Comments on "Words of Magnificence" by Andrew!: I Wanna Run Through This Jungle!

NJR & Barry,Perhaps I need to be more clear - that...

2008-12-08T21:36:00.000-08:00

NJR & Barry,

Perhaps I need to be more clear - that's one of the things I'm trying to improve in my writing. My point is, I wasn't necessarily correlating poverty with crime. In fact, I thought I wrote that I had been in much poorer countries that were much safer. I was trying to illustrate that for some reason, in Costa Rica, crime is somehow accepted as part of life.

It could indeed be related to the disparity between rich and poor. After all, I've never been to a country with so much foreign investment. But that would imply that crime would be against foreigners - and as I've experienced it in the lives of people around me, it has been. But in the newspapers, much worse violent crime is happening to locals. And the locals all seem to be in the same boat here - not too much financial differences.

It's something I can't explain. It's nuts. But both of your insights are thought provoking and I thank you for sharing.

Denise,
Everyone that's been here for a while (professors and the like) says that the changes happening here are happening at an exponential rate. I'm sure I won't recognize things 10 years from now - at least I hope not! Thanks for the support! Hope I can come home soon!

Wow, Andrew, I can hear your frustration. The las...

2008-12-08T21:11:00.000-08:00

Wow, Andrew, I can hear your frustration. The last time I was in Costa Rica was 10 years ago, and it was really a different story. I've talked to friends who have visited more recently, and alot has changed. I'm glad you have a job that gives you both cash and strokes - and that it helps you finish your semester. I'll be watching. Denise

Barry -- I don't think we disagree, or not much. ...

2008-12-08T13:23:00.000-08:00

Barry --

I don't think we disagree, or not much. My comment was not intended as a negative comment on modernizing and economic development. Individuals are pretty much indisputably better off with the fruits of modernity -- better food, shelter, medicine, more choice, etc. In fact, it is precisely the superiority of modern culture in providing such things (in comparison to a poverty-ridden traditional society) that makes it devastating to traditional culture.

I am not saying that society was "better" when everyone was a dirt-poor subistence farmer. Quite the opposite. I am saying that, because of the better alternatives and opportunities offered by exposure to development, people begin to abandon the traditional ways -- and are rational to do so. But one of the casualties of that transformation is the loss of social cohesion and increased social and economic insecurity.

In short, I agree that 'things were not better when everyone was limited to subsistence farming.' Most certainly they were not. But they may have been safer in terms of crime. Something (in this case, development) can be better on balance, and yet still have some negatives associated with it.

Or, to put it another way, Andrew seemed implicitly to be equating poverty with crime (thus expressing dismay that crime was higher even in this place where prosperity is relatively higher than some other poor countries). I would argue that crime's relationship is not direct with poverty but rather more related to the relative security of people with their role in society and the correspondening social constraints upon them. In modernizing economies, that role is in flux, traditional methods of restraint may fall aside, and thus crime may increase along with prosperity.

Hello NJR - That's an interesting comment; it soun...

2008-12-05T13:09:00.000-08:00

Hello NJR -

That's an interesting comment; it sounded very insightful at first read.

I think there is a tendency to blame what you term "modernity" for a lot of society's evils. It's an easy scapegoat, but I can't believe an infusion of education, technology, and opportunity "destroyed" their society and caused crime and violence to suddenly appear. Things were not "better" when everyone was limited to subsistence farming.

I think the truth is likely more general, if less salacious: crime and violence is rare when everyone in a society shares the same socioeconomic status (i.e., subsistence farmers) and more common whenever different levels of success appear. It naturally arises because of the coexistence of "Haves" and "Have-nots," not because of any evil inherent in modernity.

It's true that crime is rare in a subsistence-level community, but it's equally rare in societies where everyone is equally affluent.

Perhaps the reason you have seen poorer countries ...

2008-12-04T12:15:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the reason you have seen poorer countries that seemed safer is because poverty, per se, does not encourage crime and violence as much when the poverty is part of a traditional and functional society. For example, subsistence farmers are usually intensely poor, but if that is all they have known and all they expect, they are less likely to be violent, being constrained by their existing social structure. As Spengler has noted, though, where modernity treads, traditional societies are destroyed. This upheaval leads to existential doubt, less security, and often violence. Latin America is at the crossroads of modernity, such that traditional society no longer provides security, but the people do not yet enjoy the fruits (and ennui) of modern life.