The Dearing Dialogue

There is a curious relationship between democracy and market-capitalism.  On the one hand, they appear to support each other, whereas on the other hand, they appear to alter and confine each other.  This essay will examine that relationship under the assumption that these two concepts are inherently opposed to each other when examined under constraints of human necessity.  However, the ability for a society to find a balance between these concepts is dependent upon that society’s level of political culture.

Man is ultimately a biological creature with biological needs.  The need for food, shelter, and procreation brings man into a relationship with other men and women in order to provide the necessary resources for survival.  As Hannah Arendt aptly describes, man is not born free, nor equal, but is subject to the constraints of the human condition[i]. In the state of nature, this consists of a daily struggle in which only the strong survive.  To escape this predicament, man enters into a relationship; a society to ensure the survival of all members, strong or weak. 

Market-capitalism is premised on the promotion of self interest.  Democracy is based on the promotion of majority interests in society.  Karl Polyani suggests that market capitalism is “entirely unnatural” in a society; that economics were traditionally embedded within the social construct of society so as to justify one’s position within that social hierarchy[ii].  Throughout most of history, man’s needs were met through “reciprocity and redistribution”, which ensured society’s continuation and prevented winner-take-all transactions that could alter the existing social structure[iii].  Under conditions of economic distress, members of a community could look towards the existing political culture to reestablish equilibrium in society.  In such tribal societies, a balance of democracy and economics existed.  Economics were based on redistribution of goods, not an individualized capitalist system that prevented redistribution in order to justify profits.

Without equilibrium, market-capitalism will run contrary to democratic ideals.  A market-capitalist system must be balanced by a democratic form of government to ensure the reigns of capitalism are controlled by society.  Market-capitalism, as described by Marx, transforms traditionally social transactions (labor, money, materials) into commodities that lose their value over time[iv].  That labor provides nothing more to the worker but wages.  Under a pure market system, society would be as Marx describes, squeezing greater quantities of labor out of fewer workers until the costs are as minimal as possible.[v]  Looking at the historical Greek polis, slave labor was justified and used as a commodity, while the slaves were separated from the framework of the polis.  But, balanced with an all-encompassing democracy, market-capitalism is controlled and compelled to consider the interests of all in society.

Like the Greek polis, the birth of the United States forced difficult questions upon the founders of our republic.  Preaching equality of all people in their Declaration of Independence, the founders overlooked the dilemma of slavery, gave in to market forces, and ultimately wrote slavery into our Constitution.  By doing so, the slave class took on the burdens of necessity for male, white, propertied elites. Slaves were property, and property was a market force held outside the reigns of the limited “democratic” government.  By creating a structure where half of society was overlooked, market capitalism ran its course without the constraints of an impoverished class demanding representation or justice.  Thus democracy for all was set aside for the interests of a market-capitalist system.  It would ultimately require progress in the political culture of the United States for it to find equilibrium between market-capitalism and democracy.  As Larry Diamond alludes, the level of a political culture often determines the “status, strength, or stability” of a democracy.[vi]

The equilibrium we enjoy in the United States is constantly in jeopardy.  Markets are controlled by large corporations which are not reigned in by democratic governance.  Corporations are generally run as authoritarian regimes.  Equally dangerous is the role corporations play in public demands like a free press, electoral equality, and the environment.  Corporations are willing to buy legislation from candidates willing to sell it while the public often remains unaware or apathetic due to corporate control of the media and overall cynicism.  The level of political culture will ultimately decide whether democracy or markets will find their balance.

This week the American Anthropological Association (AAA) layed out their long awaited position on the Human Terrain System (HTS).  Essentially, they criticized the US military for thinking it can use anthropology in an unjust war (Iraq and presumably Afghanistan included), but left open the future use of anthropology in the military, but of course only under the guidance of the AAA.  However, the only idea of guidance they provide is what the AAA considers “ethical”.  Are we ever to be in a circumstance which they can agree is completely “ethical”?  Anthropologists can not even agree upon precise definitions.  Thus, it should be little surprise that support of the AAA is waning.  I would not be surprised to see it break apart into splinter groups over this very topic.  The level of elitism spewing out of the ivory tower of the AAA leadership is paramount to the same arrogance they accuse the US leadership of. 

AAA Resolution

In the context of a war that is widely recognized as a denial of human rights and based on faulty intelligence and undemocratic principles, the Executive Board sees the HTS project as a problematic application of anthropological expertise, most specifically on ethical grounds.  We have grave concerns about the involvement of anthropological knowledge and skill in the HTS project.  The Executive Board views the HTS project as an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise.  

 

The Executive Board affirms that anthropology can and in fact is obliged to help improve U.S. government policies through the widest possible circulation of anthropological understanding in the public sphere, so as to contribute to a transparent and informed development and implementation of U.S. policy by robustly democratic processes of fact-finding, debate, dialogue, and deliberation.  It is in this way, the Executive Board affirms, that anthropology can legitimately and effectively help guide U.S. policy to serve the humane causes of global peace and social justice.

Gilpin’s thesis is that a group or state with greater relative power than others, will try to modify the political system in its interests until the cost-benefit of doing so is no longer in its advantage.  Gilpin presents the reader with a framework for understanding this concept, similar to that of Max Weber’s ideal types.  Gilpin’s concept is based off of a few assumptions.  First, that political systems can be understood with the same theories as economic systems, namely the logic of cost-benefit analysis in decision making.  Second, the fundamental nature of international relations has not changed; it “continues to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy”.  Third, historical experiences are relevant to understanding the international system.

To support his arguments, Gilpin presents examples of dominant powers exerting their control over the international system in order to advance their self interest.  He provides three forms of such control: imperial or hegemonic, bi-polar, and balance of power (between 3 or more).  He explains that a legitimate international order, or an equilibrium, is one in which no state is dissatisfied with the status quo.  Wars are thus fought in order to preserve the prevailing balance of power. 

My analysis of his arguments is that he provides a solid interpretation of the neorealist school of thought.  His economic approach takes on a “neoMarxist” character in that he alludes that economics tends to “influence human action” (69).  In fact it does within Gilpin’s framework, as the effects of changing the political order are weighed for their utility.  His analysis of hegemons is somewhat unconvincing.  One has to question the existence of a hegemon in a system of economic interdependence.  However, the rational objective of any hegemon that actually operates in an interdependent system will be to sustain the status quo.

Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, is a description of the way the West (Occident) studies and analyzes the East (Orient).  His thesis is that the Occident ultimately frames all analysis of the Orient in a critical paradigm relating differences as inferiority to the West.  According to Said, Orientalism is a deeply rooted, subconscious thought process that exists within most studies of the East (language, arts, literature, politics, etc).  He explains that all cultures appear mystical in foreign eyes, but that the relation is one ultimately rationalized and described by the bearer of power and authority, and in the relationship between the East and West, it has most often been the latter.

Said presents his arguments with historical analysis of a variety of subjects involving relationships between East and West.  His examples show bitter racism and misunderstanding on the side of the West towards the East, with the West often applying a broad stroke in describing cultural differences or behaviors.  The mystical descriptions applied to the East ultimately perpetuated themselves and became their own logical means of defining the perceived absence of reason.  They also provided justification for imperialist institutions and policies and part of the reasoning to “civilize” the East.

Said’s arguments can be criticized in that he limits his analysis to West on East, where plenty of historical examples of Eastern, Russian, or African Orientalism exist.  It is a thesis that could be applied to all cultures and all in power or not.  In this sense, the study is left somewhat incomplete.