"Who's Dysfuctional??? How Misassessments and Neo-Colonialism Gets Formulated Into U.S.-Foreign Policy" by Lawrence Harrison
As you read along you will see why.
Harrison is solidly within the school of development thought called cultural developmentalism. The theory in short asserts that cultures of given nations are inherently dysfunctional on a level that makes development and "modernization" improbable if not impossible for them. If development is ever to come to such cultures, it must first come at the level of fundamental cultural changes that will "fit" the people for "development." In this modernizing view, cultures must change to fit the development form, and not vice-versa.
At root, cultural developmentalism is little other than a revival of unilineal evolutionism (the theory used to help justify colonialism) except that it replaces biology with culture as its picking point.
Harrison was a long-time United States Agency for International Development (USAID) operative in the Western hemisphere who is now a professor of International Affairs at Harvard. During Harrison's tenure with USAID, mostly during the Cold War-era, he served for two years as the agency's director in Haiti under George Bush, Sr.
Harrison's experiences in Haiti lead him to believe that "there is something going on in the minds of the Haitians that impedes progress and facilitates the perpetuation of a stagnant, exploitive, repressive system." As for what that certain "something" is, he synopsizes it as "slave culture, sustained over the generations in substantial isolation."
According to Harrison, Haiti is underdeveloped because of its roots in its past, its maladaptive responses to that past as well as to modern events, and its inability to break away from both to "get with the larger world" and its standardized development plan. I find it almost stupifying that Harrison neglects to focus on Duvalierism (ideology in Haiti held by some formerly tied up with the dictator there, Duvalier, that says to move we need to gain access to and feed at the state n order to advance socially and economically) in Haiti in these regards, but instead appears to target the Haitian poor.
Harrison's seeks to bolster his arguments by replying to the idea of dependency. He takes on the easiest to critique theory of dependency, dependency theory, which Harrison rejects, as well as, apparently, any notion that lower income countries are the way they are because they have been historically exploited by industrialized countries-"that the rich are rich because the poor are poor," to use Harrison's own words. Harrison dismisses the idea with one phrase, calling it simply a "doctrine for Marxist-Leninists," and ingnores the theory as a useful analytical tool for understanding the underlying causes of underdevelopment in given places. Harrison instead states, "The almost exclusive focus on `imperialism' and `dependency' to explain underdevelopment has encouraged the evolution of a paralyzing, self-defeating mythology." While this assertion contains grains of truth, for Harrison it needs to be the full focus. For him, formerly colonized countries need to stop looking at the non-realities of notions of dependency, and instead look *inward*.
The praxis and outcomes of Harrison's cultural developmentalism is, first, a belief in the superior pattern of the West and reification and universalizing of neo-liberalism. Reminiscent of the underlying assumptions of both unilineal evolutionism and modernization theory, Harrison specifically forwards the notion that some cultures are inherently better or worse when compared to others. Harrison asserts that there is a prototype for underdeveloped countries to emulate to become "developed." Harrison both assumes and asserts that development means, in essence, helping formerly colonized states to become more like their former colonizers in world and life view. This includes having their cultures, governmental structures and policies, and economic and social behaviors conform to what he holds as the superior pattern of the West, importantly to include its current model of neo-liberal economics. Underlying this argument is Harrison's explicit rejection of anthropology's general adherence to an appropriate cultural relativism. The main of cultural relativism in anthropology asserts that, while there can still be moral universals that can be upheld, each culture makes significant sense when viewed on its own terms and from an understanding that can only be acquired from a stance of having been deeply within that culture for a time. Clearly, understanding Haitian culture like this is not something he did during his tenure in Haiti, probably because he speant too much time at the Olofson (elite hostel in Haiti).
Given this major lack of understanding cultures, it is not surprising therefore that, second, problematic assessments flow from Harrison's cultural developmentalism, and that these assessments then formulate into the policies of important state, international, and NGO decision makers: for example, USAID, with whom Harrison served in Haiti.
For example, Harrison targets Haiti's indigenous religion, Vodou. Harrison asserts that the religion is a key part of what he calls "Haiti's slave culture" that needs to be broken away from in order for the country to develop. He admits, first, that most Haitians are Vodousaints in one measure or another. From this admission, he goes on to maintain that the world and life view of Vodousaints causes them to focus not on the future, but on the ancestral past. Harrison asserts that "Voudon [...] is irrational," and that it "propagates the view that existence is essentially static and the world unchangeable" (sic). Consequently, for Harrison, Vodou "tends to lock the Haitian into the status quo" to impede Haitian development.
In this, Harrison quite transparently misses the fact that Vodou was central to the Haitian people making their break from "the status quo" (slavery) under colonial domination. Today the religion's ritual replays of the Haitian Revolution bolster Vodousaints against future slavery forms -forms that, to most Vodousaints, would seem tied to what Harrison, USAID, and the U.S. advocates for.
