272 pages
ISBN-10:  019533180X
ISBN-13: 978-0195331806
List price: $17

Reviewed by Edward M. Olivos, University of Oregon

In February of 2008 an editorial appeared in the Christian Science Monitor that argued for the “end of multiculturalism” (Harrison, 2008). Following the argument of past deficit thinkers, its author, Lawrence E. Harrison from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, rehashed old discredited “explanations” of why certain social groups are underrepresented academically, socially, and economically in such disproportionate numbers. Harrison’s argument that multiculturalism is at the root of the problems facing the U.S. in 2008 (particularly the Iraq War and immigration in his summation) is consistent and representative of the positivistic thinking and white supremacy that has permeated our country for the last 200 years.

After reading Harrison’s editorial in the CSM, I decided to read the book he refers to and of which he is the author: The central liberal truth: How politics can change a culture and save it from itself. What I found was a simplistic, Eurocentric, and hateful piece of work. The cultural deficiency theory is alive and well in Harrison’s work. This cultural deficiency theory works like this: (1) There exists a disadvantaged group; (2) it is alleged that the cause of their disadvantage lies within the group itself; (3) “the culture is the likely source of this cause; (4) let us see what we can find in their cultural attributes that would explain their disadvantaged status” (Barrera, 1979, p. 180). Indeed, the fact that he proposes cultural change as the “remedy” for “curing” those populations for which economic and social equity has eluded them demonstrates how low his thinking goes. Not surprisingly, the people who need curing are Latinos, Blacks, and Arabs, among others. Harrison’s criticisms against these groups are not complete, however, without his stereotype of  East Asians and Jews who are “successful wherever they migrate” (p. 2).

Harrison’s work, however, should not be considered “racist” or “prejudiced” according to him. And what’s the reason for that? Well, it’s because he says his work is not racist or prejudiced. It’s as simple as that. It’s not easy to ignore, however, that he makes a point to identify when possible the race of the individuals he has spoken to (“a black from the Caribbean island of St. Lucia”) and who agree with his simplistic arguments (p. 5) or to serve as a proxy for a racist and hateful diatribe against blacks as demonstrated in the following: “When I lived in Haiti, a mulatto neighbor once said to me of the black Haitians, ‘You know, they really are subhuman’” (p. 33).

Of “interest” in Harrison’s work is how he has hijacked certain terms and has morphed them into tools of his twisted way of thinking. He uses the words “social justice,” “progressive,” and “democracy” repeatedly in this book. Yet, for Harrison, these terms are associated with an individual’s right to a market economy, the pursuit of materialism, and the accumulation of wealth. His argument, which is deeply rooted in a neo-liberal belief that a true democratic society is one which is favorable to business and the free-market, smacks of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism. Thus, it should not come as a surprise when in the introduction of this book he self promotes a previous publication, Culture Matters, “which for several years [was] a bestseller at the World Bank bookstore” (p. 5).

A particularly frightening fact about Harrison, besides the fact that he served as an official with USAID (United States Agency for International Development) for twenty years, is that he actually directs a “research center” at Tufts University which serves as a stage for him to legitimize as “research” his unimaginative way of seeing the world. He also teaches a course at said university on the topic of “Cultural Values and Development.” Imagine all those poor impressionable students, already constantly exposed to the social hegemonic discourse of white supremacy and cultural superiority in the mainstream media and U.S. history books, having these thoughts reinforced by their university professor. And we wonder why other countries view us as arrogant.

I have found Harrison’s book (and his work in general) to be one of unfounded biases, prejudices, and contradictions. The contradictions found in this book are most apparent in his selective memory and groundless arguments. He argues for examples that blacks in Haiti are still influenced by the “slavery mentality” and their ambition to be like their ancestors’ owners. Work, then, is viewed as beneath them because, according to Harrison, Haitian blacks are striving to be like their former masters. He conveniently brushes aside the role colonialism has played in many developing countries and minimizes the voice of those who wish to bring this issue into the argument. According to Harrison, “the ‘victim’ self-image, whether warranted or not, is self-defeating, particularly if the ‘victimizer” is no longer present, as in the case of formerly colonial countries that have enjoyed independence for almost half a century. . . or more than half-century. . . .” (italics added, p. 6). Hello?! There is a concept known as neo-colonialism which he blindly, and conveniently, overlooks. Moreover, Harrison’s claim that former colonial countries “enjoy” independence completely negates the global interdependence and influence that exist in the current global world economy and market and the interventionist attitude that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for the last 150+ years. It is no innocent oversight on Mr. Harrison’s part to downplay the role of the U.S. and its policies in shaping the destiny of these former colonial countries for it would impede him from situating the “problem” of social and economic development exclusively within the lap of the oppressed and exploited countries. How else can you explain the view of an individual who actually defends the antics of the United Fruit Company in Latin America and who argues that in some cases “the net positive and negative aspects of colonialism may be positive” (p. 5)?

