On 12/20/2020 8:20 PM, Michael Meeropol wrote:
This may be a bit out of place on a "materialist" discussion group but
from what I know about Farmer he is a modern day "saint"...
Yes, but ... here's a quote from him, suggesting why this listserve
would not take him too seriously: /‘What I don’t like about Marxist
literature is what I don’t like about academic pursuits–and isn’t that
what Marxism is, now? In general, the arrogance, the petty infighting,
the dishonesty, the desire for self-promotion, the orthodoxy: I can’t
stand the orthodoxy, and I’ll bet that’s one reason that science did not
flourish in the former Soviet Union.’/
I met him just once, and had a good chat; it was around a decade ago in
a Durban hospital (McCords) specializing in AIDS treatment (but that
unit was shut in 2013
<https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-01-23-cutting-the-mccord-durbans-hospital-finally-loses-the-battle/>
thanks to Obama budget cuts). He was revered there and across South
Africa, and in Haiti, Rwanda and Peru where his NGO Partners in Health
also had cutting-edge AIDS treatment programs... and revered for good
reason. That battle to get generic AIDS medicines to the world's poorest
people through holistic, accessible clinics (hopefully run within the
public sector, though not always in Farmer's case) really is one of the
great anti-capitalist success stories of this century. He was featured
<https://www.democracynow.org/appearances/dr_paul_farmer> on /Democracy
Now! /a few days ago. The Tracy Kidder book on his Haiti work,
/Mountains Beyond Mountains,/ deservedly won a Pulitzer.
But Farmer's main professional ally - Jim Yong Kim - turned out to be a
U-turning charlatan
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/16/jim-yong-kims-mixed-messages-to-the-world-bank-and-the-world/>,
presiding over the World Bank (thanks to Farmer's link to the Clintons,
apparently leading to Kim's highly-controversial 2012 appointment
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/16/why-jim-kim-should-resign-from-the-world-bank/>),
until the Trump regime did something (still unclear) to cause Kim to
resign a couple of years ago.
If Farmer served with Bill Clinton to run much of Haiti for awhile,
suspicions were justifiably raised. (When I worked there 35 years ago,
briefly in Port-au-Prince but mainly in the President's International
Liaison Office in Washington for a few months, it was just like the
utter mess described in the first article below, with economic
sovereignty all but ceded - even by the remarkable radical priest
Jean-Bertrand Aristide - to US AID and the Bretton Woods Institutions...
and then it all got worse.)
Within the discipline of anthropology, more suspicions were raised, as
the second article suggests. So even if we you find him saintly and
possessing a political-economic reading of health systems as is
absolutely necessary, the two critical /CP /articles below (which as far
as I can tell he hasn't rebutted) make for interesting reads.
***
https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/17/the-uses-of-paul-farmer/
January 17, 2013
The Uses of Paul Farmer
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/17/the-uses-of-paul-farmer/>
by Ansel Herz <https://www.counterpunch.org/author/stum5brecrabra4/>
/In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends./
– Martin Luther King Jr.
/Port-au-Prince./
Dr. Paul Farmer stood alone in a corner of Hotel Karibe conference room,
watching the spectacle.
Reporters buzzed around Bill Clinton, jostling with one another and
yelling out questions. The former president was the newly-minted United
Nations Special Envoy to Haiti.
It was September 2009, just a few months before the earthquake.
Farmer had been appointed as the Deputy Envoy. But it seemed perverse
that the reporters would ignore him.
“Dokte Paul,” as his patients here call him, has been a true friend to
Haiti.
A Harvard-educated doctor and public health expert, Farmer co-founded
Partners In Health. As a tiny clinic in rural Haiti has grown into a
medical complex and now a hospital, he’s innovated and delivered
top-class healthcare to the poorest Haitians for three decades.
His accomplishments are profiled in Tracy Kidder’s book /Mountains
Beyond Mountains/
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812980557/counterpunchmaga>,
which is taught
<http://uricommonreading.blogspot.com/2012/08/haiti-today.html> in
classrooms across the country. I was reading it at the time.
As a recent college graduate and a newcomer to Haiti, I wasn’t going to
miss this chance to interview a personal hero of mine. So I ran over.
We talked about Haiti’s challenges. He folded his arms and leaned in,
peering through round wire-rimmed glasses. His answers were thoughtful.
Farmer had always been a sharp critic of the international community’s
treatment of Haiti.
Eventually I asked him a blunt question: “Do you think the
administration here was under pressure from international forces to
fight the increase in the minimum wage?”
I’d seen graffiti calling for bump in wages in Port-au-Prince earlier
that day. In the preceding months, as the government stalled on enacting
the wage hike from $3 to a mere $5 per day, protests had engulfed the
downtown area.
Farmer stammered a little bit, said he didn’t know, and subtly changed
the subject.
One reader left an ominous comment on the interview
<http://www.mediahacker.org/2009/10/04/interview-un-deputy-envoy-to-haiti-dr-paul-farmer/>.
“No disrespect to Dr. Farmer, as I believe he is sincere,” he wrote,
“but he is now a part of the ‘machine’ that essentially drives Haiti.”
***
Two years later, WikiLeaks provided me and two colleagues with a window
into that machine: 1,918 secret diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in
Haiti.
The cables proved beyond any doubt what had seemed obvious. Behind the
scenes, American officials had mounted a full-scale assault
<http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day>
on the minimum wage increase, financing studies against it and
pressuring the president to oppose it.
If Farmer had “engaged in the hard process of discernment” – an idea he
promotes in his book /Haiti After the Earthquake /
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B008PGNEAE/counterpunchmaga>–
the answer to my question would have been “Yes, of course.”
It was strange. In the past, Farmer wrote disapprovingly
<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/Quotations_Uses_Haiti.html> of
plans to give Haitians low-paying jobs in textile factories – what many
consider to be sweatshops. Either he had changed
<http://www.thestar.com/haiti/economic/article/875952--haiti-s-garment-industry-hanging-by-a-thread>
his mind or was holding his tongue.
In 2004, Farmer hadn’t shrunk from castigating
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/paul-farmer/who-removed-aristide> the
United States and the Haitian elite for the coup d’etat they carried out
against Haiti’s then-president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
To this day, he remains a board member of the Institute for Justice and
Democracy in Haiti (IJDH), which is a strong defender of Aristide and
his political party, Fanmi Lavalas.
