The value of 0

I long for a day where African data sets are prevalent. Rich, comprehensive indicators. Where program implementation meets rigor. Evaluation - no longer an afterthought. Where corruption and governance issues are not the most vibrant trends. Where scarce data is no longer under lock and key. I long to see the day that knowledge flows freely.

I long to see the day that social programming in Africa succeeds so we can meaningfully measure education outcomes. I long to see the day that the lowest strata get a fair chance at life, the day we level HIV/AIDS, the day I can return to villages like Penyem and tell them I am doing something real to help.

I long to champion the poor, bridge the blindness, become the expert on best practices. I long to find the pattern in randomness, find a solution among numbers. I long to solve poverty's equation, if only it could be as simple as solving an equation.

I long for the day my work is obsolete. I long for the day meaningless suffering ends.

Ecological-Evolutionary Approach to Social Stratification

I enrolled in a social stratification course in the sociology department this semester because I felt like I needed to get better acquainted with theories of inequality and individual societal positioning. What better way to understand poverty than to learn about the theories on how inequality comes about?

Today we discussed Gerhard Lenski's theory on ecological-evolution. This is an influential theory, inspiring Jared Diamond to write a highly acclaimed work explaining Europe's world exploration, domination and colonization of nations. The crux of Lenski's argument is that subsistence technology and environmental factors (climate, geography) explain the size of societies and how they develop. As hunting-gathering societies subsist primarily from what is offered in their natural environment, there is neither room for technological advancement, nor can the society support many members. There are about seven classifications in the evolutionary cycle - hunter-gatherer, fishing communities, horticultural, agrarian... all the way to industrial societies. Research has demonstrated that food production and technological efficiency is correlated to the size of the society can sustain. Nothing objectionable about that - a society can't get bigger if it doesn't have the mean to feed everyone in it. Here's what makes it interesting - Lenski argues that inequality occurs where societies expand to the point they are able to produce surplus. Elites determine how it gets divided, and to which recipients. Environment is another factor that determines whether the society is exposed to the means of technological discovery and perhaps a limiting (or encouraging) factor for the society's progression in the "evolutionary" process.

I'm usually quite shy during class, unable to invoke the confidence that lurks deep inside my insecure academic shell. But today I brought up a point that I felt Lenski's theory couldn't reconcile, after listening to my classmates' dissatisfaction with Lenski's relegation of ideology and political structure as explanations for a society's rise to power. My objection: Though Lenski has a strong descriptive model for what he calls intersocietal selection (why societies dominate others), I felt that he didn't do enough justice to intrasocietal selection (why certain social norms/actions/groups are more dominant than others within a society). He has such a macro-view, which is acceptable for characterizing the broad development of all societies. But his theory almost neglects, if not assumes homogeneity in a society's internal development. He never specifies how the elite emerge and who assumes power (an admittedly difficult task), groups that likely hold influence over the way technology develops or stagnates in a society. His theory is also more applicable to technologically-rudimentary societies. But in the big category of industrialized societies, how is ideology not a big factor in its development?