Who is responsible for the underdevelopment in the Third World?

Renu Johnson
Reflection Paper 2
Who is responsible for the underdevelopment in the Third World?
Frantz Fanon concludes the article Concerning Violence, with an exhortation to the colonized nations that they should not forget the fact that the colonizers are morally responsible to compensate them for literally looting them during the years of colonization, and he holds the colonizers partly responsible for the miseries that loom over the third world countries.
However when we look at the whole process of colonization in a more western-favored perspective, the picture is slightly different. If we look into the reasons of colonization in the first place, we will notice that the Europeans in search of markets for their massive production during the industrial revolution Europe annexed these so called third world countries. It is obvious that industrial revolution and technological advancement first took place Europe. What was happening in the third world countries during this time?
If we look at the similarities of the third world countries, it is clear that these nations are the nations (at least most of them) that during the time of colonization didn’t have a well structured educational system and that they had adhered to the conventional social and religious practices without questioning the veracity of the various social, religious and cultural beliefs. Moreover, these countries had a less individualistic culture than the colonizer’s countries did. Looking from a European perspective, these countries indeed were uncivilized. The very fact that technological development had its roots in Europe tells us that they did something special that these countries didn’t do. When Europeans came to loot these countries they didn’t have the arms or ammunitions to defend themselves. These nations in a way were lazy, shortsighted, unintelligible masses who were subject to colonization because they couldn’t defend themselves and in a way, colonization acted as an eye-opener to these nations which reminded them how they should not be idly wasting their time but has to jump into this development spree by focusing themselves towards economic and social development and accelerated the whole global economic development. A colonizer might say that it was totally justifiable to annex the countries for their territorial and economic expansions since civil wars were common in small princely states were looting each other anyways.
If the world hasn’t been colonized, the nations states that exists today, the fast rate of Globalization and the technological and industrial bloom that the globe experience (though hugely asymmetrical)today would not have been possible. Well the intentions of the colonizers and the acts of the colonizers might not be morally justifiable nor can we deny the fact that the imperialist countries are not still looting the underdeveloped nations neither do we know whether the whole idea of development that the imperialists nations advocates for should be the target of the developing nations. However, one thing that should be kept in mind is the fact that though developed countries might have a huge comparative advantage through the process of colonization, the absolute advantage of being colonized cannot be easily overlooked. I, as a citizen of a developing nation would rather be happy with the more liberal technologically advanced nation that I live in, than a nation that was never colonized and illiberal even in the 21st century.

Concerning Violence

Afroza Alam

In the reading “Concerning Violence” the author Frantz Fanon argues that to overcome from the colonization, violence is the most effective way to achieve the independence. He divides the colonial word into two parts –colonizer and colonized people. According to him, violence is necessary in both cases. On one hand, for the colonizers, they need to use violence to control colonized people. Additionally, he mentions that for the colonizers violence is an effective way to keep the native oppressed where violence takes place as force, physical violence and structural violence. One the other hand, Fanon says that violence can be removed only through violence, so to overcome from the colonization, the colonized people have also to use violence. That is way a he says that decolonization is always a violent phenomena. But it raises come questions, if we need violence for decolonization what kind of violence do we need? Do we need to be rebel? Do we need to involve in war? Will we break their law?

 In his writing we can find him as a revolutionist which is similar with the idea of Karl Marks. According to Karl Marks to overcome the capitalism we need to go through the revolution. Similarly, Franz Fanon also emphasizes on revolution. To overcome the colonial world or to become independent, we need to do revolution where the role of violence is effective to change the history. Another idea is the superstructure of the society where Marks talk about gender, sexual orientation, race and culture. Correspondingly, Fanon also says about the superstructure where he talks about the race which gives a structure for the colonial world.

Colonize period has been over but still in the real world we can apply the Fanon idea to achieve the liberation. We also see violence taking place in politics or in economic or to get freedom. Many people can argue that there might other way to get the independence or overcome the colonization such as negotiation, compromise, and agreement. But to compromise or negotiation one side have to compromise. Then the question is come to us who will compromise?

