Message-ID: <v01530500ae77be7c636c@[206.41.16.200]> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:08:54 -0400 From: Santiago Hileret <mailto:styago@HOST1.TALKIN-DRUM.COM> Subject: Re: "Appropriate technology" still useful? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Tom Hodges writes: >I don't have direct experience living in a developing country but...
>... It seems
>that government restrictions (licenses, taxes, banned activities) on
>small businesses have has a lot (not all for sure) to do with poverty
>in many urban areas. Important local businessmen profit from keeping
>small local businesses from competing with them while the larger
>society loses the benefit of the small business peoples' creative
>efforts.
I agree that government restrictions are a significant impediment to the dynamism and creativity of business enterprise in many countries and societies. I don't, however, see the implied association of this problem only with developing countries. Spain (one of my two "home" countries, along with Argentina) is a good example of a country sufficiently developed to have been encouraged to join the European Union, yet infamous for the inefficiency and restrictiveness of its government apparatus and administrative regulations.One can probably attribute this problem more to culture and "mentality" than to any other factor. On the one hand there is the laidback-ness factor. There appears to be a natural or spontaneous human tendency to be less pro-active and more laid back the sunnier and warmer the climate is. Andalusians and Neapolitans are -as a rule- more laid back and easy-going (less "industrious") than Lombards or Tuscans, Catalans or Basques. Even in the U.S. (deservedly famous for its German-style efficiency in business) there is a manifest difference in tempo and "tone" between New York or Chicago on the one hand and Miami or Los Angeles, on the other. Unless a society dedides to "engineer" itself for a different result, this tends to self-accelerate, and a North-South polarization develops, which "sucks" unemployed people from the South toward the ever faster-growing industries in the north (Andalusians in Catalonya; Black folks moving north to Detroit and other industrial centers in the U.S.). (This, by the way, is a pretty well documented effect of the social impacts of a "free market" approach). A second factor I would point out is the degree to which the society embraces an authoritarian model of organization. Where that happens, the average individual will have a rather restricted view of his or her possibilities. Initiative is reserved for the local or regional chieftains and their appointees, be they "capos"(Italy) or "caciques/taifas"(Latin America/Spain). (In countries farther north, where this model is officially frowned upon, the elite nevertheless continues to have its "restricted areas" of power, which strongly condition what _may or may not_ happen outside of them. Two examples are the House of "Lords" and the structure of landownership in Britain and the fraternities at "select" universities in Europe, where _outgoing presidents handpick their successors_ and where many long-term friendships and loyalties are forged (the "old boy network") within and across generations (most of the students' parents are in positions of authority in business and/or government, which provides these youngsters with multiple opportunities to establish personal acquaintanceships "at the top" long before they've done anything to _earn_ that privilege).
In short, it's hardly a developing-country phenomenon. Authoritarianism -and its first cousin, elitism- are everywhere. The difference is mostly wealth. More disposable income can, over time, translate into greater sophistication, more refined manners, and -in general- a _less overt_ exercise of power (but certainly _not_ a reluinquishing of it). More wealth _also_ affords the possibility of giving the "lower classes" (nowadays called middle- or low-income citizens) somewhat greater liberties and freedoms, in the secure knowledge that the upper-echelon network is sufficiently dense and tight (as well as having been in operation long enough) to keep such liberties and freedoms within a "controlled" range. Anyone stepping outside of those bounds will be promptly and roundly isolated and denounced as "an extremist"(please read any of Noam Chomsky's recent books, such as "Manufacturing Consent", for a more extensive discussion of this mechanism).
What passes for democracy in the "advanced" countries thus becomes a "mainstream-ocracy" (you have to have a "mainstream" outlook to be accepted as a legitimate player) or a "massmedi-ocracy" (the mass-media's "opinion makers" tug and pull on everyday folks' emotional chords to have them accept or reject this or that set of ideas, this or that public personality). (Malcolm X becomes the "bad" Black leader; Dr. King, the "good" one. Later on they _both_ get shot to death, but that's another story, and the average reader's attention will drift on, anyway).
What gets people like Fritz Schumacher and myself incensed (to the point where one member of the list finds fault with the "peacefulness" of our rhetoric) is to see how effective this complex system is, and how it succeeds in hoodwinking a majority of the population, taking advantage of their (perfectly human) complacency and sense of powerlessness. (I would respond to that member -whose name and message I accidentally erased) that _even_ Jesus of Nazareth occasionally got riled up enough to _throw the merchants out of the temple_.).
Reinaldo suggests that, > according to (my) opinion, we are definitely doomed!.
I tend to think exactly the opposite; that is, that "People who _don't know their history_ (or let their conquerors -be they military, financial, technological or a combination of the above- interpret it for them) are the ones who are "doomed" to repeat it".Yes: we should certainly _not limit_ ourselves to "whining" about what "happened" in the past (and cannot be changed anymore), but neither should we propagate a discourse which leaves all of "that" entirely out, and emphasizes the failings of the weak/the poor/the "losers". Such an approach in effect places "the blame" (the only blame present, since every other argument is excluded, as "whining") on the "losers"/victims, which will hardly make them feel great about themselves and ready to tackle a major effort for change. If, however, it can be shown that they "lost" historically _to a great extent_ because _the game was rigged_, then it may be possible to instill hope and motivation.
Hipocrisy, greed and envy are universal human characteristics. The problem with the "logic" driving our all-conquering, Western-style, industrial society-of-the-spectacle is that rather than discouraging such weaknesses, it encourages them in the name of "progress" and "prosperity".
The vision that Rachel Carson, Theodore Rozsak, Fritz Schumacher and others propose is grounded in an ethical _and severely practical_ sense of respect for Nature and of humans as _a part of_ It, rather than some alien outside "conqueror" of the Earth. Are some people in the Corporate superstructure getting the message? Sure they are, but _ we need many more_, and _we're not bound to get them_ by propagating the "gospel" of "free-market" "efficiency" which got us into the present predicament...
Sorry for the length. Peace
Santiago
--------------------------------------------------------- Santiago G. Hileret | Voice/Fax: (718) 858-1324 11 St. Felix St., #3F | Internet: mailto:styago@talkin-drum.com Brooklyn, NY 11217-1205 | U. S. A. | 3rd World 1st!