Beyond this obvious historical fact, Harrison misses the fact of Aristide's past mass concientizacíon (consciousness raising) efforts among Haitians, which has led popular Haitians to question things, to demand change. Harrison completey misses the fact that many Vodousaints and their "clergy" are progressive and socially and politically active, and that they work within Haiti's popular movements for a just Haiti. In other words, while spiritual elements of Vodou do focus on the past, as is the case with most if not all religions, when it comes to the socio-political realm, most Vodousaints are, in fact, future-oriented. While perhaps fearing the outcomes concientizacíon, Harrison apparently misses this important dualism.
As well, many Vodousaints were highly politically conscious and future-oriented well before Aristide's mass concientizacíon effort. During the end of the Jean-Claude Duvaliér years in the late 1980s, the intensely popular Haitian rasin ["roots music"] and openly Vodouist band Boukman Eksperyans, sharply criticized Jean-Claude in their music and became targets of the regime. Like Vodousaint Boukman Dutty, who helped spark the Haitian Revolution, many (recall that most Haitians are also at least nominally Vodousaints), attribute the pointed music of Boukman Eksperyans with sparking initial fomentation against the Jean-Claude dictatorship. More recently (1992), one of the band's politicized songs, Vodou Adjae, expresses shock over problems related to capitalism, communism, ...egotism, expansionism, imperialism, racism, fanaticism, corrupt money, war, and orphans.
Aristide's mass concientizacíon and the music of Boukman Eksperyans indicate Harrison's problematic assessments of Haiti to be truly extensive. Harrison misses even main currents within the Haitian political climate and popular culture! Having to labor under the stigmatizations and constraining of sight stemming from Harrison's cultural developmentalist praxis would seem to impede Haitians' development far more than Vodou itself.
Even so, with one eye targeted on Vodou, Harrison summarizes his remedy for Haiti as, "The Haitian people need to break with their past" to emulate the universally applicable prototype for "development," the West.
The recent and current stream of U.S. policy toward Haiti evidently concurs with Harrison's overall assessments concerning the underlying causes of Haitian underdevelopment and the need for an exogenous neo-liberal remedy for it. What is more, as the U.S. has done in the past, it directly ties that assessment to its power. Problem is, the assessments of Haiti have been misformulated based in part upon the constraining of site and, frankly neo-colonialism, that becoming a cultural developmentalist can cause.
So if you want to either become a neo-colonialist, or understand why U.S. policy takes on neo-colonialism far too often, or undrestand why USAID is so often hated around the world, buy Harrison's book.
Harrison is solidly within the school of development thought called cultural developmentalism. The theory in short asserts that cultures of given nations are inherently dysfunctional on a level that makes development and ?modernization? improbable if not impossible for them. If development is ever to come to such cultures, it must first come at the level of fundamental cultural changes that will ?fit? the people for ?development.? In this modernizing view, cultures must change to fit the development form, and not vice-versa.
Harrison was a long-time United States Agency for International Development (USAID) operative in the Western hemisphere who is now a professor of International Affairs at Harvard. During Harrison?s tenure with USAID, mostly during the Cold War-era, he served for two years as the agency?s director in Haiti under George Bush, Sr.
Harrison?s experiences in Haiti lead him to believe that ?there is something going on in the minds of the Haitians that impedes progress and facilitates the perpetuation of a stagnant, exploitive, repressive system.? As for what that certain ?something? is, he synopsizes it as ?slave culture, sustained over the generations in substantial isolation.?
According to Harrison, Haiti is underdeveloped because of its roots in its past, its maladaptive responses to that past as well as to modern events, and its inability to break away from both to ?get with the larger world? and its standardized development plan. I find it almost stupifying that Harrison neglects to focus on Duvalierism (ideology in Haiti held by some formerly tied up with the dictator there, Duvalier, that says to move we need to gain access to and feed at the state n order to advance socially and economically) in Haiti in these regards, but instead appears to target the Haitian poor.
Harrison?s seeks to bolster his arguments by replying to the idea of dependency. He takes on the easiest to critique theory of dependency, dependency theory, which Harrison rejects, as well as, apparently, any notion that lower income countries are the way they are because they have been historically exploited by industrialized countries??that the rich are rich because the poor are poor,? to use Harrison?s own words. Harrison dismisses the idea with one phrase, calling it simply a ?doctrine for Marxist-Leninists,? and ingnores the theory as a useful analytical tool for understanding the underlying causes of underdevelopment in given places. Harrison instead states, ?The almost exclusive focus on ?imperialism? and ?dependency? to explain underdevelopment has encouraged the evolution of a paralyzing, self-defeating mythology.? While this assertion contains grains of truth, for Harrison it needs to be the full focus. For him, formerly colonized countries need to stop looking at the non-realities of notions of dependency, and instead look *inward*.
