Ida B Wells deserves her place in the canon of journalism and social change. In the science fiction, not so much. I found her “A Story of 1900”, written in 1886, while digging for other things. It may not be a classic, but not only was it written two years before Edward Bellamy’s epochal Looking Backward, but the story lives and breathes Octavia Butler’s thoughts on the use of science fiction for black people.
When the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations announced it was going to take agroecology sufficiently seriously to hold a conference on it, reasonable people were pleased, and sceptical. Pleased because the FAO has been agnostic about agroecology’s scientific developments in addressing problems that the FAO itself is charged with tackling. Sceptical because the reason’s for the FAO’s historical reticence are hardly going to be fixed by a conference. Nonetheless, the great and the good from agroecology made the case in front of a bevvy of senior officials. After the event, José Graziano da Silva, Director General of the FAO, proclaimed that “today a window was opened in what for 50 years has been the cathedral of the Green Revolution.”
Social media is alive with folks’ thoughts on Michael Specter’s recent New Yorker piece. As the controversy fades, I worry that people will be left with three ideas. Continue reading “How to Be Curious About the Green Revolution”
While I slog away at the Generation Food project, here’s more from the occasional series of pamphlets and books from the history of the food movement – a 1988 lecture by the excellent Joan Dye Gussow: Women, Food, and the Survival of the Species. With thanks, as ever, to DBS, and to Joan.
In San Francisco, from April 25-28, 400 people from across the country and around the world gathered to discuss an awkward problem – land reform in America. Land reform is a loaded term, one that reeled conference participants’ imaginations toward the antics of Third World dictators and communist zealots. It’s hard to conceive a more un-American activity than thinking about an alternative to private property. Yet here were the Friends of the Earth next to the NAACP west coast region, alongside the Archdiocese of Kansas doing exactly that.
I mentioned yesterday that Pete Seeger’s views appeared in People & Land. I’m not sure that it’s as easy to find land reform magazines as it used to be. Were it not for a friend, DBS, I’d not have come across them either.
Via the Huffington Post
Thanksgiving is an odd holiday for those of us born outside the U.S. I studied it for the citizenship test, where it’s an answer to the question “Name two national U.S. holidays.” But I never managed to shake the feeling that I was doing it wrong. This year, though, I’ll be getting the hang of it thanks to a lot of people who won’t be at my table.
In the past, I’ve linked to pieces that challenge the ethically untroubled, and systemically timid work of Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, of Poor Economics fame. If you’re unfamiliar with their work, the quick summary is this: they start with the idea that poor people aren’t as dumb as development theories have tended to make them out. This is laudable, though not particularly original. Poor people have, for quite some time, been telling people that they are professors of their own poverty. Banerjee and Duflo suggest that perhaps the ideas that poor people come up with to survive poverty are better than the policies crafted for them in Washington. So far, so good.
The trouble is that when it comes to fixing poverty, the theories of poor people don’t seem to matter much. What is most important is What Works. Banerjee and Duflo’s rigorously clinical approach – they use randomized controlled trials to test What Works – transcends ideology to reveal that bed nets and deworming are good ideas.
Again, nothing terribly objectionable here. Except that this approach limits the extent to which poor people are allowed to be clever. The extent of their intelligence is reduced to rats in a maze, figuring out what works under the benign and compassionate supervision of ‘practical visionaries‘at MIT. If there are ways that poor people want to change their relation to power, we’ll never know. These are not subject to randomized controlled trials.
Let’s call this fixation with What Works “Millennial Economics”. To be obsessed with What Works is always to exclude consideration of how the context of what works might be different. What works when you’re being beaten is to move away from the dude with the baton. It’s a rational solution that many poor people have arrived at using their own faculties of reason.
But surely the police shouldn’t have been beating you in the first place. Protesting against the police, demanding that the police be held accountable, this too can work. But it requires politics, not technocracy. It means ideology, not expertise. For a generation – for a society – that looks to Washington and sees politics hopelessly divided, who wouldn’t want to stick with What Works? Except, of course, that Washington isn’t terribly interested in much beyond a tiny spectrum of difference between plutocrats whose bickering has brought the very idea of politics into disrepute. It’s a context in which Banerjee and Duflo’s reasonableness is refreshing. Even if their own politics crushes those of poor people. And even if what you’re left with is a few splats of policy ideas, because the theory that might have connected and made sense of them has been erased, because methodologically suspect and politically polluted.
If you want to read a general critique, have a look at Sanjay Reddy’s piece, one of the best in the genre. And if you want to see how Banerjee and Duflo get it wrong on food, here’s something hot off the presses. An old friend and teacher – Porus Olpadwala – has just published a fine analysis in Social Scientist. He takes Banerjee and Duflo to task for their 2011 Foreign Policy piece. The PDF’s below the fold. Continue reading “Going against Duflo”