Comments on: Culture in Development http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Sat, 26 May 2012 03:33:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628544 John McCreery Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:26:20 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628544 _Here, at least for the moment, we see a similarity between the Chinese and American and the classic British form of imperialism. _ Should be Here, at least for the moment, we see a _difference_ between the Chinese and American forms of neo-imperialism and the classic British form of imperialism. _Here, at least for the moment, we see a similarity between the Chinese and American and the classic British form of imperialism. _

Should be

Here, at least for the moment, we see a _difference_ between the Chinese and American forms of neo-imperialism and the classic British form of imperialism.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628542 John McCreery Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:18:47 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628542 bq. The managers want their workers to comply with these norms, which they see as universal, rather than to aspire to becoming Chinese. Yes, I should have put it the other way round. The Chinese managers want workers to comply with what they, the Chinese managers, see as universal norms -- epitomized by Chinese workers. In this respect they are similar to American managers who would also like workers to comply with what they, the American managers, see as universal norms -- epitomized by themselves. In both cases, the universal norms are projections of the managers' understanding of what it is to be truly human. bq. Consider the spread of parliments, the structure of universities, and even for a long time in the 20th century the association of Commonwealth Countries. If we are talking about changing cultures, we should address the long term effects of various styles of imperialism comparative with alternative development models. Here, at least for the moment, we see a similarity between the Chinese and American and the classic British form of imperialism. The British Empire was an empire in the strict sense. So long as the Empire survived, the British were the state, the monopolizers of legal use of force, the creators and rule-makers for the parliaments and universities. The situation for both Chinese and American neo-imperialists is not so simple. Client governments may be bought or otherwise subverted. It is they, however, who control the local state apparatus, including the military, the legislatures, and the schools. Increasingly, too, the clients also have access to the Internet and other media and are free to play rival neo-imperialist powers against each other in a world where there is no agreement on which parts of the world belong to the various rivals. The world of the 19th century Great Game was a world in which, for example, the Russians might attempt to undermine the British in India; but now, in the 21st century, business rivals from the USA, EU, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc. face off in a Delhi, Karachi or Dar es Salaam in which none has the authority to have the others arrested and jailed or deported. bq. The managers want their workers to comply with these norms, which they see as universal, rather than to aspire to becoming Chinese.

Yes, I should have put it the other way round. The Chinese managers want workers to comply with what they, the Chinese managers, see as universal norms — epitomized by Chinese workers. In this respect they are similar to American managers who would also like workers to comply with what they, the American managers, see as universal norms — epitomized by themselves. In both cases, the universal norms are projections of the managers’ understanding of what it is to be truly human.

bq. Consider the spread of parliments, the structure of universities, and even for a long time in the 20th century the association of Commonwealth Countries. If we are talking about changing cultures, we should address the long term effects of various styles of imperialism comparative with alternative development models.

Here, at least for the moment, we see a similarity between the Chinese and American and the classic British form of imperialism. The British Empire was an empire in the strict sense. So long as the Empire survived, the British were the state, the monopolizers of legal use of force, the creators and rule-makers for the parliaments and universities. The situation for both Chinese and American neo-imperialists is not so simple. Client governments may be bought or otherwise subverted. It is they, however, who control the local state apparatus, including the military, the legislatures, and the schools.

Increasingly, too, the clients also have access to the Internet and other media and are free to play rival neo-imperialist powers against each other in a world where there is no agreement on which parts of the world belong to the various rivals. The world of the 19th century Great Game was a world in which, for example, the Russians might attempt to undermine the British in India; but now, in the 21st century, business rivals from the USA, EU, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc. face off in a Delhi, Karachi or Dar es Salaam in which none has the authority to have the others arrested and jailed or deported.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ali Adolf Wu http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628540 Ali Adolf Wu Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:10:33 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628540 I would think that Chinese managers are seeking to transform not only (and perhaps not even so much) the elite as the ordinary people, applying to them the same logic as to Chinese workers: the logic of "quality" (素质),which includes everything from respect of law to punctuality, bodily hygiene and education. The managers want their workers to comply with these norms, which they see as universal, rather than to aspire to becoming Chinese. Sure, that is very similar to 19th-century British ideas (or indeed the ideas of Henry Ford, as the post says). The racial component is certainly not absent; popular versions of social evolutionary theories (Morgan/Spencer) are widely accepted in China. There is a leap from this to everyday racism, which has not yet been made (but it may, as ethnoracial nationalism is rising in China, and so is resentment of African immigrants -- yes, there are quite a few of those). At the same time, if you read Chinese blogs or discussion forums about Africa, you encounter a range of views; some posters maintain that Africans are in some ways more sophisticated and savvier than Chinese. I would think that Chinese managers are seeking to transform not only (and perhaps not even so much) the elite as the ordinary people, applying to them the same logic as to Chinese workers: the logic of “quality” (素质),which includes everything from respect of law to punctuality, bodily hygiene and education. The managers want their workers to comply with these norms, which they see as universal, rather than to aspire to becoming Chinese.

