Bear with me

Hi, there!

I am tossing around an idea for a short (12-15 pg) paper. The class is International Development with Cross-Cultural Perspectives. The professor is an Anthropologist and focuses on the Andes (como yo!). In hopes of clarifying what I want to do, I'm testing it out in writing. Right here. For the first time. For you. Lucky you.

What's the deal? I want to write about incorporating culture into legal frameworks, national policy/procedure, and official government documents. For example, last year, Bolivia had a referendum to amend its constitution. A referendum is a direct electoral vote (one person, one vote) to determine whatever issues are brought up. In that election, the people voted to amend the definition of "property." Rejecting the old notion of property as a right held by an individual, Bolivia's constitution now defines property as a right to land held communal or by a collective group. Felicitaciones!

What does that mean for indigenous peoples of Bolivia? It means that indigenous people feel like their constitution represents them. Their government - finally - recognizes their way of living, their connection to the land, and the way they use the land as legitimate. Not only is there acknowledgment and understanding of the way indigenous peoples have lived for hundreds of years, there is an enforceable, legal mechanisms for indigenous people to continue living as they want in relation to their land. That is pretty darn cool.

What does that mean for Bolivia, the nation as a whole? It means good things and also opens up an unknown that could be potentially good or bad. The good is that there is democratic representation. It's good that by a democratic, majority vote, the people are getting what they want. It's good that there is greater unity in Bolivia - at least nominally - in that indigenous people feel included, acknowledged and represented by their government's guiding official document, legal mechanisms and official decree of the nation. It is also good that indigenous people can live the way that they want to and have lived previously for hundreds of years. Equally, just as people may exercise their right to hold property right individually, now people are also free to hold property rights collectively. Perhaps there is true unity in that each is allowed to live her life as she would like.

The unknown/bad: Perhaps unity is only a farce because the new definition inevitably affects more than just indigenous people. National policy and law affects a nation, even if some are affected on indirectly. Perhaps, in practice, collective property becomes an impossible mess. Look at what happened to American Indians who share parts/plots/the whole of reservations. Present possession and future interests get ridiculously difficult to determine and parse out. Even worse, the economic and material interests connected to land are quite complex when they are communally owned. Consider the added complication that much indigenous land is on natural resources like oil. Consider the added complication that oil and gas industries were seized by the Bolivian government -- nationalized -- in 2006. Opa. Problems abound or am I being too pessimistic?

What does it mean for other indigenous groups or people who want their culture to be reflected in the national definition of property? This decision may not much or set a precedent for other indigenous groups looking to get legal right and recognition to collective property. Here are some reasons I think this: Bolivia has indigenous president. The indigenous group (unlike most places) actually makes up the majority of the country, not the minority. In conjunction with the way the referendum was set up, this meant majority actually had the chance to put forth its agenda. But, not all democracies have constitutional amendment by referendum. In the U.S., for example, we don't hold a popular vote. The Constitution can only be amended in one of three ways:

• The new amendment may be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then sent to the states for approval.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures may apply to Congress for a constitutional convention to consider amendments, which are then sent to the states for approval.
• Congress may require ratification by special convention

The point is, lots of things had to fall into place at the same time in order to integrate the indigenous culture into the mainstream government policy, written documents, and law. It's not likely that these factors will all come together for other indigenous groups.

The larger point, though, is that in theory it sounds good to integrate the indigenous culture into the national constitution. But, I think we need to be wary. I only hope that in practice, the economic and social consequences are positive for both the indigenous groups and the non-indigenous Bolivians. I suppose only time will tell -- I'll be watching.

Como uno quiere a su bandera...

After the Iranian revolution, roughly 1980, the country put together a new flag to symbolize a new, reunited country. The new Iranian flag was Green, White and Red. Green symbolizes fertility and (ironically?) Islam. White symbolizes purity and peace. Red symbolizes the martyrs' blood. In the center, a red emblem symbolized various parts of Islamic life: Allah, the Book, the Sword, the five principles of Islam, balance, unity, neutrality, and the universal government of the downtrodden. So, we have a flag for 30 years that signifies an Iran moving toward strong democracy, unified social people, and modern integration of religion into civil society.