Concerning Violence

Naima Jannat

According to Frantz Fanon decolonization is a “disorder” which creates violence (79). Decolonization can never be successful without violent actions. The reason of violence is that one state’s people cannot accept another state’s people. No one wants to dominate or ruled by others who do not belong to their own nation.  The colonization process brings violence because natives think other may destroy their freedom. The main reason of conflict between settler and native is the colonization process. When natives do not accept the settlers in their place they start to force them and then the violence starts. The colonialists think they can win if they use violence in terms of decolonization. In case of colonialism Fanon supports the idea of racism that is being a white can lead a person to be in the higher position. White people always get priority because of the racism system.

The author thinks most of the resources that colonized people get are from underdeveloped countries. They owe to those people from whom they got it. It is not only their property but also those peoples’ who belong to that country.

As Fanon mentions about violence in terms of decolonization, it leaves some questions to the readers mind as well. For example, is force and violence acceptable in terms of colonization? Is there any other way to solve problems between native and settler? How much violence is affected in order to be settled in a place?

Poverty, Exclusion and Structural Violence

People become so hapless and desperate when they are wronged violently but those wrongs are not seen or heard by anyone. Acephie and Chouchou from impoverished Haiti are two such desperate real life characters whom Paul Farmer draws our attention to in his chapter “On Suffering and Structural Violence,” highlighting identifiable forms of physical violence faced by the two. Farmer, not ending there, digs into those forms of physical violence and uncovers that  the real cause of their suffering and pain is poverty, the underlying cause of structural violence so unidentifiable by human eyes and thus mostly is unnoticed.

Structural violence drags human beings into a vicious swirl of violence which shows almost no way out if one is in it for once. This form of violence is internal in a manner no one sees or hears the injustices committed or at least people pretend not to hear or see. Citing Pablo Richard, Farmer explains analogically that there is a “gigantic wall” that will make sure that poverty will not bother the powerful and that the poor will die in “silence” (50). Parallel to Farmer, as per Karl Marx, internality of this violence stems as the structure itself forces the poor working class “to sell themselves voluntarily” (Marx 65). Thus, no one notices it as a form of violence but as something normal or generally accepted. Not everyone is inside this swirl- for Farmer (29-50) it is the rich while for Marx (Marx 62-77) it is the capitalist who are outside this vicious structure. Akin to Marx who identifies the base that conditions superstructure of the society, Farmer identifies poverty to be the “infrastructure” that conditions “super-structural” prejudices based on gender, sexual orientation, race and cultural means (49). He differentiates between being the first lady of a country and a domestic servant, for instance, to illustrate that their gender though similar does not make the first lady of  high economic status prone to violence as much as the poor domestic worker (50).

Therefore, both Marx and Farmer agree upon how to address structural violence that one should first attempt to change the infrastructural foundation of poverty in order to curtail the sufferings faced by millions of people around the world akin to Acephie and Chouchou, not merely the superstructure (49-50). Farmer notes that violence is “seldom divorced from the actions of the powerful,” or politically, socially and economically powerful (42). He asserts that it is the human’s decisions, specifically the decisions of the powerful that create structural violence (40). Then he might be suggesting that it is human’s decisions that should change so firm a system of structural violence. However, who will make those heroic decisions -the feeble poor who are silenced by the prevailing vicious system or the rich or the capitalist who are the true beneficiaries of this ingrained systems of violence? Should we call upon humanitarians who are likely to come from beneficiaries of the system, because the poor are unlikely to be empowered by themselves? In response to this, Marx, who is likely to be cynical about the rich humanitarians, would claim that it is the victims themselves who should raise their head up, as he believes it is only force and conflict that can change so solid a structure (Marx 70). However, are they powerful enough to raise themselves up? Is it then the poor’s fault that they cannot break the vicious cycle of structural violence?