But when Fanmi Lavalas was banned from entering candidates in the first
post-earthquake election, Farmer’s response was tepid.
I ran into Farmer at a meeting of the now-defunct reconstruction
commission (co-chaired by Clinton) just before the runoff round, in
March of 2011.
I asked if he was worried about the Lavalas party’s exclusion from the
ballot. “Of course I’m worried,” he said, “because if you have scant
participation or exclude anyone from engagement. . .that’s a formula for
instability.”
At the time, IJDH
<http://ijdh.org/archives/category/elections-2010/elections-2010-news>
and most progressive advocates took the position
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/haitis-fatally-flawed-election>
that the election was unfair, fraudulent, and should be annulled. I
followed up by email asking if he agreed with IJDH. Farmer wrote back:
“Good to see you. Sorry to have missed your deadline. But am on the
board of ijdh so you are really asking questions for other reasons?”
I responded seeking to clarify what that meant, but received no reply.
***
The next time I saw Farmer, he warmly greeted me in the hall of a huge
mansion.
I managed to evade the minimum $250 donation for a fundraiser being held
in Austin, Texas, where I was visiting family. I wore some of my best
clothes but still looked underdressed. The opulence on display seemed
shameless.
Turns out the mansion belonged to Roy Spence, chief executive of a big
marketing agency. He was Hilary Clinton’s “messaging guru” during her
2008 campaign.
Farmer humored the crowd with an engaging speech calling for
accompaniment with, rather than mere charity to, the poor.
Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, stood
next to him, beaming. Mills had just taken a shellacking in a Rolling
Stone investigation
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-world-failed-haiti-20110804>
of Haiti’s faltering reconstruction effort.
But this wasn’t a fundraiser for Partners In Health, Farmer’s
highly-respected health organization. It was for an obscure group called
Students of the World, which is run by Roy Spence’s daughter, Courtney.
A documentary filmmaker friend of mine went to the second fundraiser in
East Austin – the one for the non-rich – the following night. Unprompted
by me, he complained a few days later about how /bad/ it was. He said
it seems like they “parachute in” and produce “bad promo videos” about
charities in Haiti and other poor countries.
And yet that night, there was Farmer wrapping up his speech. He urged
the assembled guests – influential Texas politicians and businessmen
among them – to donate to Students of the World.
Before I left, Farmer autographed a copy of his book for me. He said
he’d flown all the way from Rwanda for the event.
In the book, Farmer argues that humanitarian funding should be directed
to Haiti’s public sector – the government – instead of to foreign
charities. Groups like Students for the World are lambasted as haphazard
and unaccountable to Haitians.
***
“Oh, he adores Clinton,” a senior member of Partner in Health, told me
as our plane approached the Haitian coastline. “I don’t get it.”
It was March 2012. By chance, our seats on the flight to Port-au-Prince
happened to be next to each other. We’d struck up a conversation.
She said Paul had changed over the years and that now she represents the
“left-wing of PIH.” But the organization had taken a decidedly
non-political turn.
I told her how disappointing it was when PIH had refused to sign on to a
petition to protect Haiti’s displaced from forced evictions not long
after the quake. She wasn’t surprised.
The petition was addressed to Bill Clinton, the UN Envoy to Haiti, among
other authorities. And Clinton is “close to Paul,” the petitioners were
told by Donna Barry, PIH’s Advocacy and Policy Director.
A week later, I found myself facing Clinton at a press conference at
PIH’s new hospital in Mirebalais. I asked a pointed question about the
UN’s responsibility for Haiti’s cholera outbreak.
His frank response
<http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/clinton-haiti-policy-agriculture-earthquake-united-nations-cholera-rebuilding>,
in which he stated that cholera had arrived in Haiti via the fecal waste
of a UN peacekeeping soldier, was a welcome surprise.
Farmer got up after him and delivered a boilerplate call for improved
water and sanitation in Haiti. Clinton put his arm around Farmer’s back
when he sat back down.
“I think he knows what he’s doing, and I trust his judgment and his
integrity,” political analyst Noam Chomsky told an interviewer who asked
about Farmer’s involvement with Clinton and the UN.
“Paul Farmer, that is. I’m not talking about Clinton,” he added, with a
derisive laugh.
As Chomsky explained
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13279-noam-chomsky-post-election-we-need-more-organization-education-activism>,
by any objective measure, Clinton has severely damaged Haiti.
After the quake, he admitted to destroying the livelihoods of Haitian
farmers during his presidency when he pressured Aristide to lower
tariffs on imported rice. It was a “devil’s bargain,” he said
<http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice>, that was beneficial
for “some of my farmers in Arkansas.”
In October, both Clintons inaugurated a sprawling, scandal-ridden
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html?pagewanted=all>
industrial park in Haiti’s north, where thousands of Haitians will sew
garments for Wal-Mart and other US retail giants for meager wages.
Farmer, meanwhile, has been awfully quiet when it comes to public
advocacy on Haiti’s behalf. His name last popped up in the news when the
UN, in a slick PR move, appointed him a special advisor for a brand new
$2.2 billion cholera initiative.
In fact, the initiative is anything but new
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/the_uns_haitian_shell_game>.
It’s been around for years, unfunded, and the UN itself has only
contributed 1% of the overall funding goal.
The epidemic continues apace. Cholera killed 27 Haitians in the first
week of January.
Farmer is still on the board of IJDH, which is suing the UN to accept
responsibility for the outbreak and pay reparations to the victims. He’s
made no public comment about the lawsuit. Neither has the UN, except to
say it’s studying the claims.
“He’s been bought off by people who acknowledge that his critiques had
merit and gave him a position, meaning Clinton and the UN,” one longtime
Haiti aid worker told me.
A Washington insider who works on Haiti policy called him “their useful
idiot.”
“We see the same problems,” he said. “Haiti needs a voice of reason to
stand up to these powerful players. He could be that voice.”
“It’s sad, really.”
***
Sadder still are the dusty, bleak encampments where thousands of
Haitians displaced by the quake eke out an existence each day.
At a huge camp called Carradeux, withered tents flap listlessly in the
wind on a crowded hillside. Aid agencies have long since left most
camps, leaving clogged and overflowing latrines in their wake.
