babel or babble

in the end, i think we all try to say the same thing just in different ways. the anthropologist and sociologist tries to understand the world as it is, the political scientist and human rights activist tries to figure out ways to solve the world's problems, the economist tries to quantify all that's said in words and see if it's feasible.

we're really saying the same thing just in so many different ways. each discipline is like a language churning out its own jargon.

so what then?
there isn't one voice, just a thousand tones chiming. some chanting louder than others, striving to be heard, some droning on and on, loud booming authoritative voices asserting and drowning out others. and some a whisper, a carefully worded prayer. some a nonchalant comment, no commitment, no hands tied, we can jump ship any time.

i sat in my economics development class, listening to how economists are trying to figure out how culture might affect economic growth and the difficulties of extracting how culture by itself would affect development since culture is in itself affect by the process of development. culture is not static and societies adapt and develop to keep themselves apace with the changes that confront them.
we look at how game theory can describe a society's solution to an agency problem. how networks of trust sprout up within communities and norms, expectations and the right incentives can instill cooperation within a society. societies form to pursue the good life, there is a pragmatic reason for forming groups.
and then we look at how an exogenous disturbance can break down a society, scatter it, and leave it to pick up the pieces.

that age old question, why do some countries perform worse than others and why do the same countries persistently choose policies that are not pro-growth continues to be debated, tossed back and forth like waves.
but economics itself shows that it wasn't as if these countries started off with "bad" civilizations or institutions to begin with. like natural selection, lousy norms and unsustainable societies tend to die out.
but i guess the problem is what are lousy norms and when do societies become unsustainable?
to me, each society figured out by itself the way it had to live to survive. if you however enlarge that community or bring it into the fold of other communities, you've effectively changed their playing field. and if you change their playing field, it's sensible to expect that the old rules of the game you used to apply to your neighbourhood playground would not necessarily hold up in this new multicomplex recreational centre.

is it anyone's fault? yes, possibly and yet not directly. it was a ripple in the pond that shook an entire universe. if there are gaping wounds that still call out for recompense and justice, we need to address these and not gloss over them and mutter easy words of apology. but because we cannot change time nor history and bend ourselves backward, we must bow low and spread our hands out humbly. only when we are willing to walk together and remember how imperfect we are, then maybe, we can have another ripple in the waters and a tide that we can all ride through together.



just a random rant. i think academia gets to me but at the same time, my thoughts are simple and i wonder if i will ever figure out the nuances like others do.