About one-sixth of India is Dalits, or “Untouchables.” And while Western criticisms of caste segregation are a long-standing observation about India, I hardly hear serious complaints over the last two decades or so. In contrast, the apartheid system of South Africa met with demonstrations, boycotts, campus activism, frequent dialogue, and so on. Why don’t we see some modified version of the same for the Indian caste system? No matter how you compare its relative oppression to that of South Africa, it still seems like a massive system of unjust and opportunity-destroying segregation, and an efficiency-loser as well. Here are a few hypotheses, not intended as endorsements but rather speculations:
1. The caste system is simply too difficult for most Americans to understand, whereas apartheid could be represented more readily in what I dare not call simple black and white terms.
2. Most of the Indians who migrate to the United States are higher caste or at least middling caste, and they sway American opinions of India in a way that South African migrants to the USA never did.
3. Libertarians don’t want to focus on the caste system because it persists without active government support being the main driver. Democrats don’t want to focus on the caste system because Indian-Americans are often leading supporters and donors. It doesn’t feel like a Republican issue either. So who is there to push this one for domestic ideological reasons?
4. Talking about the caste system makes harder the (justified, I should add) program of raising the status of non-minority whites in America.
5. Talking about the caste system would focus light on caste-based discrimination in the United States, and distract attention from other domestic issues.
What else? Overall I find this a disappointing topic to ponder. Perhaps all politics, like envy, really is local after all.
I am indebted to Sujatha Gidla for a useful conversation on this topic. My formal Conversation with her will be up in a bit, I still recommend her book on caste, Ants Among Elephants: An Untouchable Family and the Making of Modern India.
There is a new edition out, edited and translated by Stuart Warner and Stéphane Douard. This eighteenth century bestseller could hardly be more relevant today. Is it possible to lead a philosophic life? How do political leadership and wisdom intersect? How do Christianity and Islam differ politically? How does politics reflect gender relations in a society? Is there a case for optimism in modernity? I still am not sure we have improved on Montesquieu’s investigations, although I cannot claim he gives us final answers. This is a volume of polyphony, with travel as a source of learning and liberation as a major theme throughout.
Harems play a role too, here are the final paragraphs from Roxane to her sultan master Usbek:
You were astonished not to find in me the ecstasies of love. If you had known me well, you would have found in me all the violence of hatred.
But you have had for a long time the advantage of believing that a heart such as mine was submissive to you. We were both happy you believed me deceived, and I was deceiving you.
This language, without doubt, appears new to you. Could it be possible that after having overwhelmed you with grief, I could still force you to admire my courage? But it is done: poison consumes me; my strength abandons me; the pen falls from my hand; I feel even my hatred weaken; I am dying.
The introduction and notes are outstanding, and also of interest for those of you who are piqued by Straussianism. You will note that the book was first published anonymously.
“Jokes in a serious work are acceptable on the condition that they hide a profound sense beneath a trivial form. It is in this way that Montesquieu, in his novel, Persian Letters, has written one of the most philosophical books of the eighteenth century.” – Alexis de Tocqueville [link]
I am pleased, by the way, to have once had the chance to spend two days with co-editor Stuart Warner discussing Persian Letters and nothing but (thank you again Liberty Fund!). I cannot think of any person more qualified to have undertaken this endeavor.
You can order the volume here.
There is a new paper on that topic by Bert Van Landeghem at Sheffield, here are the main results:
A large number of empirical studies have investigated the link between social status and happiness, yet in observational data identification challenges remain severe. This study exploits the fact that in India people are assigned a caste from birth. Two identical surveys of household heads (each with N=1000) in rural Punjab and Andhra Pradesh show an increasing pattern in economic welfare across the hierarchy of castes. This illustrates that at least in rural regions, one’s caste is still an important determinant for opportunities in life. Subsequently, we find that the castes at the top are clearly more satisfied than the lower and middle castes. This result, which is in line with predictions of all major social comparison theories, is robust across the two case studies. The pattern across low and middle castes, however, is less clear, reflecting the complex theoretical relationship between being of middle rank on the one hand, and behaviour, aspirations and well-being on the other hand. In the Punjab sample, we even find a significant U-shape, the middle castes being the least happy. Interestingly, these patterns resemble those found for Olympic Medalists (first documented by Medvec et al. 1995).