“Haiti’s reconstruction? It began in [Clinton’s] mouth, but it never
materialized on the terrain. I don’t see it,” Bemès Bellevue, a
31-year-old taxi driver whose worn features make him look much older,
told me on Thursday.
It was the 1090th day Bellevue has lived under a tent with his wife and
two girls, aged 5 and 7. Human beings are not supposed to live like
this, let alone for three years.
I’ve never met a camp resident who knows about Farmer. They haven’t
heard his talk of “building back better.”
I asked Samuel Maxime, editor of Defend Haiti <http://defend.ht/>, an
online news magazine popular with the Haitian diaspora, what he thinks
of Farmer today.
He said it’s hard to criticize anyone working on health in Haiti because
lives are at stake.
Indeed, this makes it difficult to subject Farmer or any humanitarian to
critique. But meaningful accountability is precisely what’s been missing
from the aid sector. Farmer himself made the point in our first interview.
“Nonetheless, I think Farmer is a large part of the machine that enables
corruption in Haiti,” Maxime continued. “In the grand scheme of things I
believe someone like Farmer, who knows right from wrong, integrity from
corruption, and looks the other way as he does – he enables it, in fact,
like MLK Jr. would say – they are complicit in it.”
Maxime said he’s especially disappointed Farmer hasn’t stepped up and
stated clearly that all the evidence shows the UN brought cholera to Haiti.
“I don’t think that’s becoming of a Harvard man.”
***
After several unanswered emails, Dr. Farmer responded just before this
went to publication. He called me on the way to the airport, where he
was to catch a flight to China for a meeting on tuberculosis.
We spoke cordially for two hours. Farmer said he hoped his words would
give me pause. But they haven’t.
I found him to be defensive, wishy-washy and self-contradictory.
“I chuckled at that because I think it’s good to be useful,” he said,
taking particular umbrage at the phrase “useful idiot.”
He asked repeatedly whether I agreed with that. I said he was being
silenced and used.
Farmer eventually disclaimed any leadership role, saying, “I’m really
not a UN official. I don’t have any obligations.”
“On the second year anniversary [of the quake] I wrote what I had to say
and I don’t really have any more to say.”
When I said he had lost the razor-sharp critical voice from /Uses of
Haiti/, he said, “I hope you’re wrong about that.”
I asked several times whether the UN brought cholera to Haiti. He talked
around the question, never answering it directly. Isn’t it important to
identify the source of the outbreak?
“I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think it was true with the [past]
HIV or cholera outbreaks…If I were to rank the top 5 interventions, to
slow cholera…I would not put legal action before building a water system
or treating Haitians.”
Do you believe in IJDH’s advocacy work? “Yeah, I do! I would never
disassociate myself from IJDH.”
But later, “I’ve never worked in any social justice organization where
there aren’t serious disagreements inside.”
On the failed reconstruction commission, the CIRH, he said, “I didn’t
have a dog in that fight other than wishing it well…I hope there will be
many other iterations of trying to coordinate aid. I didn’t assert that
it would work.”
He agreed that Rwanda, which he has often held up as a model, would not
have accepted the CIRH.
I asked if he has been successful in encouraging aid to flow directly to
the Haitian government. Farmer admitted, “The answer is no, not much
success.”
“I definitely care most about Haiti of all the places I’ve worked, but I
don’t claim omniscience,” he said.
/*Ansel Herz* is a freelance journalist who lived through the 2010
earthquake and has reported from Haiti for over two years. His work has
been published by ABC News, the Nation Magazine, the New York Daily
News, and Al Jazeera English, among other outlets./
***
August 2, 2012
Dying for Capitalism
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/02/dying-for-capitalism/>
by Brian McKenna - Han Baer
<https://www.counterpunch.org/author/zepragaye57d/>
“I want to eradicate poverty” announced Jim Yong Kim, the new World Bank
President to /The Guardian/ in an exclusive interview on July 25. “I
think that there’s a tremendous passion for that inside the World Bank.”
In March 2012, President Obama nominated anthropologist Kim, MD, a
co-founder of the non-profit Partners in Health, to head the World Bank.
Several sectors of the international community questioned Dr. Kim’s
credentials and argued that the selection process was undemocratic and
not based on merit. Kim was widely supported by U.S. liberals as well as
prestigious publications like the /Financial Times /and the/New York Times/.
Disregarding the international community’s call for transparency, Kim
accepted the post and joined President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the Rose Garden
ceremony. Kim began his new job on July 1, 2012.
Kim’s nomination was strongly endorsed by his friend, Paul Farmer, his
Partners in Health co-founder, also a physician-anthropologist. He
argued, “Kim’s humility would serve World Bank well” in a /Washington
Post/ column on April 11, 2012.
Both Drs. Kim and Farmer say that they are highly influenced by the
radical educator Paulo Freire (author of /Pedagogy of the Oppressed/) in
their work. At first glance this seems consistent with Kim’s excellent
2000 “/Dying for Growth/,” a book that Kim co-edited with several others
from the Institute for Health and Social Justice Issues in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. We have both used the book in our Medical Anthropology
teaching and Hans Baer reviewed the book for the /Medical Anthropology
Quarterly /in its March 2001 issue.
We will argue that Drs. Kim and Farmer misrepresent the fiercely
anti-capitalist Paulo Freire and make an astounding public reversal from
their tone in /Dying for Growth/, which implied a strong anti-capitalist
stance. In fact, one of Dr. Kim’s chief actions today is to vigorously
promote capitalism, albeit a form of capitalism with a human face. In a
recent BBC interview Jim Kim said that capitalist “market-based growth
is a priority for every single country.” Kim said that this was the best
way to create jobs and lift people out of poverty.
In making this critique, we argue for a resuscitation of Paulo Freire,
Karl Marx, and the relentless questioning of the Frankfurt school
philosopher Theodor Adorno.
As renowned health experts and political appointees whose profiles rise
higher and higher on the world stage, Drs. Kim and Farmer’s
interpretations of Freire will likely influence millions. As such, they
deserve increased critical attention for their work as public and
engaged anthropologists.
*Astounding Reversal from “Dying for Growth”*
/“The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass.”/
Theodor Adorno
In its various chapters, /Dying for Growth/ explores the linkages
between neoliberalism or late capitalism and health problems among the
poor in various countries. In the concluding chapter, Millen, Irwin, and
Kim advocate a program of “pragmatic solidarity” that calls for a
collective effort that aims to counter the adverse effects of
neoliberalism upon the health of the poor. While Baer wrote a generally
positive review of /Dying for Growth/, he faulted the editors for
failing to provide readers with a vision that will not simply ameliorate
the worst effects of global capitalism upon the health of the poor. In
his view, this would entail the creation of health for all that entails
constructing an alternative global political economy oriented to meeting
social needs rather than to profit making.
