In his March 6 lecture on class in America, New York Times columnist David Brooks emphasized the importance of cultural factors in structuring social mobility. He described a new economic elite of bourgeois-bohemians who pass on their hyper-ambition and social skills to their children, creating a hereditary meritocracy. The economically poor cannot become the economically rich because they lack cultural and social capital that, paradoxically, they are barred from accessing by their economic status.
Brooks is not the first to make this claim. In the 19th century, the theory that economic failure came from a lack of necessary cultural values was invoked by apologists for class disparity. The morally deserving, according to this school of thought, would rise naturally to the economic top. But the need for changes in values simultaneously justified social and cultural philanthropy on the part of bourgeois progressives. They harnessed a conservative claim to legitimate a liberal cause.
While Brooks dealt specifically with class in America, the notion that culture is the driving force behind economic class has global implications. Cultural differences can explain the "class" of nations in the global economy. Brooks described the lack of social trust that thwarted attempts to move post-Soviet Russia to capitalism. He cited culture as the reason "the Jews and the Chinese seem to succeed wherever they go."
But cultural determinism often becomes an excuse to write off nations deemed culturally unfit to succeed. Such an argument underlies America's consistent reluctance to intervene on behalf of human rights in cases of war crimes or government oppression. In the 1990s, the American government's refusal to intervene in the Rwandan genocide was an economic choice: intervention was expensive and largely agricultural Rwanda seemed unlikely to successfully join the world economy and "pay for itself" in the long run.
Today, the case of the ongoing Darfur genocide, presents a similar problem. Where the culture of the mass populace seems distant from modern capitalism, where the nation presents little economic incentive in the way of access to resources or contracts, the oppressive government is an important partner for American investors.
Economically successful nations must be rational economic actors. But does "rational" commitment to economics mean that nations where culture is thwarting economic development, or where dictatorial or corrupt governments are enforcing "uneconomic" culture, have to be left behind?
Liberal humanitarians often argue against this logic from a moral, altruistic perspective. In a recent discussion of the Darfur genocide, humanitarian activist John Prendergast urged Brown students to get politicians behind American intervention in the Sudan on moral grounds, to "shame" them out of their economic rationalism. But why does liberal humanitarianism have to run counter to economics?
Nineteenth century liberal philanthropists used economic rather than moral language. Liberal internationalists today are often derided as idealists whose "touchy-feely" rhetoric is incompatible with realpolitic. Leftists who think economically, notably Marxists, do so by valorizing a shift away from the existing capitalist system. I wonder, though, if we can frame humanitarian aid or intervention as furthering our economic goals within the existing global capitalist system, culturally improving the "class" of nations and thus the global economy.
For example, education for women in the Islamic world is economically valuable to both these nations and to the West because it lays a cultural value system of prizing the economic potential of all members of society. A more equitable society would allow these nations to maximize their human resources and become more valuable contributors to the global economy.
A similar case could be made for Western involvement to promote human rights or improved health care systems in areas of Asia or Africa that don't seem valuable to us now but might be made so by the cultivation of social capital. Cultures that value individual life tend to value individual livelihood too. This is a brand of aid that is economically beneficial to both donors and recipients and that will continue to generate interest in the long term.
What is needed is liberal altruism with an economic rationale that emphasizes the economic benefits of gender equality and public education instead of merely promoting Western ideas as moral goods in themselves
This logic of liberal capitalism can go beyond economics to global geopolitics. The final victory in any "war on terror" will come with the eradication of the incentive among individuals to join such networks, an incentive that stems at present from a perceived lack of economic opportunity, a sense of being left behind. Bringing the lower "classes" of nations along on the economic ride is the key to national security.
Maha Atal '08 is a bleeding heart liberal with a stone cold conservative brain.
