(I think that's what you call it.) He is paid to speak over the phone to people who want to invest money, and he helps them do so. Unsurprisingly his politics are far right--libertarian right. (He is a Ron Paul supporter.)
Off the top of my head, I would say his knowledge of history, sociology, and anthropology is zero. You don't have to be a Marxist, just someone with a passing knowledge of contemporary anthropology, to understand that in hunter-gatherer societies there were not enormous gaps between rich and poor, or that the societies were more egalitarian than contemporary societies. In retrospect, it is interesting that when I made that point, the financial services worker retreated from the claim that inequality and hierarchy were simply a universal fact of human nature to the thesis that among any given group of individuals, some would be more talented. Without reproducing the entire conversation, I will remark that the gentleman actually seemed to believe that hierarchies are simply "the way things are", so that someone will always have more power. I neglected to point out that this seems to be a fundamental denial of the democratic principle: people should not be ruled by others, but should be allowed to make their own decisions. (As I think of it now, I wonder if there isn't a little incoherence in the fellow's views. On the one hand we are rugged individuals who can achieve lots if we just try hard. On the other, basic facts about how we live are decided without our input. That's not an outright contradiction, but what's needed to get one would be a premise about class conflict. --e.g., it's in my interest to be paid more for working less, while it is in my employer's interest to pay me less for working more.)
(I apologize: What I've just said is not adequate. A complete defense would require more detail. But I haven't got time to say more now. So, I shall simply acknowledge that I have not given anything like a complete defense of what I have claimed.)
Why do I say he knew nothing of history and sociology? I suppose that one crucial thing we learn from history is that the USA's location as a wealthy and powerful country in the world is not the product of hard work and effort, but of processes more akin to looting, not to mention killing and cheating. Hence a USA-centric view (such as my young friend had) is deeply flawed. (He seemed to regard the poverty of the "third world" as a laughing matter....) Secondly, he approached the world with an extremely individualistic approach that ignores the sorts of social forces that interest sociologists--or sociolinguists, (see below).
The Poverty of Poor Countries is Hardly a laughing matter!
It is worth repeating a fact that I've mentioned before: So far as so-called "development" goes, more money goes out of the poorest countries of the world into the richest countries than the reverse. Here's a quote from John Weeks in a review of a recent book:
The reality that the authors demonstrate is simply stated and appalling in its implications: sub-Saharan Africa, location of the poorest countries in the world, has generated net capital outflows for decades. One could with small exaggeration say that for a generation Africa has provided aid to the United States and Western Europe.
The full review is at http://zed-books.blogspot.com/2011/12/africas-odious-debts-reviewed-by-john.html
So far as I could tell from our brief conversation, the fellow believes that the poor are poor because (at worst) they are lazy or (at best) suffer from an incomprehensible psychological mind-set. In other words, anyone who wants a decent life can get it ---if only they make a few sacrifices and work hard.
I suppose what I would have liked to suggest is that some people start life with so few advantages and so many disadvantages that they really never have a chance.
However, I didn't manage to formulate that proposition---let alone make it vivid---during our conversation.
I suppose if I wanted to recommend a book on this subject, it would be Eric Olin Wright and Joel Rogers' "American Society: How it Really Works". (A draft of which is available at Olin Wright's website.)
Or, then again, there are the writings of Loic Wacquant.
Nevertheless, right now I just wish to mention one curious fact. My conversational partner happened to hail from northern Ohio. Consequently, his native accent is one which many citizens of the USA regard as pleasant, or not disturbing, but neutral. Linguists tell us that citizens of the USA find Southern accents and the (so-called) New York accent unpleasant.
In the case of New York City, that hostile judgment is the result of an ideology, a kind of prejudice. Due to television and other factors, people think of New Yorkers as criminals and immigrants who speak "bad" English. As far as the "southern" accent goes, people say it sounds "ignorant", but there have been Nobel Prize winners whose native accent was Southern. (Linguists would tell me that terms like "southern" here are imprecise. I apologize to them, but the general point, I hope, will be clear enough, and would survive precisification.)
Having acquired a (so-called) midwestern accent at a young age, my new acquaintance had an advantage that others did not have. He didn't earn it. He didn't work for it. He never even chose it. And, it certainly helped him get the job he currently has. Other people were not so lucky. But this advantage is invisible to him. (I would have pointed it out to him if there had been more time.)
Recommended Reading:
Race and the rise of standard American, Thomas Paul Bonfiglio, Mouton de Gruyter 2002, |
No comments:
Post a Comment