actually live together before getting married. The latter group seeks most of the benefits of marriage without the legal baggage that can make escape from the relationship much more complicated. In my case, I would shun a partner whose mind was so focused on keeping his options open. Marriage, unlike economic competition, is based on principles and creates incentives that I believe in.
As I said at the beginning, it is painful to realize that my values diverge almost completely from those of my adopted society. It would seem perhaps that I have immigrated to the wrong country. If I honestly thought I could serve the oppressed better in Venezuela, Bolivia, or even Cuba, I would probably emigrate there. I certainly am not comfortable in my current position with the building maintenance staff at (company name deleted). It is not that I am oppressed economically – I live better than 90% of people in my country (of birth). Indeed, I wonder if working at a company that exists solely because there is no universal healthcare in the United States (a constitutional right of all Peruvians, by the way) does not make me an oppressor. Most certainly, I am limited by my position in my ability to say what I really think. If anyone above the level of my immediate supervisor (a person who knows the score, so to speak) were to find out what I really think I would certainly be fired. So this may be the only time I can issue a manifesto like this one. To the extent I consent by silence in future, may God forgive me.