Drawing from Machiavelli who advices the prince (similar to modern day powerful politicians) to be violent if it serves his power acquisition and maintenance, and preservation of order (Machiavelli 60) amongst his people, one can question, is this order not similar to the silence of the victimized as discussed by Farmer (51)? If so, Marx and Farmer will firmly oppose Machiavelli who advocates generating silence, thus allowing structural violence to flourish and keep on harming the poor, powerless people in the world. Is it only the powerful who should be blamed or should take the daring decision? Is it the fate of the poor to suffer injustice? Is it their fate that made them belong to a poor family not a rich, powerful one in society?

Living in third world countries, poverty is nothing new to us. What is our contribution to so called structural violence? It is highly likely that from the AUW education that we are going to lead the world thus be in the decision making end or the powerful end. Should we follow the advice of Machiavelli and enjoy the benefits of the system of structural violence? Or if we oppose Machiavelli, what kind of decisions we should make? Can we change the system at all? Should we feel that we are helpless in front of the system and stay vacant even if we are capable of making little changes? In general what should be our response to poverty and related forms of causes of violence-indifference or actions though unsuccessful?

1st Reflection Paper

In the article “On Suffering and Structural Violence: Social and Economic Rights in the Global Era,” Paul Farmer discusses about how violence is structured by the economic and political forces and contributed to the individual sufferings. In the text, Farmer represents two case studies from Haiti, one is about Acephie, who died from AIDS and another is Chouchou, who died of torture. At first both of these deaths can be seen as ordinary tragic incidents, but if we look at the depth, we will find different stories.

In case of Acephie’s death, question can come to our mind that why at the first place she is affected by AIDS and to understand that we have to look at the social background of Haiti. Haiti is a poor country and like many others, Acephie’s family also suffers from poverty. At the age of 19, Acephie was physically involved with an HIV positive soldier (33). As that person had a job with good salary, so Acephie’s family approved their relation (34). Later, she became pregnant and died of AIDS (35). Now if we focus on other poor Haitian women, we will find that they also share the similar story like Acephie. In fact, due to the poverty most of the Haitian women are being “forced into unfavorable unions” (39). So, here we can notice that economic force plays an important role in terms individual sufferings.

In case of Chouchou, we see that after military coup d’état, one day he mistakenly criticized about the miserable conditions of Haiti in front of a group of soldiers (37). As a result, they beat him on the spot and blacklisted him (38). Later, Chouchou was picked up by another group of soldiers who tortured him, before throwing in a ditch to die (38). It indicates that political violence causes Chouchou’s death.

After analyzing these cases, Farmer argues that “these afflictions are not the result of accident” and both of these individuals are “victims of structural violence” (40). This statement indicates that certain rules and policies of the society have ultimately set the ground for violence, where people cannot escape from this system but have to surrender to it. It also raises the question that, if Acephie and Chouchou are not poor or political minorities, will be their fate as same as before? So, it points out that poverty and social inequality are the chief cause of structural violence. Actually, structural violence becomes a part of our social life, so we do not consider it as violence. But it is necessary to take preventive steps to stop this violence; otherwise it will destroy many lives like Acephie and Chouchou.

Work Cited

Farmer, Paul. “On Suffering and Structural Violence: Social and Economic Rights in the Global Era.” In Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor. Berkely: University of California Press. 2005.

Modifications to class schedule

Here are the changes to the class schedule that we discussed in class:

Tuesday February 28: Atrocity

Read Milgram’s “The Dilemma of Obedience” and Kreidie and Monroe’s “Pschological Boundaries and Ethnic Conflict” (The Lebanon Case Study). Alford is now an optional reading and is no longer required.

** Friday March 2: Religion and Cosmic War (Make-up class)

Read Juergensmeyer and bin Laden

Sunday March 4: Case Study on Buddhist Monks in Sri Lanka

Read Abeysekara’s “The Saffron Army, Violence, Terror(ism)”

Tuesday March 6: Gender and Violence

Read Cockburn, “The Continuum of Violence”

Documentary on women and peacekeepers will be shown in class

Short paper #2 Due: 5pm on Thursday March 6

Sunday March 11 and Tuesday March 13 = Midterm exam period = NO CLASS

I will hand back paper #2 this week, before everyone leaves for spring break.

