Some notes on India and "An Uncertain Glory" by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen
As I read this book, I was astounded at the level of systematic dysfunction endemic to India. And, I thought I had at least a basic if macro-view of India's problems. I've also been reading "Maximum City" by Suketu Mehta, which only reinforces and makes visual the problems discussed at a more theoretical level in An Uncertain Glory.
What struck me in both books is the why of it. What is it about India that makes progress towards equality, fairness, and tolerance so slow? Is it something deeply ingrained in the values of the culture or something that has more to do with the population (size, geography) or something to do with a history of imperialism? Some combination of all, something else entirely? Is it just a matter of time, but even if it is, there is still the question why so slow?
Dreze and Sen do not really address this issue. There focus is on a description of the what--what does India look like today, with frequent comparison to supposedly or presumably like countries. Where India is often holding down the last place in many measures of development from literacy to health care to sanitation to corruption, in comparison to like countries.
Mehta seems to suggest some kind of systematic cultural acceptance of extreme stratification that benefits those at the top and severely hurts those at the bottom. Which, I guess, begs the question. How did, if it is true, people come to this level of acceptance? Certainly, there is a level of fatalism about it: what else can be done? Rather me than you. . .
What drives people to work for equality when they have already reaped its benefits? Would Dworkin argue that the universals of human dignity and responsibility are not working in India but should be? Both books seem to suggest that these values are missing as cultural norms let alone as inherent moral values.
There does seem to be a trend with increasing women's equality and improving all other measures of development from infant mortality to education to decreasing inequalities for all. It does make you wonder why it would be that with women in charge of the finances, everyone seems to fare better. . . Must be tons of books written about this issue.
Let's tease out the trajectory of women's rising equality. First, it seems comes education, then a shift towards more employment, decreased child bearing, increased control over decision making and choices, and ultimately and perhaps most importantly changes in the acceptance of traditional values and prejudices. In order to take full advantage of having increased equality for women, the women have to start to challenge, question and change the values that have been used often for hundreds or even thousands of years to maintain their inequality. In India, for example, many well educated and highly employed women still follow a distinctly paternalistic home culture/practice including the emphasis on having a male child.
What struck me in both books is the why of it. What is it about India that makes progress towards equality, fairness, and tolerance so slow? Is it something deeply ingrained in the values of the culture or something that has more to do with the population (size, geography) or something to do with a history of imperialism? Some combination of all, something else entirely? Is it just a matter of time, but even if it is, there is still the question why so slow?
Dreze and Sen do not really address this issue. There focus is on a description of the what--what does India look like today, with frequent comparison to supposedly or presumably like countries. Where India is often holding down the last place in many measures of development from literacy to health care to sanitation to corruption, in comparison to like countries.
Mehta seems to suggest some kind of systematic cultural acceptance of extreme stratification that benefits those at the top and severely hurts those at the bottom. Which, I guess, begs the question. How did, if it is true, people come to this level of acceptance? Certainly, there is a level of fatalism about it: what else can be done? Rather me than you. . .
What drives people to work for equality when they have already reaped its benefits? Would Dworkin argue that the universals of human dignity and responsibility are not working in India but should be? Both books seem to suggest that these values are missing as cultural norms let alone as inherent moral values.
There does seem to be a trend with increasing women's equality and improving all other measures of development from infant mortality to education to decreasing inequalities for all. It does make you wonder why it would be that with women in charge of the finances, everyone seems to fare better. . . Must be tons of books written about this issue.
Let's tease out the trajectory of women's rising equality. First, it seems comes education, then a shift towards more employment, decreased child bearing, increased control over decision making and choices, and ultimately and perhaps most importantly changes in the acceptance of traditional values and prejudices. In order to take full advantage of having increased equality for women, the women have to start to challenge, question and change the values that have been used often for hundreds or even thousands of years to maintain their inequality. In India, for example, many well educated and highly employed women still follow a distinctly paternalistic home culture/practice including the emphasis on having a male child.
Comments
Post a Comment