I am looking forward to my conversation with Sujatha Gidla.
We use a machine learning algorithm to identify potential social capital measures that best predict neighborhood-level variation in labor market networks. We find evidence suggesting that smaller and less centralized schools, and schools with fewer poor students, foster social capital that builds labor market networks, as does a larger Republican vote share. The presence of establishments in a number of non-profit oriented industries are identified as predictive of strong labor market networks, likely because they either provide public goods or facilitate social contacts. These industries include, for example, churches and other religious institutions, schools, country clubs, and amateur or recreational sports teams or clubs.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Brian J. Asquith, Judith K. Hellerstein, Mark J. Kutzbach, and David Neumark.
A key argument:
Here’s an interesting way to think about it: Imagine a patient arriving in an ambulance to Hospital A, a typical modern hospital. The patient’s heart stopped 15 minutes before the EMTs arrived and he is immediately pronounced dead at the hospital. What if, though, the doctors at Hospital A learned that Hospital B across the street had developed a radical new technology that could revive a patient anytime within 60 minutes after cardiac arrest with no long-term damage? What would the people at Hospital A do?
Of course, they would rush the patient across the street to Hospital B to save him. If Hospital B did save the patient, then by definition the patient wouldn’t actually have been dead in Hospital A, just pronounced deadbecause Hospital A viewed him as entirely and without exception doomed.
What cryonicists suggest is that in many cases where today a patient is pronounced dead, they’re not dead but rather doomed, and that there is a Hospital B that can save the day—but instead of being in a different place, it’s in a different time. It’s in the future.
Kurzgesagt and CGP Grey also have a new two part video series on why we should stop aging forever. The first one is below. The second is here.
Am I seeing a trend? I hope so. To quote CGP Grey:
Humans must discard the learned helplessness that the reaper and their own brains have imposed on them.
That is the new Peter Leeson book, and it is just out. Here is the Amazon summary:
This rollicking tour through a museum of the world’s weirdest practices is guaranteed to make you say, “WTF?!” Did you know that “preowned” wives were sold at auction in nineteenth-century England? That today, in Liberia, accused criminals sometimes drink poison to determine their fate? How about the fact that, for 250 years, Italy criminally prosecuted cockroaches and crickets? Do you wonder why? Then this tour is just for you!
Here are the book’s rather spectacular blurbs. Here is a short Peter piece on medieval ordeals. Here is a Reddit thread on whether medieval ordeals actually were an effective test of guilt. And he has this piece on superstition and Friday the 13th in Newsweek. I would like to see a media outlet excerpt his piece on the rationality of gypsy culture.
I would say that Peter has written a very effective book within the Beckerian tradition, namely trying to explain economic phenomena in terms of a neoclassical rational actor model. Nonetheless I am much less of a Beckerian than Peter is, at least for the socially-oriented issues he is considering. Here is a simple typology of approaches:
1. Beckerians and the rational actor model. I slot Peter in here, along with many Chicago School economists, Marvin Harris, and much of public choice economics. An explanation shows how a social outcome stems from the interaction of means-end maximizing individuals, translated into some aggregate result.
2. Behavioral economics. By now this is old news, but these researchers find what I consider to be relatively small deviations from the rational actor model. This is usually done by measurement, rather than through more complete models.
3. Cultural economics, anthropologists, and many sociologists. Peer effects are paramount, and Frenchmen see the world differently than do Americans, not to mention Bantus or Pygmies. This is due to a social contagion of perception that does not boil down to rationality in the sense that economists understand it (you can build a model in which social mimicry at young ages is rational, but that model won’t generate much insight into the particular phenomena we are trying to explain, nor does that model pick up the mimicry mechanism very well). Historical study plus thick description plus economic rationality at various margins (but margins only) plus some statistics is the way to go. Mostly we’re trying to understand how and why other groups of people see the world in fundamentally different terms.
The economists who can best grasp other points of view thus are the masters of explaining macro-phenomena (by which I mean something quite distinct from traditional macroeconomics).