Perhaps this omission provided Kim with the wiggle room he may have
needed when during his nomination process for the World Bank many
questioned whether the author of “Dying for Growth,” was, in fact,
anti-capitalist. The book had appeared to be, fiercely challenging the
growth mantra. However in Farmer’s /Washington Post/ editorial, he
responded with a resounding no, arguing that “any reasonable reading of
the book indicates that ‘Dying for Growth’ is pro-growth, raising
questions about particular policies and patterns of growth that exclude
the great majority of people living in poverty. Hence the double
entendre in the title” (Farmer and Gershman 2012).
In reality, both Farmer and Kim appear to be overlooking the increasing
number of scholars and activists who are challenging the growth paradigm
associated with global capitalism, especially in light of the increasing
evidence that the treadmill of production and consumption highly
dependent on fossil fuels is not only contributing to increasing social
inequality around the world but also depletion of natural resources and
environmental degradation, of which the most profound form is climate
change.
What is needed is ‘appropriate development’ or economic growth for the
poorest people in the world but de-growth of the affluent in both
developed and developing societies and achieving a steady-state economy
oriented to both social parity and justice, environmental sustainability
and a safe climate.
While Farmer himself has for sometime been reluctant to critique
capitalism per se but has tended to cite “structural violence” as the
source of the problems of many of the world’s poor, in his recent book
/Haiti After the Earthquake/ he does acknowledge that “growing
inequality, both within countries and between them, is the linchpin of
modern servitude” (Farmer 2011:117).
In terms of Farmer’s defense of his colleague, CounterPuncher Patrick
Bond has not bought his argument. “I’ve met both Farmer and Gershman,
and like everyone else, I immensely respect their traditional role:
haranguing powerful institutions to do less harm,” he said, “[but] what
they did in the /Washington Post /was the opposite, offering excuses for
the World Bank and its /status quo /ideology because their friend is
about to take over. The contradictions will be spectacular. The scholar
who co-edited the great anti-neoliberal book Dying for Growth will be
compelled to actively ignore data (from Christian Aid) which suggest 185
million African deaths in the 21^st century will be due to climate
change, in addition to immediate coal-related health problems” (Bond 2012).
*A Model based on Paulo Freire?*
Kim and Farmer’s social justice model combines biomedicine, public
advocacy, backstage politics, and avowedly “true” charity work as
discussed by Freire. The idea of “true generosity” defeating “false
charity” is a foundational motif of their physician practices. This
concept is referenced often in their public speeches and publications.
In their view, Freire’s intellectual insights support a “medicine and
social justice” praxis whereby the chief causes of oppression are
posited as “structural violence,” “poverty” and “inequality.”
Paulo Freire is indeed a major influence on both Kim and Farmer, they
both assert. In a lengthy interview with the /Boston Phoenix/ reported
by Tinker Ready, “Kim explain[ed] that he and Farmer share several key
influences. One is Paulo Freire’s classic 1968 manifesto /Pedagogy of
the Oppressed/ (‘True generosity consists precisely in fighting to
destroy the causes which nourish false charity,’ it reads in part). The
other is the radical Catholic doctrine known as liberation theology,
which preaches that the Church should be in the business of fighting
poverty and oppression. So, he says, they work alongside the poor and
answer to the poor, not to the WHO or government health ministries,” he
told Ready (Ready 1996).
Farmer explains how his Freirean social justice model is a vast
improvement over the charity model and development models of health
care. He said, “Charity . . . presupposes that there will always be
those who have and those who have not. This may or may not be true, but
again, there are costs to seeing the problem in this light. In /Pedagogy
of the Oppressed/, Paulo Freire put it this way: ‘In order to have the
continued opportunity to express their ‘generosity,’ the oppressors must
perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent
fount of this ‘generosity,’ which is nourished by death, despair, and
poverty.’ Freire’s conclusion follows naturally enough: ‘True generosity
consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false
charity.’ Given the 20^th century’s marked tendency toward increasing
economic inequity in the face of economic growth, there will be plenty
of false charity in the future” (Farmer 1995).
In 2011 PIH generated revenues of $88 million. There were more than
15,000 new donors the last fiscal year. Among its corporate and
foundation donors are Abbot Laboratories, Aetna Foundation, Inc.
American Express, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, General
Electric, Co, Goldman, Sachs Co., Google, Home Depot, HSBC Philanthropic
Programs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Novartis,
Pfizer, UPS, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo and Weyerhaeuser Family
Foundation (PIH Annual Report 2011).
*Seeing the Proof*
Over the past two decades Kim and Farmer have demonstrated that diseases
could be treated successfully and economically in some of the poorest,
remotest places in the underdeveloped world.
According to Bond, the Director of the Centre for Civil Society at the
University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, “[these] breakthroughs
required making alliances with grassroots activists, including South
Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign, to win an historic fight against Big
Pharma and the World Trade Organization’s Intellectual Property rights
protections in 2001. The payoff was provision of generic and discounted
AIDS medicines to several million poor people at an affordable price,
whereas a decade earlier those medicines cost $15,000/patient/year. It
was one the greatest recent victories against corporate-facilitated
oppression.”
Said Kim, “That was the moving thing for me. Seeing the proof.”
For their indefatigable efforts Kim and Farmer were awarded MacArthur
Genius Awards. Farmer busily travels around the world treating patients
and raising money for his Partners in Health clinics which total more
than 76 clinics in 12 countries serving 2.6 million people per year. PIH
employs almost 15,000 in countries including Haiti, Rwanda, Peru and
Kazakhstan. Farmer was offered the job to head US AID in 2009, but
declined. Since the Haitian earthquake in 2010 Farmer has worked
extensively with former President Bill Clinton to help alleviate the
suffering of many. He is now UN Special Envoy to Haiti under Clinton.