The praxis and outcomes of Harrison?s cultural developmentalism is, first, a belief in the superior pattern of the West and reification and universalizing of neo-liberalism. Reminiscent of the underlying assumptions of both unilineal evolutionism and modernization theory, Harrison specifically forwards the notion that some cultures are inherently better or worse when compared to others. Harrison asserts that there is a prototype for underdeveloped countries to emulate to become ?developed.? Harrison both assumes and asserts that development means, in essence, helping formerly colonized states to become more like their former colonizers in world and life view. This includes having their cultures, governmental structures and policies, and economic and social behaviors conform to what he holds as the superior pattern of the West, importantly to include its current model of neo-liberal economics. Underlying this argument is Harrison?s explicit rejection of anthropology?s general adherence to an appropriate cultural relativism. The main of cultural relativism in anthropology asserts that, while there can still be moral universals that can be upheld, each culture makes significant sense when viewed on its own terms and from an understanding that can only be acquired from a stance of having been deeply within that culture for a time. Clearly, understanding Haitian culture like this is not something he did during his tenure in Haiti, probably because he speant too much time at the Olofson (elite hostel in Haiti).
For example, Harrison targets Haiti?s indigenous religion, Vodou. Harrison asserts that the religion is a key part of what he calls ?Haiti?s slave culture? that needs to be broken away from in order for the country to develop. He admits, first, that most Haitians are Vodousaints in one measure or another. From this admission, he goes on to maintain that the world and life view of Vodousaints causes them to focus not on the future, but on the ancestral past. Harrison asserts that ?Voudon [?] is irrational,? and that it ?propagates the view that existence is essentially static and the world unchangeable? (sic). Consequently, for Harrison, Vodou ?tends to lock the Haitian into the status quo? to impede Haitian development.
In this, Harrison quite transparently misses the fact that Vodou was central to the Haitian people making their break from ?the status quo? (slavery) under colonial domination. Today the religion?s ritual replays of the Haitian Revolution bolster Vodousaints against future slavery forms ?forms that, to most Vodousaints, would seem tied to what Harrison, USAID, and the U.S. advocates for.
Beyond this obvious historical fact, Harrison misses the fact of Aristide?s past mass concientizacíon (consciousness raising) efforts among Haitians, which has led popular Haitians to question things, to demand change. Harrison completely misses the fact that many Vodousaints and their ?clergy? are progressive and socially and politically active, and that they work within Haiti?s popular movements for a just Haiti. In other words, while spiritual elements of Vodou do focus on the past, as is the case with most if not all religions, when it comes to the socio-political realm, most Vodousaints are, in fact, future-oriented. While perhaps fearing the outcomes of concientizacíon (!), Harrison apparently misses this important dualism.
As well, many Vodousaints were highly politically conscious and future-oriented well before Aristide?s mass concientizacíon effort. During the end of the Jean-Claude Duvaliér years in the late 1980s, the intensely popular Haitian rasin [?roots music?] and openly Vodouist band Boukman Eksperyans, sharply criticized Jean-Claude in their music and became targets of the regime. Like Vodousaint Boukman Dutty, who helped spark the Haitian Revolution, many (recall that most Haitians are also at least nominally Vodousaints), attribute the pointed music of Boukman Eksperyans with sparking initial fomentation against the Jean-Claude dictatorship. More recently (1992), one of the band?s politicized songs, Vodou Adjae, expresses shock over problems related to capitalism, communism, ?bullshitism,? egotism, expansionism, imperialism, racism, fanaticism, corrupt money, war, and orphans.
Aristide's mass concientizacíon and the music of Boukman Eksperyans indicate Harrison?s problematic assessments of Haiti to be truly extensive. Harrison misses even main currents within the Haitian political climate and popular culture! Having to labor under the stigmatizations and constraining of sight stemming from Harrison's cultural developmentalist praxis would seem to impede Haitians? development far more than Vodou itself.
Even so, with one eye targeted on Vodou, Harrison summarizes his remedy for Haiti as, ?The Haitian people need to break with their past? to emulate the universally applicable prototype for ?development,? the West.
The recent and current stream of U.S. policy toward Haiti evidently concurs with Harrison?s overall assessments concerning the underlying causes of Haitian underdevelopment and the need for an exogenous neo-liberal remedy for it. What is more, as the U.S. has done in the past, it directly ties that assessment to its power. Problem is, the assessments of Haiti have been misformulated based in part upon the constraining of site and, frankly neo-colonialism, that becoming a cultural developmentalist can cause.
So if you want to either become a neo-colonialist, or understand why U.S. policy takes on neo-colonialism far too often, or undrestand why USAID is so often hated around the world, or understand who it is that is the actual most dysfuctional ones in development efforts, buy Harrison's book.