by From Ken Zimmerman Inequality in human societies has always existed. When it become extreme (that point varies by society and historical circumstances) the society either collapses completely (e.g., revolution, war, failure of basic services, famine) or undergoes changes in its basic framework. Ancient Rome, for example, nearly collapsed when corruption in government and economics (particularly appalling poverty) combined with refusal of its citizens (particularly the wealthy) to put themselves at risk by organizing to defend it from invading societies (e.g., Goths, Celts). The near collapse extended over three centuries. And even at the end of that time much of Roman culture survived within other societies. Later, the English turned ancient Greek and Roman cultures into idealized
Topics:
Editor considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Fryslan boppe´. An in-depth inspirational analysis of work rewarded with the 2024 Riksbank prize in economic sciences.
Peter Radford writes AJR, Nobel, and prompt engineering
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Central bank independence — a convenient illusion
Eric Kramer writes What if Trump wins?
from Ken Zimmerman
Inequality in human societies has always existed. When it become extreme (that point varies by society and historical circumstances) the society either collapses completely (e.g., revolution, war, failure of basic services, famine) or undergoes changes in its basic framework. Ancient Rome, for example, nearly collapsed when corruption in government and economics (particularly appalling poverty) combined with refusal of its citizens (particularly the wealthy) to put themselves at risk by organizing to defend it from invading societies (e.g., Goths, Celts). The near collapse extended over three centuries. And even at the end of that time much of Roman culture survived within other societies. Later, the English turned ancient Greek and Roman cultures into idealized prototypes for their empire.
Since the 1980s the dominant perspective about inequality among anthropologists is undoubtedly towards an action-oriented approach: that is, seeing inequality and similar topics not as something to be merely studied, but as a social evil to be eradicated. The role of the anthropologist is more than dispassionate observer (as in traditional fieldwork methods), but as the analyst of the sociological, cultural, ecological and other factors involved in creating the event of inequality, and recommending strategies to eradicate inequality while causing, wherever possible, the least socio-cultural damage. The anthropologist may even become a partisan committed to the destruction of inequality, by political means if necessary. In this work anthropologists attempt to reflect on what others who work with inequality consider separate aspects of the event. These “separate” aspects include, (i) the perceptions, strategies, feelings and life-ways of those who suffer inequality; (ii) the structural features of the society and economy within which inequality is encapsulated; and (iii) the policy-makers, planners, economists, social workers and other agencies who mediate, or attempt to, between those trapped by inequality and those who study, assist, or are legally responsible for controlling the “losers” in inequality (e.g., police, social workers, teachers). This “holistic” approach enables us to dispense with the notion that inequality has only one history, one way of being created. For example (and popularly), cultural constraints on saving and capital formation such as feasting or partying. The reverse is just as possible. Inequality creates a social environment in which consumption rather than accumulation is necessary, and that often the whole syndrome is linked to such factors as disruption of a traditional economy by the appearance of wage-labor, labor markets, discriminatory schooling, landlessness, caste or gang affiliation, unemployment, etc. Both directly and indirectly.
Anthropologists take the position that there is no acceptable level of inequality within a society. Unlike economists who often argue that some level of inequality encourages people to work harder and is thus beneficial for society. But anthropologists also accept that actual societies will create some level of inequality. So, the issue is how to deal with “inequality on the ground.” First, anthropologists want government designed policies intended to reduce inequality. For example, by reducing the wealth of the wealthiest in a society and increasing the wealth of the poorest in that same society. These can be direct (what economists call redistribution) or indirect (reducing the effects of unequal circumstances on the opportunities and outcomes of the next generation). Also important are efforts to enhance citizens’ beliefs in their abilities to succeed along with efforts to alter socialization to focus less on competition and more on cooperation for that success. Finally, if a holistic approach to understanding inequality is necessary, so is a holistic approach to doing something about it. This implies the involvement of those affected by inequality and by mitigation programs. In other words, those effected by unequal circumstances or structures are not just ‘clients’ or ‘subjects’ but active participants in their own futures and in determining the sorts of policies towards them that they find just, efficient and culturally acceptable. The anthropologist is, or should be, uniquely placed to help in this situation, which is really a process of communication and socialization, the focus of every anthropologist.
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/the-great-transformation-poverty-on-a-large-scale/#comments