Cargo Cults, Welfare and
Political Drivel
Libertarianism social policy fits
snugly into the ideological framework of the American Constitution
which the “Founding Fathers” seemingly intended. There is deep
chasm of political philosophy between Libertarianism and the original
intent of a “common good”, which runs like a thread through the
Constitution. Libertarianism, I feel, will prove to be inadequate for
effective statecraft on a federal, state, or local level. As an
illustration of the inherent shortcomings, consider the implications
of one of the basic tenets of it's political ideology; self-reliance.
If you carry that to one of it's logical and pragmatic conclusions
then there is scanty provision made for civil utilities like fire
departments or police forces. Remember that until the end of the 19th
century and beginning of the 20th century fire departments
were privately owned and operated. This meant that if your home or
business didn't bare the placard of one of the privately held fire
departments then those companies would not respond to the fire.
Fortunately, that civic mayhem has been rectified by cities
incorporating the fire departments into their municipal jurisdiction.
The evolution of political “common good” as it pertains to civil
concepts has come to be accepted as a right of citizenship and
residence and can't be easily reversed. When it comes to abject
poverty and marginalization of economic, cultural and ethnic groups
not only do the Libertarians receive a failing grade but so do the
Republicans and the Democrats alike. I will attempt not to
oversimplify but also refrain from getting mired down in the nuances
of their respective ideologies. I will try to succinctly describe
American's popular conception of the political parties stance on
welfare as it refers to the “common good”.
Republicans assume that the poor or
needy, whether chronic or temporary, stick their hands out expecting
a material or monetary freebie from the leaders without having to be
concerned about self-reliance. This is their classic example of a
welfare state kept on life support by the majority of hard working
tax payers. The Democrats, in contrast, are portrayed as the weak
bleeding heart handmaidens to this “nanny state”. The question
arises, then, who has the moral and political high ground? Has
striving for the “common good” devolved into a situation where an
underclass has become so despondent that they have come to view the
government as their earthly salvation? After the end of World War 2
curious quasi-religious movements sprang up on the islands of
Melanesia which embodied that same despondency. Those movements
yearning for an earthly salvation are what are known as Cargo Cults.
The concept of the Cargo Cult has been
erroneously linked to the culture of poverty in American society.
Although many aspects are similar and one can understand the spurious
conclusions drawn between them and the perception of a permanent
American underclass. However, as will be shown, the idea of
redemption by the government doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In order to
do that we will have to tease out what constitutes a cargo cult by
briefly describing the John Frum movement. After we have established
our parameters of a cargo cult we will delve into a lingering
sociological concept that continues to obscure an objective discourse
on rampant poverty and its tenacious staying power in the United
States. The outdated sociological concept of a culture of poverty is
behind this ideological conundrum.
Cargo Cults, like The John Frum
movement of the island Vanuatu, emerged during World War 2. These
small islands were used as weigh stations and springboards for
thousands of American troops in the Pacific Theater. Anthropologists
view Cargo Cults arising out of encounters with an outside culture
which stand out in contrast to the indigenous culture as it relates
to material wealth. There develops a mysterious reverence to the
outsiders because the local population can't comprehend from where
such a limitless supply of goods and resources originate. The local
peoples assume it's the workings of magic which is perhaps summoned
from the spirit world by veritable gods. While the war raged on in
the Pacific these cargo cult built symbolic airstrips for the planes
and erected statues of airplanes made from palm fronds and coconuts.
They even built churches with coconut radio transmitters to contact
these gods. Once the Americans had withdrawn from the Pacific Theater
following the end of WW2 the Cargo Cults took an even greater
mythical hold on the local population. They began venerating those
symbols of the gods. They prayed for their return when they hoped the
gods would bring with them the material wealth of the spiritual
realm. As was told to Paul Raffaele of the Smithsonian Magazine on
his visit in 2006 by a ranking member of the John Frum movement;
“John promised he’ll bring planeloads and shiploads of cargo to
us from America if we pray to him...(like) radios, TVs, trucks,
boats, watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola and many other
wonderful things.” These pre-literate island cultures were in awe
of the material wealth and benevolence of the gods who descended upon
them. There were no precursors for grasping on an abstract level why
the American soldiers were being supplied and from where these
supplies came. It can easily be seen how these local populations
could succumb to deifying those gods and in turn, on a deep cultural
and religious level, expect the gods to care for them. They were
inadvertently thrust into a cycle of subservience; a culture of
poverty.
The culture
of poverty was a mid 20th century (1959) sociology paradigm
that was able to garner both wide spread acceptance within academia
and coffee shop pundits. Originally it was conceived by social
anthropologist Oscar Lewis in his book titled “Five Families:
Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty.” Lewis'
ethnographical study of this Mexican subculture delineated how
exclusion from the overarching dominant culture tended to influence
the subculture to modify and adapt. Due to the lack of resources,
like second language acquisition, formal higher or skilled education
and absence of community role models, subcultures manufacture
aberrant value systems from the generally accepted social norms. As a
side effect of this insular enculturation these value systems were in
turn inherited by the children. This precipitated the generational
adoption of these mores and norms and thusly, allowed them to be
perpetuated. Furthermore, Lewis postulated that because these
mechanisms of adaptation have been engrained so thoroughly in the
members of these subcultures, notably children, they are inevitably
held captive to those ideals and social conventions. This ultimately
leads to a perceived continuum of an underclass; a culture of
poverty. During President Lyndon B. Johnson's “new deal” the
concept was used to describe the plight of the urban ghetto namely,
the black communities. It has since lost most of it's preliminary
luster because of the work of modern sociologists, like harvard
professor William Julius Wilson, who turned the argument on its ear.
He claims that many ethnic groups choose to isolate themselves from
the homogenous American culture. The many China Towns found in
American's urban settings is testament to this voluntary isolation.
Asian immigrant populations tend to cluster together and in doing so
establish networks of support for the newly arrived emigres. Of
course, there are other ethnic groups who adhere to the same
clustering after immigration; like Eastern Europeans or Caribbeans.
Wilson asserts that the main reason for a perceived culture of
poverty is the lack of social role models in the impoverished areas
of America. A mixture of socio-economic classes are required to exist
in close proximity to one another in order for them to interact on a
meaningful level. Most notably the middle class has a pivotal role to
play in this drama.
The struggling
underclass is not incapable of learning and adapting if given a fair
and even chance to succeed. The fact that there is an exodus of the
middle class from these areas proves the point that success is at
least attainable. The real concern isn't a Cargo Cult mentality which
is perpetuated from generation to generation. The focus shouldn't be
on vilifying the underprivileged as gullible and lazy. The main
thrust from all political parties should be eradicating the
ghettoization of America. Mandating the “common good” is what
being an America is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment