During our many Christmastime conversations, the question of my graduate thesis came up.  Ben, in an urge to experiment with self-publishing and happening to know I had a fairly polished hundred pages, put this together back in 2008 and made it available via Lulu.  He designed the cover art and wrote the blurbage as well (basically, everything required to make it accessible).

Mom Bengfort, in particular, advocated for making sure that this paper was available to those interested in the topic.  If I do say so myself (and definitionally, I do), while it isn’t groundbreaking anthropology or breathtaking Shakespeare, the extensive bibliography would be very useful to any student of Guyanese anthropology, sociology, history, or literature.

In any case, if you’re here at Bengfort.com, statistically you are here for the cookbook.  So this is, in essence, a classic “But wait!  There’s more!”  Consider this your invitation to sit down with a nice spread of dahl, roti, pumpkin, and armchair anthropology.

http://www.lulu.com/content/2742903

While I will offer a comprehensive review of the entire book when I am finished, I think that the book asks some interesting questions that deserve individual attention and analysis. The book is set up as a series of scenarios where the reader has to decide whether the act is morally justified, and then contains responses from people in various fields analyzing the situation. As the book suggests that the reader “reach his or her own conclusion- yea or nay- after each scenario, before reading the opinions of the commentators,” and “try to respond instinctively as you would if you were a senior policy maker or intelligence officer and had to approve or disprove the operation,” I’ve decided to blog my initial reactions before continuing reading, then see if my mind changes when I listen to the arguments. I would also like to hear your thoughts!

**Disclaimer** The few (of many) scenarios I choose to blog about are the property of the author, James Olson, and are entirely fictional. The analysis I present, however, is entirely my own, and does not represent the author’s point of view. For more background information and analysis, please read the book!

Scenario 1:

“Rolando Montemayor is a Cuban Direccion General de Inteligencia (DGI) officer under cover as a second secretary at the Cuban mission to the United Nations in New York. He previously served in the Cuban embassy in Madrid, Spain, where the CIA successfully ran a double agent operation against him. The double agent, a young Spanish Communist journalist, reported to his CIA case officer that he strongly suspected that Montemayor was homosexual.

When Montemayor moves to New York, the CIA passes its information on him to the FBI. The FBI and CIA agree to conduct a joint operation against Montemayor in New York in an effort to recruit him as a penetration of the DGI. The FBI surveillance of Montemayor indicates that he frequents gay bars in New York and engages in promiscuous homosexual sex. Using telephone taps and infrared photography, the FBI acquires incontrovertible evidence of Montemayor’s homosexual activities. Homosexuality is grounds for dismissal from the DGI, and Montemayor has carefully concealed his sexual orientation from his family, friends, and colleagues.

Would it be morally acceptable for the CIA and FBI to attempt to recruit Montemayor by blackmailing him on the basis of his homosexuality?” (46)

I have to say that in my initial reaction about a million thoughts ran through my head at once. The first was that in the United States both blackmail and discrimination based on sexual orientation are illegal, for good reason, and that because Montemayor did not pose an immediate threat or we had reason to believe he held vital information there really was no justification (if there ever is) for breaking the law. My second thought was that, as a spy, he knew exactly what he was getting into and how compromising (in his CHOSEN occupation) homosexual behavior was, and yet he chose to recklessly (and very conspicuously at that) engage in it anyway. I’m not saying that Cuban sexual discrimination is right, I’m just saying that if you are Cuban, and homosexual, why would you get involved in as dangerous, politically charged and secretive an occupation as espionage? I mean seriously. You had it comin’. Don’t hate the player, player, hate the game.

My third reaction, however, and the one I’m sticking with, was that the whole operation seemed pointless. You are effectively blackmailing a spy into becoming a double agent, which to me does not seem to make good intelligence, given the particular nature of double agents and the sensitivity and skill they require. Threatening to out someone does not a good agent make; they lack the loyalty or any sort of positive incentive to cooperate. Instead, use the information to your advantage- find your man a boyfriend in New York (or even a gay undercover agent; after all, they aren’t illegal in the United States, and Cuba wouldn’t see it coming!) and use HIS sexy wiles to elicit the needed incentives for double agency. Voila! A much more legal, and solid, operation.

Thoughts?

The first book up is World on Fire by Amy Chua.

World on Fire by Amy Chua

In World on Fire, Amy Chua contends that the two main forces of globalization aggressively pursued by Western countries, namely, market liberalization and democratization, contribute to and in some cases bring about serious ethnic conflict and global instability. This is due to the two policies’ simultaneous effect of increasing inequality and subsequently hatred for market-dominant ethnic minorities, while at the same time empowering the poor majority to react, often resulting in violence or severe oppression of the minority. Chua explains it thus, “The global spread of free market democracy has thus been a principal, aggravating cause of ethnic instability and violence through the non-Western world. In country after country outside the West laissez-faire markets have magnified the often astounding wealth and economic prominence of an ‘outsider’ minority, generating great reservoirs of ethnic envy and resentment among the impoverished ‘indigenous’ majority…democratization, by increasing the political voice and power of the ‘indigenous’ majority, has fostered the emergence of demagogues who opportunistically whip up mass hatred against the resented minority. As a result, in its raw, for-export form, the pursuit of free market democracy outside the West has repeatedly led not to widespread peace and prosperity, but to ethnic confiscation, authoritarian backlash, and mass killing.” (187-88) Chua proceeds to describe a series of examples in which a program of market liberalization in combination with democratization, usually backed by the West, has led to either severe ethnic conflict or political backlash. From the Philippines and Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany and even Anti-Americanism, Chua applies her framework to conflicts both past and present.

In a purely informational sense, Chua’s book is an enjoyable, interesting and pleasant read.  After an emotional and attention-grabbing introduction describing the death of a beloved Aunt, purportedly due to the consequences her thesis describes, Chua segues into the deeper context of her argument. Her first two sections come across as a sort of history lesson through a series of descriptions, references and loose figures. Like a good history textbook, Chua begins her chapters with a humorous or enlightening anecdote, followed by some background information, a brief description of the current setting, and finally a reiteration of the issues. The book continues this way both throughout the globe and throughout time, her arguments getting progressively less robust, increasingly more flexible and even extrapolating to places that have only one or two of the three characteristics her thesis describes (market dominant ethnic minorities, economic liberalization, and democratization). In this way, her third section seems like the tagline for an infomercial- “But wait, there’s more!”- as she attempts to reconcile her thesis with intra-city conflicts in the United States, anti-Americanism, Nazism, and the current crisis in the Middle East. What Chua doesn’t realize is that the further she extrapolates and attempts to convince readers of her argument’s global (and national, in the case of the United States) relevance, the further she alienates those who were sold to her argument in the first place.

This argument by itself seems simplistic and logical. It makes sense that in countries where the vast majority of the population live in dire poverty, and those that do hold most of the wealth are of a noticeably different skin color, culture or ethnicity, ethnic conflict would result. It also makes sense that the greater the inequality between these peoples the more conflict and hatred there would be, and if free markets do in fact exacerbate these inequalities it might even be a direct consequence. While it is much less obvious, it also makes sense that a form of government that empowers the angry majority without protecting the rights of the minority can and often does lead to civil conflict or oppressive majoritarian policies. The way Amy Chua frames her book it seems like she is simply trying to describe a phenomenon rather than prove a thesis, much as a history book might say what happened in a particular era and offer several plausible suggestions as to why this might have occurred. The anecdotal and descriptive style of writing leaves no room for alternative interpretations; each example is specifically framed for her argument, and there are no competing explanations or variables that she is including or comparing against. If the point of the book is that she is simply trying to prove that these effects of occur, the lack of scientific methodology severely undermines her claim. A better approach might be to gather a set of recent conflicts or transition governments and see how the variables of market-dominant minorities, the gini coefficient, perceived ethnocentrism, and democratization (including the various levels of democratization, considering that “democracy” is debatable in many of the examples she gives) affect the outcome. This would make her results much more scientifically robust and offer solid proof.

It seems, however, that instead of trying to prove her thesis she is merely trying to describe a phenomenon that is the most likely explanation for several events throughout the world. She transitions easily from example to example, reiterating her point of view and showing how each scenario fits in the context of her argument. Given that her information is accurate, her conclusions seem logical, and aside from a few very interesting history lessons it seems no major ideological breakthroughs are made. Perhaps it is simply the mark of a great writer, but Chua’s observations and conclusions seem obvious. She is not trying to prove a hypothesis as much as she is saying something is true and providing anecdotal examples as supporting evidence. The question then becomes what the point of her writing this is. If it is not to methodologically prove the relationship between free market democracy and ethnic conflict for sheer academic value, then what is it? To raise awareness? To explore possible solutions? To disprove prior theories?