*Environmental Protest Against Kim in Africa *
In July 2012, after just a few weeks in office, Kim drew strong protest
from a number of environmental groups for the World Bank’s approval of a
$684 million loan for a new Power Transmission Line that will supply
electrical power to Kenya from a controversial dam in Ethiopia. The
groups, including Human Rights Watch and Survival International, argued
that Kim undermined the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment
with its loan approval. Other groups included Friends of Lake Turkana,
International Rivers and the Bank Information Center.
Anthropologist Bill Derman, an Africanist with more than thirty years of
experience on water projects, said that “There is a long history
involved in World Bank banking on large dams. . . .[and] it gives
credibility to environmentally disastrous and culturally genocidal
projects. . . .At the very least the new head of the bank should have
called for a thorough review of the basis for supporting Kenya’s request
without examining the horrendous social and environmental so-called
research carried out on behalf of the Ethiopian government” (Derman 2012).
The point is captured by anthropologist G. Derrick Hodge in a 2011
review of “the Continuing Career of Jim Yong Kim (Hodge 2011). Hodge
salutes Kim’s “staggering success” in a “remarkable career” that has
extended and enhanced the lives of many. However he also notes Kim’s
“strange bedfellows.” Hodge makes a theoretical critique of Kim
commenting that “he has been quite willing to support the profitability
of already very wealthy corporations if it means saving a life in the
here and now” (Hodge 2011).
“Yet, by not challenging the ways in which profit-motivated economic
processes cause the kind of illness that they claim to cure,” he said,
“this kind of pragmatism risks sacrificing future generations for
current exigencies” (Hodge 2011).
In other words, by accommodating with established power and capitalist
relations of production, Kim (and Farmer) may be causing more harm than
good over the long sweep of history. Hodge wonders if Kim “is willing to
risk alienating wealthy donors [and whether] he might feel morally
compelled to use his new pulpit to tell the truth about global
capitalism, as he did in Dying for Growth” (Hodge 2011). These are
important questions and reflect the “problem posing” element of Freire.
It is for reasons like these that journalist Patrick Bond named his
popular CounterPunch article “Why Jim Kim Should Resign from the World
Bank” (Bond 2012).
*What kind of “Structural Violence” are we talking about? *
Drs. Farmer and Kim work closely with Presidents Obama and former
President Clinton. When he was president, Clinton forced Haiti to drop
tariffs on imported subsidized U.S. rice. This neoliberal policy
destroyed Haitian rice farming and seriously undercut Haiti’s ability to
become a self-sufficient country. It is widely viewed as contributing to
Haiti’s forced urbanization, an event that increased the earthquake
toll. Clinton, of course, also passed NAFTA which hurt the US working
class. He destroyed welfare and in 1999 was responsible for tearing down
the firewalls between investment and commercial banking which opened the
banking system to speculators and contributed to much human misery
associated with the 2008 financial meltdown.
Obama raised more than $600 million for his election, most from
corporations, and has served those same corporations as well as his
Republican predecessor. He has stood by while those same corporations
loot the treasury and has done little to help the millions of Americans
who have lost their homes to Liars Loans and bank repossessions. The
list of accommodations to capital is very long and could take many books.
While Kim and Farmer work closely with these elites – two of the most
powerful men in the world – they simultaneously ignore the wealth of
theory and practice by Paulo Freire and his closest colleagues around
the globe. As Macedo puts it, “the misunderstanding of Paulo Freire’s
leading theoretical ideas is also implicated in the facile dismissal of
Freire’s legacy and influence, which has actually shaped a vibrant field
of critical pedagogy that has taken root throughout the United States
and the world in the last two decades or so . . . .[including]
contributions of scholars such as Henry Giroux, Stanley Aronowitz,
Michele Fine, Antonia Darder, Linda Brodkey, and Peter McLaren” (Freire:
xvi-xvii).
The term “structural violence” is part of medical anthropologists Paul
Farmer and Jim Kim’s arsenal of development theory. Loic Wacquant
critiqued this concept in a special forum at which Farmer was present
(Wacquant 2004). Anthropologist Michael D’Arcy
amplified Wacquant’s criticism saying, “the analytic of structural
violence is a wonderful way to begin a conversation about the role
of institutions in producing social change and redressing wrongs,
but . . .specific dimensions of these structural . . . .violences
should also be enumerated in the name of producing concrete effects
and not merely garnering donations from a concerned but relatively
uninformed general public. If integrating critique into action is
truly part of what differentiates Farmer and Kim’s organization from
other forms of humanitarian intervention, then one would think that
the organization and its directors would welcome constructive
feedback from colleagues, allies, and intellectual fellow travelers.”
A Freirean approach to improving the world would no doubt ask these
questions. As Freire himself pointed out, “any situation in which some
men prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of
violence. . .the movement of inquiry must be directed towards
humanization – man’s historical vocation” (Freire 1970:73).
What about the structural violence of capitalism?
As David Harvey argues in /The Enigma of Capital/, “A youthful, student
led revolutionary movement, with all of its evident uncertainties and
problems, is a necessary but not sufficient condition to produce that
revolution in mental conceptions that can lead us to a more rational
solution to the current problems of endless growth, the first lesson it
must learn is that an ethical, non-exploitative and socially just
capitalism that redounds to the benefit of all is impossible. It
contradicts the very nature of what capital is about” (Harvey 2009:259).
Liberalism contradicts the very nature of what Freire is about.
*Kim: Anthropologists Don’t Often Act, but Physicians Do*
Drs. Kim makes a strong criticism of anthropologists who do not “act.”
Speaking on PBS television in 2009, he told Bill Moyers that,
“Anthropologists are a little bit different [than physicians]; we don’t
often act on what we do.” Similarly, Dr. Farmer presents himself as a
doer. He says, “I’m an action kind of guy,” he told Tracy Kidder.
The implication seems to be that Drs. Kim and Farmer model the work –
biomedical-dominated work — that anthropologists should be doing, work
that is allegedly in the tradition of Paulo Freire.
Is it? What do they mean by “act”?
In the past year, several anthropologists and former students have begun
to publicly challenge Drs. Kim and Farmer’s views on social action. One
is physician/anthropologist Sam Dubal who wrote that “I was initially
tremendously excited about the ‘Introduction to Social Medicine’ course.