Sure, that is very similar to 19th-century British ideas (or indeed the ideas of Henry Ford, as the post says). The racial component is certainly not absent; popular versions of social evolutionary theories (Morgan/Spencer) are widely accepted in China. There is a leap from this to everyday racism, which has not yet been made (but it may, as ethnoracial nationalism is rising in China, and so is resentment of African immigrants — yes, there are quite a few of those). At the same time, if you read Chinese blogs or discussion forums about Africa, you encounter a range of views; some posters maintain that Africans are in some ways more sophisticated and savvier than Chinese.

Report this comment

]]> By: Fred http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628527 Fred Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:25:23 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628527 Thanks, John, that does help. One thing I was also trying to address was the long term impact. The English model of 19th century imperialism has long remained intact in terms of structural elements. Consider the spread of parliments, the structure of universities, and even for a long time in the 20th century the association of Commonwealth Countries. If we are talking about changing cultures, we should address the long term effects of various styles of imperialism comparative with alternative development models. How long will Americanisms remain on the ground after America has departed? Might we speculate about China's long term effects on Africa? Paternalism may still be the model most easily accessible to grasp, rather than a bottom up approach. And especially for government officials, given their bureaucratic culture. Thanks, John, that does help. One thing I was also trying to address was the long term impact. The English model of 19th century imperialism has long remained intact in terms of structural elements. Consider the spread of parliments, the structure of universities, and even for a long time in the 20th century the association of Commonwealth Countries. If we are talking about changing cultures, we should address the long term effects of various styles of imperialism comparative with alternative development models. How long will Americanisms remain on the ground after America has departed? Might we speculate about China’s long term effects on Africa? Paternalism may still be the model most easily accessible to grasp, rather than a bottom up approach. And especially for government officials, given their bureaucratic culture.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628522 John McCreery Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:22:37 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628522 Hi, Fred. I was hoping someone else would address your question. But since no one better positioned to answer authoritatively has, allow me to speculate a bit. There is, I suggest, a fundamental difference between the racist assumptions of 19th century English imperialism and the cultural chauvinist assumptions of the 21st century Chinese. The former cultivates a local elite whose members are seen as exceptions to the rule that the populations from which they are selected are inherently incapable. The latter starts with a broader vision, in which everyone should want to be Chinese, which is, after all, the only way to be properly human. In this respect, the Chinese are more like American imperialists, who also assume that in the best of all worlds, everyone would be like us. Hi, Fred. I was hoping someone else would address your question. But since no one better positioned to answer authoritatively has, allow me to speculate a bit. There is, I suggest, a fundamental difference between the racist assumptions of 19th century English imperialism and the cultural chauvinist assumptions of the 21st century Chinese. The former cultivates a local elite whose members are seen as exceptions to the rule that the populations from which they are selected are inherently incapable. The latter starts with a broader vision, in which everyone should want to be Chinese, which is, after all, the only way to be properly human. In this respect, the Chinese are more like American imperialists, who also assume that in the best of all worlds, everyone would be like us.

Report this comment

]]> By: Fred http://savageminds.org/2010/02/05/culture-in-development/comment-page-1/#comment-628486 Fred Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:27:22 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=3178#comment-628486 Out of curiosity, how does the China model differ from the English model of the nineteenth century, a parternalism of a slightly different sort, but none the less paternalism? the English believed in changing culutre, but not the whole body of culutre, just the elite culture to allow their rule in places like Africa and India. If the elite modify their beliefs, their culutral practices, at least when encountering the dominant overseas representatives, is that all that's needed in such a model? The fact is this model has long term effects, perhaps longer term than those participatroy development models of the sixties. And if you're looking at a dominant culture, like China, wanting results in the short term (economic results that is), then the 19th century English approach/Harrison approach is the model that will be followed for the fore-seeable future. Out of curiosity, how does the China model differ from the English model of the nineteenth century, a parternalism of a slightly different sort, but none the less paternalism? the English believed in changing culutre, but not the whole body of culutre, just the elite culture to allow their rule in places like Africa and India. If the elite modify their beliefs, their culutral practices, at least when encountering the dominant overseas representatives, is that all that’s needed in such a model? The fact is this model has long term effects, perhaps longer term than those participatroy development models of the sixties. And if you’re looking at a dominant culture, like China, wanting results in the short term (economic results that is), then the 19th century English approach/Harrison approach is the model that will be followed for the fore-seeable future.

Report this comment

]]>