I will carry on directly from Kurt’s last post by restating one of his ideas. The pursuit of renewable energy seems often to be based on the assumption that we shouldn’t have to change our consumption habits. We want to keep buying, keep driving, keep producing as fast as ever (faster, if possible) forever. Schumacher (back to Small is Beautiful) goes further in suggesting that the modern view of progress rests in the belief that “universal prosperity is possible...on the basis of the materialist philosophy of ‘enrich yourself’ [and that] this is the road to peace”(1973:19). Kurt commented that the discovery of fossil fuels fueled a vision of the future where technology would help humanity overcome most, if not all, of its woes. Schumacher focuses on the idea that technology and unabated economic growth will result in peace and prosperity.
Taking off on that idea, I want to put forward the idea. The view from sunny North America, or the UK or Australia or Japan may be that technology and economic growth have lead to untold prosperity and even peace. Japan is a relatively peaceful country, right? On the other hand Sierra Leone is excessively violent. Once their economy starts to grow more and they can access more technology, the violence will go away, right? But is that the whole picture? What if we, the privileged few are living long lives with access to amazing medical treatments and cheap fuel at the expense of the majority who don’t have those things? I wonder if there is a violence inherent in the capitalist economic model that has helped create such a wonderfully privileged life for us, the white, the comfortable, the few?
Okay, I’m over-simplifying things, but I’m trying to make a point. I don’t see our current way of life or economic model as moving us toward peace and prosperity, at least not nearly all of us.
The question I propose to tackle in my dissertation asks: Can development projects undermine support for militant and terrorist groups and help bring about security and stability in strategically important areas? This question extends beyond my line of thinking above, but it’s built on the fundamental question: what is the relationship between economic development and stability, or peace?
Schumacher would likely argue that development of some sort could lead to stability for all (or most), but not the sort we were pursuing in the 70s. Sadly, things haven’t changed a lot in 40 years.
Jordan (Manchester)
Hi Jordan, Your initial point is clear. I don't think you're oversimplifying things at all. One doesn't have to look far to see how capitalism has resulted in systematic violence (take the DR Congo for example).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure I fully understand your proposed dissertation topic. Perhaps it is a question of formulation, but it seems that the answer is an obvious YES because you just need one example to prove it. But more importantly, the question/topic doesn't seem to generally speak to what I suppose you might be getting at which is HOW can projects (or activities/strategies or whatever) help bring peace etc. Also, you might find that one part (undermining support for militant groups) doesn't necessarily positively correlate with the second part (help bring peace) and vice-versa. Debating that point could be a difficult task if it is only a subpoint of your main argument.
I look forward to reading more about your research. Also consider reading http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/ which has some excellent political analysis on the DR Congo's resource-related struggles. There are likely some relevant examples that might be helpful as instances for your paper.
Good luck!
-John
"What if we, the privileged few are living long lives with access to amazing medical treatments and cheap fuel at the expense of the majority who don’t have those things?"
ReplyDeleteThis is why I'm convinced a course like "The Study of Voluntary Simplicity" offered at U of W should be a requirement for any IDS degree.