On David Brooks, Haiti, and "Intrusive Paternalism"

David Brooks' most recent Sunday New York Times column has caused a firestorm in liberal and progressive circles. Partly a diatribe against the "backwardness" of Haitian culture, partly an attack on micro-lending and anti-poverty programs, Brooks' article is sure to offend just about everyone. But what's received comparatively little attention is Brooks' explicit call for a new form of "intrusive paternalism". The ideology of paternalism figures prominently in most versions of political thought, but is rarely discussed openly. After all, paternalism is usually considered something of a pejorative term, at least in the contemporary United times. That Brooks is willing to invoke paternalism (twice!) in his essay is somewhat remarkable.

Brooks argues for "replac[ing] parts of the local [Haitian] culture with a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement — involving everything from new child-rearing practices to stricter schools to better job performance." According to Brooks, such a system would modeled after programs like the American "No Excuses" charter schools network, known for their strict disciplinarian classrooms and rigid standards-driven performance measures. Extrapolate that model across other social institutions and you have some idea of the massive cultural intervention Brooks has in mind.

It's no accident that, for Brooks, the most repressive wing of the charter school movement emerges as a template for running society. After all, by calling for paternalistic governance (literally, "government as by a father over his children") Brooks is essentially demanding that Haitians be treated as (school)children by a parental state.

The concept of paternalism dates back at least to the thinking of 1st century Roman philosopher Arius Didymus, who claimed that the father should exercise absolute power over his children just as the king rules over his minions. Later, paternalism was embraced by old-guard monarchists writing amidst the emerging Western European democracies. Outspoken opponent of the French Revolution Louise Ambriose argued that the state should mirror familial relations, with the sovereign inscribed as the father and his subjects, children.

So why have liberals and progressives been so reluctant to call out Brooks' defense of "intrusive paternalism"? Perhaps it's because they are themselves adherants to their own brand of of intrusive paternalism. After all, since the 19th century paternalism has been reclaimed (in practice if not in name) by the Left/liberal camp under the guise of the welfare state. Whatever its accomplishments may be, the welfare state remains -- in the final analysis -- a mechanism of social control. The Left/liberal vision for Haiti may be less blatantly cruel than Brooks' model but it is no less paternalistic (or intrusive!)

It should also be no surprise that three former US presidents, in a rare joint appearance, could agree on the necessity of rebuilding the Haitian state, with heavy US involvement. For would-be paternalistic rulers, disaster represents an unique opportunity. Much like the father who reasserts his authority with an even heavier hand after his kid gets into trouble, Haiti's catacylsmic earthquake represents a perverse opportunity for a new round of intervention (couched as "aid"). It's already become clear that "humanitarian" efforts and the militarization of Port-au-Prince are part of the same interventionist project. Even if we assume good intentions, such paternalistic intrusion -- whether cloaked by liberal or by conservative rhetoric -- is likely to exacerbate Haiti's problems.

Throughout its history, whether suffering under the heel of a colonial power, an occupying army, or a homegrown dictator, Haiti's problems stem from too much paternalism, not too little. How might Haitains throw off the yoke of paternalistic social relations? In her essay "Down With Childhood!" the feminist critic Shulamith Firestone offers some possibilities. Firestone argues passionately against the very concept of childhood, writing "The myth of childhood flourishes so widely not because it satisfies the needs of children, but because it satisfies the needs of adults...Children are repressed at every waking minute! Childhood is hell!" While kinder parenting can't hurt, true freedom hinges on the abolition of childhood as such.

Still make no mistake: This is not a call for a new Haitain nationalism. For Haitians to cast off the old father and replace him with a friendlier one in a moment of Nietzschian ressentiment would only reinscribe the basic family unit. To call for an end to to paternalism is to explode the category of child, both in the family and in the larger social sphere. This is the task at hand.