While “Asia Rising” makes a good case for a rational choice (and a bit of a cultural one as well, but to a much lesser degree, possibly more my reading into what was on the screen, while the filmmakers were more focused on the rational side of things) approach to South Korea’s economic rise, I am of the opinion that the structural approach taken by “Life and Debt” in describing the economic situation in Jamaica that holds more water. As I see it, there may be rational choice elements and there may be cultural elements (especially in the perpetuation of things like Oscar Lewis’ “slum culture), but what really drives things are structural elements. In the modern world, of course, the primary structural system is Global Capitalism.

Capitalism has been shown to alter whole culture before, whether for good or bad. One example, historically, is Old Calabar of Africa, where the slave trade turned the local culture in to a capitalist culture. Local chieftains had to take on the dress and mannerisms of Europeans (this, not essentially part of capitalism, but an important detail in the transition from their old way of life to their new one, and contrary to my overall point here, this brings in perhaps a little of the rational choice approach), the slavers who came in their ships upriver to Calabar. Wealth started to be measured in new terms—or, really, measured at all, as hereditary rule was the thing before—in how many men and canoes a man could command, as they took canoes upriver to gather slaves to bring down to the European ships. Government in the “canoe houses” became increasingly more centralized, bureaucratic, and the society around it became more stratified, divided between the richer men in control and the poorer men (many slaves in practice if not fact) under them (a bit of the cultural approach here, though still driven by structural elements). Along with centralized government, and perhaps the driving force behind the political change, the slave trade also brought a change to the economy of Old Calabar. The trade was very profitable, increasing constantly that divide between rich and poor, while credit from Europe allowed for conspicuous consumption, and the rich leaders of the canoe houses acquiring more and more slaves and belongings. They became capitalists, interested not in the meager profit that would get them by but the increasingly large profits of modern capitalism. This fits with the structuralist approach of World Systems Theory, the notion the capitalism exists for and is driven by a constant need for accumulation, profit and expansion. The slave trade existed so colonies around the world could exploit Africans to make huge profits and the trade itself turned other Africans into exploitative capitalists. It altered the very heart of places like Old Calabar…

…just as it has damaged Jamaica, The WTO, the IMF—these organizations serve capitalism, serve the nations who already dominate the global market. And, their decisions in regards to, say, the banana industry and the US-backed Chiquita and Dole corporations, serve to level a playing field and standardize rules between the Brobdignagian economies and desperately poor Lilliputians (in comparison). But, level fields and egalitarian rules are meaningless in s system built on exploitation and economic dominance. As Karl Marx argued a century and a half ago, the only way for business to make profits (any profits, really, but the key here with modern capitalism is the inherently demanded massive profits) is to cheat the workers, to pay them less and less and this system tears down the smaller economies, like Jamaica, because it is fundamental to its inner working that it “is forced to let [such small economies] sink into a condition where it must feed [it].” It is no coincidence that one of the workers from the Kingston Free Zone described her work in “Life and Debt” as such: “it’s like you’re working under slavery.” The surface has changed, old style slavery has been sublimated into capitalist exploitation. In Calabar there was a distinction between those legitimately enslaved (ie those captured upriver) and those illegitimately enslaved (ie two princes who fell victim to a plot that put them into slavery when they had been slavers), as if such a distinction makes any sense when viewed objectively. It is the kind of distinction the WTO or the IMF might make if the slave trade (as it was) were still around, the kind of distinction they make in spirit when they “level the playing field” between Chiquita and Dole and the Jamaican banana industry. But, then again, what choice does Jamaica have but to go along with it—they can’t really opt out of the global market, can they?

Works cited: Though I used no direct quotes in there, the basics of the Calabar material, but not my analysis thereof, come from my recent reading of “The Two Princes of Calabar.” That line about capitalism being forced to let workers (or as I used the line, speaking on a larger scale, small economies) sink into a dependent role is from the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” And, of course, there are my notes on “Life and Debt” and “Asia Rising,” though I didn’t cite the latter really at all and used the former as a “jumping off point,” per the assignment, for my take on the broader issue.