But it turned out to be an enormous disappointment. First, its level of
engagement with the social determinants of healthcare was (perhaps
appropriate to a politically conservative institution like HMS)
superficial. We were taught little more than the banal fact that poverty
is a major etiology of disease. Second, instead of being taught careful
methods of engaging with poverty as physicians, Jim Kim presented to us,
in conjunction with Michael Porter of Harvard Business School, ‘global
health delivery’ models, ways of using logistical tools of commercial
production to improve efficiency and efficacy of the ‘delivery’ of
global health care. Instead of urging us to engage in deeper scholarship
of history, anthropology, and philosophy, Kim – who later left to become
president of Dartmouth College, and now, tellingly, stands
president-elect of the World Bank – encouraged first-year HMS students
to pursue MBAs.”
In terms of public health or social medicine, much of the thunder of the
political economy of health literature that began to emerge in the early
1970s and inspired both critical medical anthropologists and critical
medical sociologists has been subtly co-opted in the guise of the social
determinants of health discourse. In 2004 the WHO Commission on
Macroeconomics and Health created the Commission on Social Determinants
of Health. Unfortunately, this approach tends to ignore the political
economy of health. The social determinants of health that are repeatedly
identified in the literature include poverty, employment and
unemployment, stress, inequalities in housing, education, social
inclusion, nutrition, as well as various lifestyle factors, such as
ethnicity and sexual behavior. In essence, this perspective fails to
look further upstream and certainly does not posit the various social
determinants as ultimately being rooted in the capitalist world system.
Writing on July 17 in /The Dartmouth,/ the student newspaper of Kim’s
former Presidential post, philosophy student Becca Rothfeld, provides
additional information about Dr. Kim’s view of action. It is worth
quoting at length (Rothfeld 2012). “In March 2010, former College
President Jim Yong Kim spoke at The Washington Post lecture series on
leadership. He addressed the Dartmouth undergraduate population,
counseling its constituents to abandon their starry-eyed ambitions.
‘It’s great to have all these great ideals,’ he noted, with a tinge of
condescension. ‘But when you go to Haiti, when you go to Africa, they
don’t ask you, ‘How much do you feel for my people?’’
He concluded by chastising any Dartmouth students hopelessly naive
enough to maintain an affinity for the liberal arts, whom he advised to
‘get a skill.’ One casualty of this brutal methodology is philosophy, an
entire field that Kim casually dismisses as practically useless. He
describes his erstwhile interest in the discipline as the passing
passion of a ‘smart-aleck sophomore.’ Apparently, it doesn’t require
what Kim would qualify as ‘skill’ to author works like ‘/A Critique of
Pure Reason’ /and ‘/A Discourse on the Method/.’ In Kim’s view, thinkers
like Kant, Descartes and Rousseau would have done better to stop
thinking and start acting” (Rothfeld 2012).
Like Rothfeld, Theodor Adorno, arguably the 20^th century’s greatest
philosopher, would also have critical comments for Kim. Adorno, and the
Frankfurt School of critical theory, of which he was a part, was of
immense influence to Paulo Freire and the current critical pedagogy
school. Given the towering influence of Kim and Farmer in anthropology
and on the world stage, and given their self-described association with
Paulo Freire, arguably the 20^th century’s most important
anthropologist, an extended review of Adorno’s critique of “action,” is
warranted. Much of this comes from his 1963 essay, Resignation (Adorno
1963).
“Distance from praxis is disreputable to everyone,” said Adorno,
“Whoever doesn’t want to really knuckle down and get his hands dirty, is
suspect, as though the aversion were not legitimate and only distorted
by privilege. [the demand is to become] an active, practical person . .
.[like] an industrial leader or an athlete. One should join in. Whoever
thinks, removes himself, is considered weak, cowardly, virtually a
traitor” (Adorno 1963:290).
Adorno worried that such an admonition might be “quickly transformed
into a prohibition on thinking” itself (Adorno 1963:290). He warned that
“The much invoked unity of theory and praxis has the tendency of
slipping into the predominance of praxis” (Adorno 2963:290). Such a
“forced primacy” stopped “the critique Marx himself practiced” as in
places like the former Soviet Union. Eventually, once on this road, the
criticism against critique “is not tolerated anymore except for the
criticism that people were not yet working hard enough. So easily does
the subordination of theory to praxis invert into service rendered to
renewed oppression” (Adorno 2963:290).
He went further. “Whoever criticizes violates the taboo of unity, which
tends towards totalitarian organization. The critic becomes a divisive
influence and, with a totalitarian phrase, a subversive” (Adorno 1963:283).
The material forces at work on the individual’s consciousness are
massive. Again Adorno captures elements of the hegemony it in a piece
that is overly pessimistic, but still worth quoting at length, “The
economic order . . .renders the majority of people dependent upon
conditions beyond their control, and thus maintains them in a state of
political immaturity. If they want to live, then no other avenue remains
but to adapt . . .they must negate precisely the autonomous subjectivity
to which the idea of democracy appeals; they can preserve themselves
only if they renounce their self. To see through the nexus of deception,
they would need to make precisely that painful intellectual effort that
the organization of everyday life, not least of all a culture industry
inflated to the point of totality, prevents. The necessity of such
adaptation, of identification with the given . . .creates the potential
for totalitarianism” (Adorno 1963:98-99).
To this the Dartmouth president advised the student/philosopher to “get
a skill.”
The idea seems to be that college youth should focus on mastering
practical skills that privilege instrumental rationality, not critical
pedagogy, the humanities or philosophy. Moreover, Dr. Kim seems to be
saying, one should arm oneself with as many hard-skill based degrees as
possible, preferably: MD, Ph.D. and MBA. But who can afford this but the
rich? And for the rest, isn’t the debt peonage from all this graduate
education another form of structural violence?
*Freire’s Genius *
Bond wrote, “Indeed we will soon learn whether Kim’s commitment to
progressive change is as strong as his record suggests, or whether he
will instead repeat his deplorable role in the notorious Dartmouth
fraternity hazing scandal, where as the College president apparently
intimidated by rich alumni and bolshi ‘vomelette’-making students, he
did nothing at all, deploying the bizarre excuse, ‘One of the things you
learn as an anthropologist, you don’t come in and change the culture.’”
In fact thousands of applied anthropologists work daily in a wide array
of jobs to “change the culture,” as they challenge hierarchy, injustice
and ignorance (Ervin 2005). Many of these anthropologists employ
Freirean approaches as discussed above. How could Kim make this kind of
statement in good faith? Is he not aware of all the widespread applied
work taking place to transform cultures in nearly every country of the
world? Moreover, how might Kim reconcile the fact that Paulo Freire
himself renounced the World Bank and refused to take money from them
when he was Secretary of Education in Sao Paulo, Brazil?
