Introduction
Published by the Yale School of Law in 2002, World on Fire by Professor Amy Chua points out various controversial issues within the society. The book digs deeply into cultural and sociological differences that are prevalent amongst different economic and governance structures across the world.
In the book, Amy Chua discusses the phenomenon of “market dominant minorities, which are believed to be the Jews in Russia, whites in Zimbabwe, Indians in Fiji and East Africa, and the Chinese community in Southeast Asia” (Matteucci, 2006, Par.12). According to the author, these minority groups have a significant control, although disproportionately, on available resources within their countries.
The book points out that the Chinese living in the Philippines comprise an infinitesimal percentage yet they own and run most of the commercial activities in the country. Other communities earlier mentioned in the various countries of residence depict such control. However, the author is quick to point out that the existence of potential dangers behind the free market aspect of capitalism especially amongst developing countries.
Amy brings out various themes in this book; for instance, inequality in the distribution of wealth and resources in the non-western nations around the world. Such a move results into resentments towards the minorities, hence exposing the minority groups in question to violence and hatred.
The theme of democracy stands out conspicuously, where the majority are empowered to some significant extent. However, democracy depicted here empowers the majority in the wrong way for they are encouraged to unleash ethnic differences, confiscate resources, and worst of all, initiate genocidal revenge (Ubel, 2009).
The issue of globalization has not been left out in the book, where the US seems to dominate quite a large proportion of the global market (Chua, 2004). This aspect underscores the rising tide of anti-Americanism around the globe, since it is the perceived as the most visible minority dominant in the world market (Munck, 2005).
However, although Chua is a supporter of globalization, she calls for nations to spread the benefits reaped from globalization, while at the same time shunning various destructive aspects behind globalization. Controversies and criticisms surrounding this book spark various researchers to give views on issues presented by Chua in her book.
The literature presented in this paper shall discuss the question: why do free market democracies breed ethnic hatred and global instability? In addition, the paper gives the writer’s view on Chua’s analysis and ultimately addresses various issues as well as a critical review of the book, in order to come up with a concrete conclusion regarding the two questions posed.
Summary
Literary, free market is an economic ideology that supports the idea that trade “is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two or a group of people” (Ubel, 2009, p.61). Commodities involved should be economic goods either tangible or intangible. In addition, both parties involved expect to gain from the undertaking and can be a repetitive or discontinued undertaking depending on the experience by the involved parties.
The various proponents of the ideology behind free markets failed to address the fact that free markets create a dual and solidly stratified community. In such a society, those who tend to accumulate wealth own quite large amount of it and do anything within their reach to maintain their status.
With the recent trend of globalization being embraced by almost all countries globally, the largest beneficiaries stand to be Americans and Europeans especially the multinational corporations. Amy Chua is one of the voices that have come out to shed light on this predictor and destructive acquisition of wealth.
Chua points out at a bizarre but personal incident where a Fillipino employee brutally murdered her aunt, an issue that she attributes to racial animosity. She recognizes how horrifying the murder of her aunt was coupled with the amount of grief that the entire family had to bear. She also points out that the incident created a rift between the Filipinos and the Chinese, to the extent that the two could not even marry (Chua, 2004).
According to this book, Chua points out that the introduction of uncontrolled free market and rudimentary democracy can easily lead to disaster among countries where a dominant minority group controls a large proportion of the market and the economy.
Chua, a proponent of free market ideology, points out potential dangers of the free market ideology as an aspect of democratic capitalism in the developing world. First, Chua argues that among the current development programs set up by developing countries, the ideology of free market democracy is not a brilliant idea at all.
Apparently, among the majority of the developing countries, huge chunks of wealth are concentrated among the market dominant minority (Chua, 2004). On the other hand, there is the increment of the political power to the impoverished majority courtesy of the existing democracy.
In cases the minority control the largest part of the economy, corruption and dictatorship creeps in, albeit slowly, which is supported by the old fashion of capitalism (Ubel, 2009). However, Chua is quick to point out that currently, small groups of elites have moved on to controlling quite large economies.
For instance, the Chinese residing in Indonesia, Lebanese in Sierra Leone, Jews in Russia, whites in Zimbabwe and Indians in Kenya among others. The author points out that these groups operate under the protection of the populist nationalist leaders.
Combination of democracy and the concept of free market can turn out to be disastrous (Engerman, 2003). Such a situation leads to a disaster where politicians arouse tension among the frustrated majority, who are mostly the indigenous citizens of the country in question.
From some case studies cited in the book, one can feel the strong support for the author’s argument against the free market ideology. For instance, this scenario happened where the Chinese in Indonesia, the Tutsi of Rwanda and Whites in Zimbabwe became victims of ethnic violence, genocide, and the local community confiscated their properties.
Chua notes that after the fall of the Suharto in Indonesia, there was massive destruction of properties, most of which belonged to the Chinese. In addition, women of Chinese origin were gang raped and consequently, they fled from the Indonesian capital. In another account, Chua points out the mass genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994, although western countries claimed that it had nothing to do with democracy.
As pointed out, the Hutu, being the majority, were not pleased by the fact that despite the Tutsi being the minority, the latter controlled quite a large proportion of the economy. One question that begs an answer at this point is, was democracy the sole reason for problems depicted in Zimbabwe? However, Chua stands to be criticized for some of the examples outlined in her book.