Harrison’s work is the embodiment of the white supremacist and imperialist mind. In my opinion, his work can only be described as an extreme caricature of the oblivious self-loving capitalist white-supremacist who honestly cannot comprehend why all those poor souls around the world would not want to be more like him or his like. His work is reminiscent of Rudyard Kipling’s White Man’s Burden which justifies the imperialist antics of colonizing countries as a noble mission to improve the culture and life-chances of those poor souls of color around the world who are non-English-speaking and non-Protestant. His argument, for example, that a country like Barbados has fared better because it had a longer history of colonialism than its neighbor Haiti reeks of the plantation owner mentality who views his work in the exploitation of slaves as being for their own benefit.

The shallow thinking found The Central Liberal Truth is further exemplified in Chapter 2 where Harrison lays out a “typology” for analyzing “progress-prone” and “progress-resistant” cultures. He identifies 25 factors that can skew a culture towards progress or “backwardness” (a term he uses quite often in this book). These factors range from (surprise!): how a culture views its destiny, the religion it practices, how it respects the “rule of law,” entrepreneurship, etc. A humorous observation he makes in this typology (which he borrowed from a colonial-minded Argentinean “scholar” and “journalist” named Mariano Grondona) is in the category known as “Role of the elites.” He identifies this group in progress-prone cultures as “responsible for society” and in progress-resistant cultures as “power and rent seeking: exploitative.” Is this guy for real? Can someone be so oblivious, so tactless, so insensitive, and so self-indulged? Well folks, yes, there can be someone like this. And yes, this guy is for real and so is his work. And that is what is so dangerous about him and those “scholars” like him who find a platform in what is supposed to be a well-respected university and a voice in a widely distributed publication like The Christian Science Monitor. 

Finally, while Harrison’s book does not specifically focus on public education as a topic, it does have very real implications for teachers and educators. Public education is a very real contested public sphere in our country. As an institution of economic and social reproduction, U.S. public schools are robustly influenced by the existing thoughts of our society’s elite. And while Harrison is by no means a member of U.S. intellectual (or social) elite, he does nonetheless parrot a long-standing ideology that exists in our country—that people of color and those of low social status have an inherent problem and they should be changed to be more like the successful white person. This thought is most evident in the school context in the work of Ruby Payne and the wild popularity she enjoys in our public schools by blaming the poor for their own “inadequacies.”

I could go on talking about how this book (and Harrison’s work) is so bad that it is at times humorous, but I shall stop here. I just leave the reader of this book critique with the same interesting challenge I find myself in. Do I recommend this book to others so that they read for themselves, firsthand, some of the incredulous type of work passing for scholarship in our universities and in our media nowadays or do I suggest to others to avoid this book so as not to legitimize this type of work or further fill Harrison’s pockets with book royalties? Well, I think I’ll come to a compromise: do read this book. It’s a frightening portrayal of the thinking going on in our country that influences our domestic social policies (i.e., education, health care, etc.) and our foreign policies. However, don’t buy it. Check it out of the library. No need to give this guy some of your hard earned money. Lord knows he’s already making a profit off the poor souls his theories are exploiting and harming.

References

Barrera, M. (1979). Race and class in the Southwest: A theory of racial inequality. Norte Dame: University of Norte Dame Press.

Suggestions for Further Reading:

Apple, M. (1982). Cultural and economic reproduction in education: Essays on class, ideology, and the state. London: Routledge.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1986). Democracy and capitalism: Property, community, and the contradictions of modern social thought. New York: Basic Books.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neo-liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publihers.

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.) (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking. London: The Falmer Press.