In a recent opinions column ("Thomas Friedman can kiss my ass," March 8), Andrew Marantz '06.5 criticized the ideological conflation of economic development with happiness. These two variables, he suggests, can vary independently, and we should therefore temper our "paternalistic" enthusiasm over India's modernization. He goes on to say that "American-style capitalism" ruins cultures, isolates individuals and pits them against oppressive, overbearing sociopolitical forces.
I am sympathetic to many of Marantz's arguments. However, his basic premise, that wealth and happiness are not to be confused, epitomizes the sort of thinking that I feel almost morally obligated to speak out against. It is a common refrain in educated discourse that economic measures of well-being are incomplete. While such measures fail to capture every variable, they usually prove to be extremely meaningful and the most useful quantitative tools in existence for assessing the health of a society. When countries undergo rapid economic modernization, there occur lots of ugly side effects and growing pains to which people can point as evidence that modernization is not benefiting people. Still, I find it a fairly absurd suggestion that as societies become wealthier, their constituents do not become happier as an aggregate.
It is not at all paternalistic to encourage or even celebrate economic growth in poor countries. On the contrary, I find it paternalistic to suggest that modernization ought to be resisted because of its effect on traditional cultures and values. I lament the decline of traditional societies, but I do not think it is my business to protect them at the economic expense of their people. If the enrichment of a poor society means that people start drinking Pepsi instead of tea, I'm not going to say they've made a bad decision. It would be paternalistic of me to do so, particularly because that very same societal enrichment enables people to educate their children and protect their families from disease. To lament modernization based on a critical distaste for industrialized society is to fall prey to an insidious and markedly out-of-touch brand of hyper-intellectualism.
Marantz cites the example of the king of Bhutan, who coined the term "gross happiness product" and claims to value his peoples' happiness more than their wealth. To my ears, this is a despot's sleazy excuse to continue to do poorly in an important area for which he can easily be held accountable. No one will ever be able to accuse the king of stewarding his country toward a sub-par gross happiness product, because no such thing exists. In the words of Marantz, "aesthetics and human dignity are harder to quantify than economic growth." This is manifestly true; it is also precisely the reason why policymakers ought to worry more about bottom lines than about abstractions. They are simply more tractable - not to mention objective.
I am not unsympathetic to high-minded anti-capitalist ideas. Economic modernization definitely imposes new values upon traditional societies. It does not change everything for the better. However, we need to be careful about opposing the modernization of Third World countries for several reasons. First of all, the destruction of traditional culture is very often a non-unique objection to development. Most poor countries have already been irreversibly run over by Western influences via centuries of colonialism and decades of exposure to consumerist culture. Billions of people around the world would voluntarily choose a consumerist lifestyle if it were a feasible option. For us to object on the basis of a disconnected nostalgia for traditional values is extremely paternalistic. We ought to be very sure that we do not oppose the will of the people in question when we lament the sort of accelerated development that India is experiencing.
I am taking it as a premise that in the very long run, nearly everyone in a poor society will benefit monetarily from a shift to what Marantz calls "American-style capitalism." If this statement rings false to him, then our disagreement is academic rather than ideological. In fact, my only ideological claim is that we should not impose our will upon less powerful nations. Discouraging cultural change on the other side of the world usually amounts to just that. When we dictate the way countries ought to modernize, we maintain our paternalistic grip on other nations' self-determination - even if it comes in the guise of defending the underprivileged and fighting inequality.
Matt Prewitt '08 is not a sell-out.