For instance, her application of the market dominance theory to Yugoslavia is less, if not, persuasive at all. Of the total Yugoslavian population, the Serbs had the lion share, holding at approximately 36 per cent of the economy and despite being the majority; they were poorer as compared to the Slovenes and the Croats.
However, with Bosnian Muslims being the poorest, they became victims of a genocide mission led by president Milosevic (Chua, 2004).
According to Chua, the emergence of free markets accompanied by insufficient form of democracy that recognizes the rule of the majority has led to concentration of wealth among those groups dominating the market. Although this suggestion may not be applicable across the world, the author has identified significant risks posed by the free market ideology (Munck, 2005).
In her book, Chua recommends implementation of policies that will ensure assistance to these minority groups, while extending benefits to the disadvantaged majority ethnic groups. In addition, she advocates for liberal democracy that seek the protection of minorities and their rights
Critical Commentary
World on Fire provides an overview of how an economy can be controlled by people from a racial minority group. The author stands to be commended for taking readers into happenings of various countries coupled with demonstrating how various elements interact. In addition, she moves on to provide a substantial amount of data, which serves as evidence to support her alternative theories.
However, the book does not directly stipulate why minorities can dominate an economy where the majority exist. Various stipulations of the book support various other alternative theories by some researchers.
For instance, the book supports observations stipulated by Tatu Vanhanen and Richard Lynn that a prosperous group can easily be pointed out through an evaluation of the level of intelligence. The book is also in line with Kevin McDonald’s evolutionary strategies, which hold that various “factors can contribute to drawing and maintenance of some level of racial boundaries likely to result to racial conflicts” (Munck, 2005, p.106).
Although the book lacks proper organization, it is simple and offers simplified assumptions that primarily support some evolutionary strategies, especially in the study of behavior depicted by different categories of human beings. The book helps in bringing out the fact that social and political scientists lack adequate knowledge in analyzing behavior displayed by people due to their different personalities.
However, I strongly oppose Chua’s argument that free market ideology breeds hatred and global instability. All through, the book addresses two elements likely to spark ethnic conflicts. The author fails to consider the differences in the intelligence and the level of ethnocentrism among the groups in question.
These two factors play a significant role in separations and tension between races. For instance, some races such as Asians and Semites have high levels of ethnocentrism, where they tend to create and live within their own social circles. As they take the lead in dominating a section of the market and the society, they engage in kinship cooperation and the same is extended to other groups of the same race living elsewhere.
On the other hand, the Whites are conventionally laissez-faire; for instance, in Latin America, marriage can hardly take place outside that race. In addition, they are not actively involved in cooperating with other whites in other countries. However, individual elitism is highly portrayed where they tend to embrace those individuals that extend their status, regardless of the race (Engerman, 2003).
During colonialism, especially in the sub Saharan Africa, this scenario did not play out. However, the trend was attributed to the wide gap that existed in the level of elitism between Africans and the whites, hence minimal social interaction. Critics of globalization have “tended to overlook the ethnic dimension of disparities depicted in the market set up” (Munck, 2005, p.59).
According to these critics, wealth and poverty are viewed in terms of social status and class, a perspective that is likely to have different results among developing countries.
Due to this stipulation, various solutions outlined by Chua are likely to yield some negative results if applied. In fact, Chua makes a vague statement concerning ethnic conflicts. It should be noted that ethnic conflicts are bound to a certain ethnic group within a given region as opposed to the entire world.
Chua moves on to generalize some regions and later the entire globe, a fact that attracts more controversies. From her illustration, she points out that Israel represents such a small number, yet dominating the market in the Middle East (Chua, 2004).
In addition, the same position is occupied by the US in the entire global market, where the country’s economy dominates a significant percentage of the overall world economy (Engerman, 2003). The crucial question is; can the rising wave of anti Americanism be related to ethic envy as depicted in the case of Rwanda and Zimbabwe?
Chua’s theory stands to be convincing when applied to individual nations as opposed to the entire globe at large. Notably, the aspect of the minority in the market dominating the majorities as stipulated in the World on Fire has been in existence for quite a long time, and it is not because of the recent developments and migration towards the international market.
Conclusion
As Chua argues, rich and powerful minority groups tend to attract hatred and opposition from all corners. However, this problem stands to be compounded by the existence of elements of ethnicity leading to more and complex problems.
For instance, Chua talks of various minority groups controlling significant portion of the economy in foreign countries. However, it should be noted that other factors could spark the strained relationship between the minority and the majority groups as depicted by the case of Zimbabwe.
Some of the conflicts existing between the two groups are caused by other factors such as incitements from some members of the community who have accumulated some levels of political powers. This paper explored Chua’s question on whether free market economies breed ethnic hatred and global instability.
In a bid to ensure that stability prevails in a country, leaders should come up with policies that ensure equitable distribution of resources. In addition, to improve the level of elitism, the natives should be encouraged to acquire relevant education that will enable them to engage in some activities hence having a share in the control of their economy.
Reference List
Chua, A. (2004). World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. London, UK: Arrow.
Engerman, D. (2003). Staging growth: Modernization, development, and the global Cold War. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Matteucci, A. (2006). Theory Meets Reality: World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. Web.
Munck, R. (2005). Globalization and social exclusion: A transformationalist perspective. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Ubel, P. (2009). Free market madness: Why human nature is at odds with economics–and why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.