I am much closer to #3 than are most economists. Furthermore, I view economists as patting themselves excessively on the back for #2, when #3 is far more important. Peter has written a very good book mostly in the tradition of #1, though due to his Austrian background with periodic forays into #3. I once wrote to Peter: “Gypsy culture rational? How about Episcopalian investment bankers in Connecticut being rational?” Probably neither are.
Here is the transcript and podcast, here is the summary introduction:
She joins Tyler for a conversation covering the full range of her curiosity, including fear, acclimating to grossness, chatting with the dead, freezing one’s head, why bedpans can kill you, sex robots, Freud, thinking like an astronaut, the proper way to eat a fry, and why there’s a Medicare reimbursement code for maggots.
Here are a few excerpts:
ROACH: It is never uncomfortable. People sometimes say, “The questions that you ask people, is it an awkward interview? When you went to Avenal State Prison for the rectum chapter of Gulp, and you, talking to this convicted murderer about using his rectum to smuggle cellphones and other things, was that not a very awkward conversation to have?”
A little bit, but then you have to keep in mind, this is somebody for whom hooping, as it’s called, is . . . everybody does it. It’s just something that you do; it’s everyday to him. Like for a sex researcher, talking about orgasm is like talking about tire rotation for a car mechanic.
COWEN: To do a whirlwind tour of some of your books, you have a book on corpses. If you could chat with the dead, what would you ask them?
ROACH: Oh, if I could chat with the dead. Are we assuming the personality or the body?
COWEN: Well, both.
ROACH: The corpse?
COWEN: The corpse.
ROACH: Oh, is this a research corpse or . . .
COWEN: It’s a research corpse.
ROACH: …So what I’d say to the cadaver is, “Is this embarrassing for you? Are you OK with this? Are they treating you respectfully? Do you wish you had some clothes on?”
COWEN: Why do only 18 percent of people who are in the position to have a life-after-death experience actually have one? What’s your view on that?
ROACH: The trouble seems to be remembering the near-death experience.
COWEN: Why are bedpans dangerous?
There is much, much more at the link. Jonathan Swift, Elvis, Adam Smith, and Jeff Sachs all make appearances, in addition to Catholicism, bee larvae, Mozambique, whether people know what they really want in sex, and whether it should be legal to harvest fresh road kill in Oregon.
I hardly expected the movie to be so drenched in Tarkovsky (“The Zone” and Solaris, maybe a bit of The Sacrifice), and the now-famed sex scene draws from Bergman’s Persona. Overall, the colors and palette were stunning, and the use of sound was as impressive as in any movie, do see this one in IMAX. It hardly makes any concessions to the Hollywood vices of this millennium and indeed much of the Tysons Corner audience seemed to be baffled.
Think of the main plot line as showing a world where the Christ miracle is inverted and what that would have to mean for everything else. Much of the plot is sprawling, some of the references are too heavy-handed or scattered (Moses and the Dalai Lama and Kafka and Star Wars 1-2 are thrown in for good measure, and few will grok the Galatians reference), and the whole thing could have been fifteen minutes shorter. Still, this is a worthy sequel to one of the best movies of the 1980s or is that the 1990s? Carla Juri steals the show, and furthermore it resolves the main plot puzzle of the original Blade Runner rather economically.
Also on the plus side, Adam Driver does not appear in this movie.
One of the most blatant violations of the rules against touching saliva among other taboos is described by Dubois…in his  account of one of the “disgusting religious orgies” he so meticulously depicts. In these orgies, not only do men and women eat meat and drink alcoholic beverages, but they transgress the normal saliva prohibition. I cannot possibly improve upon Dubois’ vivid word picture: “In this orgy called sakti-puja, the pujari, or sacrificer who is generally a Brahman, first of all tastes the various kinds of meats and liquors himself, then gives the others permission to devour the rest. Men and women thereupon begin to eat greedily, the same piece of meat passing from mouth to mouth, each person taking a bite until it is finished. Then they start afresh on another joint, which they gnaw in the same manner, tearing the meat out of each other’s mouths. When all the meat has been consumed, intoxicating liquors are passed around, every one drinking without repugnance out of the same cup.
That is from the quite interesting Two Tales of Crow and Sparrow: A Freudian Folkloristic Essay on Caste and Untouchability, by Alan Dundes.