That question is exactly what the reader has in mind after two hundred pages of this message being reinforced. In logical terms, it seems that she spends her entire book defending a premise without drawing a conclusion.  In fact, some of the logical conclusions that could be drawn she rather obviously avoids discussing, even in the most narrow of terms. It seems that in her avoidance of drawing judgments from her work, either because of her reluctance to make broad claims or timidity in saying anything controversial, she discredits or completely diminishes the value of her work. Even one of her most obvious answers, that the United States should stop promoting simultaneous intense market reform and immediate democratization in countries with market-dominant ethnic minorities, she refuses to say directly. Instead, she states, “First, the best economic hope for developing and post-socialist countries lies in some form of market-generated growth. Second, the best political hope for these countries lies in some form of democracy, with constitutional constraints, tailored to local realities. And third, avoiding ethnic oppression and bloodshed must be a constant priority. But if these goals are to be achieved- if global free market democracy is to be peaceably sustainable- then the problem of market-dominant minorities, however unsettling, must be confronted head-on.” (263-264) She then goes on to state feeble policy recommendations that may help remedy these problems, most on the part of the corrupt and often unstable governments that have very limited incentive to do so. By the end it almost feels as if she herself does not believe there is a good solution, and just spent the entire book discussing the problem.

In the end, Amy Chua’s book is a delightfully informative, logically sound (for the most part) and enlightening read. Like many other books, it does well in debunking the neoclassical myth that free market democracy in the purest sense is the answer to all the world’s problems and an invincible catchall policy. This, however, is not a new concept, and in the absence of any further conclusion or salient recommendation Chua’s book fails to be anything but mildly thought-provoking.

Fool by Christopher Moore

“There’s always a bloody ghost, inninit?” It was very difficult for me to stop laughing after reading (the audible.com version on my iPod) Fool by Christopher Moore. I know reviews are few and far between on this site- but this book was so entertaining, I had to recommend it to you. To sum up (and you know as a former English major, and married to an English major, I don’t say this lightly): if Will were around today, he would have busted a gut laughing from the sheer hilarity. Truly, this book pays excellent homage (and only a little bit of fromage)  to the nature and spirit of Shakespearean comedy.

So what does Fool have to do with Shakespeare? Well, Fool is a parody of Shakespeare’s King Lear, written from the perspective of one of the more minor characters: the court jester (the fool). If its been a while since you have read King Lear- think Shakespearean historical tragedy- ghosts, betrayal, and royal intrigue.

The basic plot of the original is this: King Lear, getting old, decides to give his kingdom to his daughters. Being rather vain- he decides to parcel it out according to how much his daughters love him and he asks them as much. His two older (read: evil) daughters, Regan and Goneril give him as much flattery and praise as they can to win a half the kingdom each, but his youngest daughter Cordelia sees through them and refuses to participate, and is so banished to be married to King Geoff of France, even though she actually is the daughter that loves her father the most. Of course, both Regan and Goneril turn on the king in their ever increasing greed, but through the manipulations of Edward of Gloucester (a bastard heir to the Duke of Gloucester) , the two daughters are pitted against each other to their eventual downfall.  Pretty standard tragedy, and a piece of excellent literary work as is everything by Will.

Moore follows the plot of the original with a few slight historical and literary alterations to the effect of changing the tragedy into a bawdy comedy (at one point the characters even discuss whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy). And when I saw bawdy: I don’t mean school children are taught that Shakespearean comedy is bawdy and they don’t get it; I mean the book is full of monkey spunk, ghost shagging, wart-bummed witches, and all manner of prank and villainy. The puns are hilarious, and as long as you are ready for a PG-13 read, you will be rolling on the floor soon enough. What made Fool even funnier for me- is the use of modern English language in the context of 11th century England. Note- that you Americans will have to understand English slang, but since my stint bar tending in a pub, I was well prepared. Given that Moore is an American, it makes it that much more funny.

So my dear reader, head to the library or the bookstore and pick up Fool, by Christopher Moore- the adventures of Pocket the Fool will entertain you in no small measure!