All are radical humanists and neo-Marxists, highly critical of the
“petty infighting, the dishonesty, the desire for self-promotion, [and]
orthodoxy” which Farmer accuses Marxists of portraying. In his important
2010 offering “/On Critical Pedagogy/,” Henry Giroux underscores the
ecumenical openness of Freire’s thought, “Freire’s genius was to
elaborate a theory of social change and engagement that was neither
vanguardist nor populist. Combining theoretical rigor, social relevance,
and moral compassion, Freire gave new meaning to the politics of daily
life while affirming the importance of theory in opening up the space of
critique, possibility, politics, and practice” (Giroux 2010:163).
In other words, Freire was as critical of the Left as he was of the
Right. Moreover he insisted that students incessantly criticize his
ideas in order to develop better theory and praxis. Said Macedo, “A
humanizing pedagogy . . .must attempt to create educational structures
that would enable . . .student to equip themselves with the necessary
critical tools to unveil the root causes of oppression, including the
teachers’ complicity with the very structures from which they reap
benefits and privileges” (Freire 2004:xx).
*A Rigorous Detour through Marx is Essential*
Despite homage to Freire, Dr. Farmer has vigorously renounced Marxist
approaches for diagnosing and transforming the world. In a text from the
bestselling New York Times book, “Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest
of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World”, Kidder writes of
Dr. Farmer, “He had studied the world’s ideologies. . . . .But years ago
he’d concluded that Marxism wouldn’t answer the questions posed by the
suffering he encountered in Haiti. And he had quarrels with the Marxists
he’d read: ‘What I don’t like about Marxist literature is what I don’t
like about academic pursuits–and isn’t that what Marxism is, now? In
general, the arrogance, the petty infighting, the dishonesty, the desire
for self-promotion, the orthodoxy: I can’t stand the orthodoxy, and I’ll
bet that’s one reason that science did not flourish in the former Soviet
Union.’
Like Kim, Farmer’s assertions distort Freire’s essential message. In
Freire’s final publication, a posthumous collection of letters titled,
/“Pedagogy of Indignation/, published in 2004, Freire’s colleague
Donaldo Macedo puts the issue succinctly, “. . . . one cannot understand
Freire’s theories without taking a rigorous detour through a Marxist
analysis, and [any] offhand dismissal of Marx is nothing more than a
vain attempt to remove the sociohistorical context that grounds
/Pedagogy of the Oppressed/” (Freire 2004:xiv-xv). Macedo underscores
that “the misunderstanding, even by those who claim to be Freirean, is
not innocent. It allows many liberal educators to appropriate selective
aspects of Freire’s theory and practice it as a badge of progressiveness
while conveniently dismissing or ignoring the ‘Marxist perspectives’
that would question their complicity with the very structures that
created human misery in the first place” (Freire 2004:xvi).
*Standing Alone*
In fact, to be a Freirean is to be prepared to stand alone. As Giroux
notes, “Academics who assume the role of public intellectuals must
function within institutions, in part, as an exile, as someone who
raises uncomfortable questions, makes authority responsible, encourages
thoughtful exchanges, connects knowledge to the wider society, and
addresses important social issues” (Giroux 2010:101).
One who often stands alone is Ezili Danto, Founder and President of the
Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network. She is an organic intellectual and
artist who was born in Port au Prince. Her organization once awarded a
medal to Paul Farmer, but today she is one of Dr. Farmer’s most vocal
critics. Danto cites Freire to inform her practice, choosing a quote to
countermand Farmer’s focus on “true charity” work. Here is the quote,
“Transformation is only valid if it is carried out with the people, not
for them. Liberation is like a childbirth, and a painful one. The person
who emerges is a new person: no longer either oppressor or oppressed,
but a person in the process of achieving freedom. It is only the
oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors” (from
Freire 1970).
In his recent book, /The Death of the Liberal Class/, (Hedges 2010),
Hedges says that “the liberal class was always compromised by its
embrace of the power elite, as well as its deep hostility to American
radicals.” He goes further, arguing that “the corporate coup d’etat [of
the United States] is complete [and] we must not waste our time trying
to reform or appeal to systems of power (Hedges 2010:193). He quotes
social activist Norman Finkelstein, fired from DePaul University for his
public praxis: “There are two sets of principles. They are the
principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and
justice. If you pursue truth and justice, it will always mean a
diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege it
will always be at the expense of truth and justice (Hedges 2010:36).
*Denouncing and Announcing *
In his last publication, the posthumous /Pedagogy of Indignation/
(2004), Freire still spoke of the revolutionary fight: “Denouncing and
announcing, when part of the process of critically reading he world,
give birth to the dream for which one fights. This dream or vision,
whose profile becomes clear in the process of critically analyzing the
reality one denounces, is a practice that transforms society, just as
the drawings of a unit factory worker. . .makes possible the actual
manufacturing of the unit” (Freire 2004: 18).
Yes, poverty must be vanquished. And structural violence, eliminated.
However, how if at all, are the curers committing structural violence
themselves? How can we achieve health and liberation without naming and
renaming the world theoretically, over and over, on higher planes of
action and reflection, ad infin? When we do, we more clearly recognize
that poverty is part of a darker constellation of forces that resists
being fully named. And we understand that violence is a cultural
phenomenon as much as it is material, having murky roots in necrophilic
matter. As Giroux argues, “America needs to talk more about how and why
violence is so central to its national identity, what it might mean to
address this educationally and tackle the necessity of understanding
this collective pathology of violence not just through psychological and
isolated personal narratives, but through the wider ideological and
structural forces that both produce such violence and are sustained by
it (Giroux 2012).