June 2009: Iran holds elections that are, arguably, a farce. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared himself the winner and Candidate Mirhossein Mousavi appealed the election. The young, educated Iranian community and the international community (not the U.S.) stands behind Mousavi. Demonstrations and rallies emerge around the world. Green - from the stripe of the flag - was the chosen symbol of the opposition to Ahmadinejad. Mousavi drops the charge, accepts Ahmadinejad's reelection. The U.S. is happy that there is a continued pillar of "democracy" in the Middle East. The world moves on.

January 2010: President Ahmadinejad holds a run-of-the-mill official ceremony. The flag behind him is Blue, White and Red. Or, shall we say, Red, White and Blue (oh wait, isn't the U.S. of A. flag Red, White and Blue?).

Does erasing the green mean that Iran erased the opposition, or wants to, anyway? Ironically, didn't the green in the flag also symbolize Islam? Did Iran erase Islam, too? Flags symbolize so much to so many people: love for one's nation, fellow compatriots, and own happiness in life. Can a president just 'decide' to change the nation's flag on his own whim? How old are we anyway? It reminds me of how I used to change my shirt if my sister happened to be wearing a shirt with the same color -- or a color even remotely close on the spectrum -- for school that day.

At the very least, I think it's clear that Iran is less than stable these days. I believe: if we don't get to the root of the problem before moving on to fix it and rebuild on top of it, the problem will surface again. Is it possible that the time it takes The Problem to get to The Surface is about ... 30 years?

Imperialism & the Underdeveloped Colony/Post-Colonial State

In response to my readings this week for my class, Politics of Development...

As an outgrowth of Western thought and imperialism, development work historically has been structured to integrate states into the global economy (Wallerstein, Galtung). Overall development has been considered "successful" when colonial/post-colonial states interact and thrive within the global economy. However, integration into a world economy inevitably leads to some cases of underdevelopment because the system’s structure is based on being economically viable and competitive: some states will “win” (have more desirable products, cheaper prices, etc.) and other states necessarily will “lose” (have fewer and less-useful products, higher prices, etc.) (Wallerstein, Galtung). Development’s goal of integration into a fixed economic structure such that some must fail when others succeed undeniably leads to underdevelopment.

Notably, this structure of economic-focused development ignores, or even worse, impoverishes, other crucial areas of states. For example, Escobar discusses the inattention to culture in development. Escobar argues that there should be a return of local culture and context-specificity in critical analysis of development. Further, he argues that anthropologists should consider effects on culture when looking at how development occurred. Similarly, Thiong’o shows how the post-colonial infusion of English disintegrated African language and culture. In fact, as evident in theatrical, lyrical and written artistic works, the imperialism influence over the choice of language itself also extended to change the concepts expressed through language. In sum, development has focused on economic gains and integration in the global market, not on cultural contexts or social progression.

I think development must be concerned economics, and, further, that economic development must be a main concern. However, even while focusing on economics, the structure of development also should be and can be changed to include culture. Elaborating on ideas from the readings, I posit two ways to integrate culture into the structure of development. First, culture must be integrated in how developers work with people in developing nations. This may be done by having developers speak the language of the region being developed (Thiong’o, Galtung) and creating “horizontalization” by involving domestic associations that are organized around cultural communities (Galtung). A third way is to have a “go-between” country (Galtung). While this will not promote the culture of the developing nation, it will minimize the degree of imperialism of the dominant culture.

Second, culture must be integrated in the actual work that the developers produce. The idea is to begin with cultural values and to add creativity in order to develop products that will be competitive in the world-economy. Taking advantage of local culture and geographies (Wallerstein), can lead to innovation. Creating new culturally influenced products for sale on the global market is particularly important for nations whose marketable resources are finite, not part of global demand, or unavailable due to poor infrastructure or high distribution costs (Galtung).

While it is easy to theorize of culture combined with creativity resulting in new economically competitive products, how exactly can development workers induce this sort of innovation? Further, underdevelopment would subsist, despite economic development, if resources do not reach through the nation. Thus, what political development needs to occur in order to ensure that the economic profits are distributed for the benefit of the whole nation-state? Finally, how can we separate the use of professional international work languages from eroding the use of local, native languages?