Given that the social sciences as a whole developed in the context of the Enlightenment, which saw only White people as rational and other people around the world, especially Black people as emotional, some will not doubt the racist nature of the sciences of society that developed in this context. Thus it came to be that sociology and history were seen as applicable to the study of Western societies and anthropology was assigned to the "inferior" other. This is how Anthropology came to be the discipline of people who went to live in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia while sociology, political science, history, and economics were used to study Western societies. What this means is that in the social sciences, theories of society applicable to Western societies were not applicable to these "others". This non-applicability to the other is not just in the postmodern sense that knowledge should be contextual, but rather in the sense that "inferior peoples" should not be theorized about in the same way as "superior peoples". Thus, a theory that would be destructive if applied in a Western context was allowed to be applied in the context of the "other".
This is how economic theories that are not often applied in the West came to be seen as applicable in Africa, for example. This is especially so in the theories of economic development, especially manifested in theories about the usefulness of aid and austerity. The question of aid has been well debated but what is left to be said about some theories that support aid is that they are racist because they propose doing for the other what has not and will not be done for the West. They are subterfuges that do not focus on what has worked in the West but rather on what applies to the inferior other. The other can always come to economic development through other routes, routes that are often dead-enders.
A similar story can be told in terms of the call for austerity. What is applicable in the West is especially not applicable in non-Western contexts. When Cameroon began experiencing economic difficulties in the 1980s, the IMF and the World Bank proposed stringent austerity measures. The civil service was reduced, government-owned companies were privatized, banks were closed, and the currency was devalued. All this generated serious unemployment in the country and the country went into a tailspin from which it has not emerged in about thirty years. When a similar situation happened in the United States in 2007, caused by the irresponsible economic and political policies of George W. Bush, the government instead took over private companies and bailed out banks. Conservatives who would otherwise call for austerity if such a thing happened in Africa threw huge sums of money to bail out banks and to take over private businesses so as to stave off disaster.
The economy of Greece is currently in a tailspin brought about by the irresponsibility of successive Greek governments. Austerity measures have been proposed but it has since been strenuously resisted. In the process, many economists have come out of the woodwork to harp against austerity - a thing that was hardly heard when it was forced on many African countries in the 1980s. Where were these economists when austerity was being forced on many African economies?
This is how economic theories that are not often applied in the West came to be seen as applicable in Africa, for example. This is especially so in the theories of economic development, especially manifested in theories about the usefulness of aid and austerity. The question of aid has been well debated but what is left to be said about some theories that support aid is that they are racist because they propose doing for the other what has not and will not be done for the West. They are subterfuges that do not focus on what has worked in the West but rather on what applies to the inferior other. The other can always come to economic development through other routes, routes that are often dead-enders.
A similar story can be told in terms of the call for austerity. What is applicable in the West is especially not applicable in non-Western contexts. When Cameroon began experiencing economic difficulties in the 1980s, the IMF and the World Bank proposed stringent austerity measures. The civil service was reduced, government-owned companies were privatized, banks were closed, and the currency was devalued. All this generated serious unemployment in the country and the country went into a tailspin from which it has not emerged in about thirty years. When a similar situation happened in the United States in 2007, caused by the irresponsible economic and political policies of George W. Bush, the government instead took over private companies and bailed out banks. Conservatives who would otherwise call for austerity if such a thing happened in Africa threw huge sums of money to bail out banks and to take over private businesses so as to stave off disaster.
The economy of Greece is currently in a tailspin brought about by the irresponsibility of successive Greek governments. Austerity measures have been proposed but it has since been strenuously resisted. In the process, many economists have come out of the woodwork to harp against austerity - a thing that was hardly heard when it was forced on many African countries in the 1980s. Where were these economists when austerity was being forced on many African economies?
No comments:
Post a Comment