*Studying Up*
/“In a situation of manipulation, the Left is almost always tempted by a
‘quick return to power,’ forgets the necessity of joining with the
oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible
‘dialogue’ with the dominant elites. It ends by being manipulated by
these elites, and not infrequently falls into the elitist game, which it
calls ‘realism.’”/
*/Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed/*/, p. 146/
In short, there is a major conflict (mostly unreported in the
anthropology literature) between two leading Leftist intellectuals on
Haitian health and politics, Paul Farmer and Ezili Danto. Both cite
Paulo Freire to justify their positions. Clearly, an independent
assessment to ascertain the strength of their respective arguments is
called for. As anthropologist Victor Braitberg said, “I don’t think we
(anthropologists) really understand the sociocultural impact and the
broader political-economic dynamics that are bound up with Paul Farmer’s
work and PIH more generally. I think it would be worthwhile to
critically and ethnographically examine the impact that this
organization is having in the Haitian context as well as the other
contexts where they operate. What is the relationship of PIH to local
organizations, other NGOs, the public health institutions of the
country, etc. In other words, what is the political-economy of Paul
Farmer and PIH in the context of international health as a global field
of actors with competing interests where, like it or not, poor sick
people are often defacto symbolic and economic capital on a global
stage.” One must ask why are so many anthropologists reluctant to
investigate the claims?
Drs. Farmer and Kim fight gallantly for their patients and fight hard
against cold and heartless governments, bureaucracies and ideologies to
improve the lives of a great many people. They are incredible in so many
ways. But so are thousands of other MDs and thousands of other social
scientists whose work is always under scientific scrutiny, as it must
be. And so are the protestors of Occupy Wall Street whose message is
resistance against some of the very same actors and corporations who
give such generous support to Partners in Health.
Freire was adamant about the fundamental importance of Marx. In one of
its last video interviews, Paulo Freire says he always comes back to
Marx in his work with the people of the slums” (see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyaZAWIr1I
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyaZAWIr1I> )
/*Brian McKenna* is an anthropologist who teaches at the University of
Michigan-Dearborn and can be reached at [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>/
/*Han Baer* is also an anthropologist and a faculty member at the
//University of Melbourne. His email is: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>/
*REFERENCES*
Adorno, Theodor W. 1998 [1963] /Critical Models: Interventions and
Catchwords/. New York: Columbia University Press.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1981 [1951] /Negative Dialectics/. New York: Continuum.
Baer, Hans. 2001. Review of ‘Jim Yong Kim et al’s Dying for Growth:
Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor.” /Medical Anthropology
Quarterly/ 15(1)126-127, March.
BBC. 2012. “New World Bank chief to focus on ‘market-based’ growth,”
April 17. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17737660
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17737660>
Bond, Patrick. 2012. “Why Jim Kim Should Resign from the World Bank,”
/Counterpunch/, April 16. See:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/16/why-jim-kim-should-resign-from-the-world-bank/
<See:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/16/why-jim-kim-should-resign-from-the-world-bank/>
Danto, Ezili. 2011. “Paul Farmer is not a god but the Face of the
UN/USAID/World Bank.” Haiti News Blog. August 27.
See: http://www.ezilidanto.com/zili/2011/08/paul-farmer-is-not-a-god/
<See: http://www.ezilidanto.com/zili/2011/08/paul-farmer-is-not-a-god/>
Derman, Bill 2012. “The Bank and Gibe 3.” /Environmental Anthropology
Listserv/. July 18.
Dubal, Sam. 2012. “Renouncing Paul Farmer: A Desperate Plea for Radical
Political Medicine.” Being Ethical in an Unethical World Blog. May 27.
See:
http://samdubal.blogspot.com/2012/05/renouncing-paul-farmer-desperate-plea.html
<http://samdubal.blogspot.com/2012/05/renouncing-paul-farmer-desperate-plea.html>
Ervin, Alexander M. 2005. /Applied Anthropology: Tools and Perspectives
for Contemporary Practice./ Boston:Pearson.
Farmer, Paul, 1995. “Medicine and Social Justice.” America, The National
Catholic Weekly. July 15. See:
/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12080/
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12080>
Farmer, Paul and John Gershman. 2012. “Jim Kim’s humility would serve
World Bank well,” Washington Post. April 11. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kims-smart-stance-on-growth/2012/04/11/gIQA6SqABT_story.html
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kims-smart-stance-on-growth/2012/04/11/gIQA6SqABT_story.html>
Freire, Paulo. 1970. /Pedagogy of the Oppressed/. New York: Seabury Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1994. /Pedagogy of Indignation/. Boulder:Paradigm.
Giroux, Henry. 2012 “Beyond the Politics of the Big Lie: The Education
Deficit and the New Authoritarianism.” Truthout, June 26. See:
http://philosophers.posterous.com/beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie
<http://philosophers.posterous.com/beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie>
Giroux, Henry. 2010. /On Critical Pedagogy/. New York:Continuum.
Harvey, David. 2010. /The Enigma of Capital/. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hedges, Chris. 2010. /Death of the Liberal Class/. New York:Nation Books.
Hodge, G. Derrick. 2011. “Walking the Line between Accommodation and
Transformation: Evaluating the Continuing Career of Jim Yong Kim,”
/American Anthropologist/, 113(1):148-149, March.
Kidder, Tracy. 2009. /Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul
Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World/. New York:Random House.
Kidder, Tracy. 2010. “Paul farmer is revolutionizing medicine.” /The
Daily Beast/. May 5. See:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/06/paul-farmer-is-revolutionizing-medicine.html
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/06/paul-farmer-is-revolutionizing-medicine.html>
Kim, Jim Yong et al., 2000. /Dying for Growth/*.* Monroe, Maine:Common
Courage Press.
McKenna, Brian. 2012. “Slave Doctors for Capitalism, How Medical Schools
Fight Democracy.” /CounterPunch/. June 12.
See:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/12/slave-doctors-for-capitalism/
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/12/slave-doctors-for-capitalism/>
Moyers, Bill. 2009. Bill Moyers Journal. September 11. See:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09112009/transcript3.html
<http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09112009/transcript3.html>
Partners in Health Annual Report. 2011. See:
http://parthealth.3cdn.net/283c794b2e83589919_b4m62spy6.pdf
<http://parthealth.3cdn.net/283c794b2e83589919_b4m62spy6.pdf>
Ready, Tinker. 2001. “A Cure for Complacency.” Boston Phoenix. March 2.
See:
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/00644215.htm
Rothfeld, Becca. 2012 “Rothfeld Present Thought,” /The Dartmouth/. July 17.
http://thedartmouth.com/2012/07/17/opinion/rothfeld
Wacquant, Loic. 2004. Response to Paul Farmer in Anthropology of
Structural Violence” by Paul Farmer. Current Anthropology 45(3):322.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#4662): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/4662
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79108998/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