Spring Break: March 16-26

April 8 – Easter holiday. No class

RESEARCH AND PLANNING TIME FOR VIOLENCE AWARENESS WEEK (April 15-19)

April 10 – Class resumes as per original schedule.

1st Reading Reflection on The Prince (Jan 22, 2012)

There is no doubt that political authority and power are inextricable. However, the real question is what shapes what. Is it the use of power which shapes the political authority or is it the political authority that shapes the use of power? According to Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, it is the power which defines the authority. It is the power of one’s ability or good fortune or villainy which makes him a prince; and the maintenance of such power, specially the coercive power, is what keeps him in his position as a prince who has the authority to command. Hence, he believes that political authority cannot survive in the absence of coercive power, and he describes the use of violent force as a mean of exercising the coercive power.

This interesting relationship between power and political authority, as presented by Machiavelli, justifies the use of violence as long as it serves as a mean to save the state from its failures. He sees “well” use of violent force or threat as a natural process of a successful state-building project, and by “well committed” violence he refers to those cruelties which are done at the beginning to secure the position of a ruler, and eventually diminishing such violence by providing benefits and reassurance to his people; “those who follow the former method may remedy in some measure their condition, both with God and man” (34). He also justifies violence when it is used to attain the greater goods including keeping the unity, law order and faith of people, and advocates “be feared than loved” when there is a tradeoff between those choices (61).

However, morally speaking, we cannot define political authority only in terms of power. The one who has the political authority should direct it with a good purpose. The purpose of the political authority is not only the benefit of a ruler but mainly the benefit of those who being ruled. It is not just enforcing laws and orders itself, but it is the well-being of the public. The use of violence to exercise political authority might be successful in implementing laws but not in promoting happiness of people. That might be the reason why the time of warrior princes has come to an end and the time of democratic rule has started to flourish. Violence must be the last resort to get or maintain authority, and it must be replaced by peaceful methods as possible. By violence, a leader “may indeed gain power, but not glory” (32).

-Ganga Silva

Karl Marx Critique

In his writing, “A critique of Political Economy”, Karl Marx illustrates that capitalism has been evolved through the bloody history of colonization, poor wage labors, and slaves.  Capitalism and violence on labors have the direct connection because a capitalist can earn more and more profit hiring forced labors for low wage. The main ethical dilemma from his writings whether we should enjoy the benefits of capitalism, which are the form of violence as poor wage labors, slaves, colonization, higher tax, betrayal, laws against labors, massacre, and cruelty?

I would say that capitalism encourages the development of the society, thus, ethics of the violence is claimed to gain the benefits of capitalism. Yet all the people (rural people and slaves) do not get the access of the development. Thus, what will be the accomplishment of accumulating more and more capital using the blood of slaves? Capitalism also leads the social distinction between the poor and rich people. Karl Marx is ambiguous in mentioning that which economic structure would be the best solution to increase the greater happiness without cruel means. In addition, if we turn to form pure socialism, then how can we expect that the government will abolish the violence and make the economic system effective? Karl Marx also identifies that we cannot alienate the country from the capitalism, because somehow the country will be influenced by privatizations as for national debt (72). It seems Karl Max does not want to avoid the capitalism and do not want to urge for the pure socialism. As today there is no pure capitalism and no pure socialism country.

Considering labor side, Marx emphasizes that through the revolution labors can get their rights, which occurred in French revolution. However, in the current world though we have the international laws for labors, and labor rights, we could see the influence of privatization and capitalism in labor economy. Still we experience the form of violent act as human trafficking, child labor, and forced migrant workers. Finally, “Making profit as the ultimate the purpose of mankind.”(72). capitalism concentrate only on profit, thus capitalism will continue its function.

Work Cited

Karl Marx. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy,” In On Violence: A Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Of California Press, 2007.

Home: Violence and Ethics

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

 – Mahatma Gandhi