She is the author of the new and superb Ants Among Elephants: An Untouchable Family and the Making of Modern India. I will be interviewing her later in the month, with a podcast and transcript forthcoming, no public event. Here is her Macmillan bio:
Sujatha Gidla was born an untouchable in Andhra Pradesh, India. She studied physics at the Regional Engineering College, Warangal. The author of Ants Among the Elephants, her writing has appeared in The Oxford India Anthology of Telugu Dalit Writing. She lives in New York and works as a conductor on the subway.
Here is BBC coverage of her work. Here is the NYT review of her book. Here are further links about her. The Economist wrote: “Ants Among Elephants is an arresting, affecting and ultimately enlightening memoir. It is quite possibly the most striking work of non-fiction set in India since Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo, and heralds the arrival of a formidable new writer.”
So what should I ask her?
The Redeemed Christian Church of Nigeria has built its own private city.
A 25-megawatt power plant with gas piped in from the Nigerian capital serves the 5,000 private homes on site, 500 of them built by the church’s construction company. New housing estates are springing up every few months where thick palm forests grew just a few years ago. Education is provided, from creche to university level. The Redemption Camp health centre has an emergency unit and a maternity ward.
On Holiness Avenue, a branch of Tantaliser’s fast food chain does a brisk trade. There is an on-site post office, a supermarket, a dozen banks, furniture makers and mechanics’ workshops. An aerodrome and a polytechnic are in the works.
…“If you wait for the government, it won’t get done,” says Olubiyi. So the camp relies on the government for very little – it builds its own roads, collects its own rubbish, and organises its own sewerage systems. And being well out of Lagos, like the other megachurches’ camps, means that it has little to do with municipal authorities. Government officials can check that the church is complying with regulations, but they are expected to report to the camp’s relevant office. Sometimes, according to the head of the power plant, the government sends the technicians running its own stations to learn from them.
There is a police station on site, which occasionally deals with a death or the disappearance of a child, but the camp’s security is mostly provided by its small army of private guards in blue uniforms. They direct traffic, deal with crowd control, and stop children who haven’t paid for the wristband from going into Emmanuel Park – home to the aforementioned ferris wheel.
As in Gurgaon, India, where the government fails opportunities are opened for entrepreneurs who think big.
Another common narrative about trends in American religious belief says that spirituality has replaced religion. …That might have been true at one time, but no longer. iGen’ers are actually less spiritual as well as being less religious. iGen’ers and late Millennials ages 18 to 24 are the least likely of all age/generation groups to say they are a “spiritual person,” showing a pronounced break even with older Millennials in their late twenties and early thirties…
Of course, these differences could be due to age instead of generation; perhaps younger people have always been less spiritual. However, slightly fewer 18- to 24-year-olds in 2014-2016 (48%) described themselves as a moderately or very spiritual person than in 2006-2008 (56%).
That is from the new and excellent Jean M. Twenge, iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.
So many religious facts have a very long half-life for their relevance. Say you learn about how the four Gospels differ — that’s still relevant for understanding Christian divisions or Christian theology today. Reading about the Reformation? The chance of that still being relevant is much higher than if you were reading about purely secular divisions in internal German or Swiss politics in those same centuries.
Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or Muslims? Facts from many centuries ago still might matter. And the odds are that people a few centuries from now still ought to read about the origins of Mormonism.
In few other areas do past facts stand such a high chance of remaining relevant for so long.
As an empirical matter, “rationalists” tend not to read so much about religion, but that is precisely the unreasonable thing to do.
If you’d like to see a potential counter, here is some poll evidence that many people don’t care so much about the divisions of the Reformation any more. It still matters a great deal whether you are in Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or “mixed” Europe.
I am indebted to a conversation with Bryan Caplan for the main point, though he is not liable for my formulation.
What should I read to better understand the Indian caste system? I thank you all in advance for your assistance.
Although all church fees were wrong, argued Francis Sadler in a much-reprinted 1738 tract, “selling” one part of the churchyard for three times the price of another “to keep Rich and Poor asunder as if there were a difference in their dust” was especially ridiculous.
Within the courtyard, “the chancel was a better address than the center aisle, which was, in turn, preferred to the side aisles.” And lead coffins cost ten times more than coffins of wood.
That is from the excellent The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains, by Thomas Laqueur. Here is a truly splendid Marina Warner review of the book.