What Slaveholders Think
Research on Modern Slavery tends to focus on the prevalence of the crime and the effectiveness of initiatives meant to curtail it. In “What Slaveholders Think” (2017), Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick shines a light on those that hold slaves and the beliefs that guide them.
The author relies on extensive fieldwork in India to explain the systemic elements and cultural beliefs that underlie extensive slavery in in this region. Choi-Fitzpatrick’s working definition of slavery establishes a direct relationship with bonded labor and identifies as its key elements financial distress, emotional manipulation, illegality, and paternalism.
Modern slavery occurs when the “abuse of a position of vulnerability and the absence of a reasonable alternative combine in such a way to undermine voluntary choice dramatically, effectively establishing the bonded labor agreement as the entry point into contemporary slavery.”
There are four key elements presented in the book that I would like to highlight.
First, social norms play a significant role in perpetuating Modern Slavery. As such, slavery can be understood as a “culturally embedded social fact” in which slaveholders are not violating local norms.
I would be curious to see what more recent fieldwork would find in terms of local norm compliance and sociocultural realities in these settings. How can we tell if the imperative social norm continues to allow this behavior? Gerald Mackie’s research provides an initial framework for measuring social norms, and could be helpful in understand social norm change in this context. Additionally, it is important to note social norm compliance also greatly depends on the perceived legitimacy of the norm and the expectation of others to comply with it — what if what is at play here is not that slavery does not violate a social norm but rather that the norm that does effectively forbid it is perceived as illegitimate. Moreover, what if slaveholders are actually violating a social norm and have found cognitive ways to justify this breach? Albert Bandura has done extensive research on how moral agency relates to our social environment and how individuals are able to disengage from social codes and self-justify violations of norms.
Second, the author applies political process theory to Modern Slavery in order to describe how slaveholders respond to destabilizing changes in their environment. Under this framework, slaveholders are a social movement target that continuously assess risks, resources, and opportunities when deciding how to react to elements that put at risk their status quo. When their economic and cultural model is threatened by outside forces (including legislative changes, union mobilizing, or the progressive fracturing of the caste system), slaveholders evaluate their options and the costs of pursuing each response and proceed by either a) preemption or reducing the issue, b) counter-mobilizing if they have the political allies to do so, c) repression, d) abandoning the targeted behavior, and e) persisting in the targeted activity. Although the typology can be helpful for categorizing broad trends and behaviors, I find it difficult to apply this rational actor model in which the slaveholder calculates costs and benefits before making a decision to conditions that are plagued with nuance and localized factors of the response.
Third, we need to begin to see the continuums between good and evil. Slaveholders, like other oppressors or human rights violators, are not “monsters”. This by no means justifies their behavior nor does it imply that slaveholding is acceptable, OK, appropriate, etc. Rather, it places this behavior squarely in the complex spectrum of human actions that require a deeper understanding if we are to effectively and sustainably eliminate it. If we continue to believe that slaveholders are “extra-ordinary” in the literal sense of the word, or are inhuman, we fail to see not only what incentives and interests shape their actions, but also how similar we may be to them.
“ If rights violators are men and women, rather than monsters, then we must ask new sets of questions about our own selves, [and] our own involvement in systems of exploitation and discrimination.”
Fourth, the author highlights the importance of conceptualizing systemic change as a key part of how we define “freedom”. The cycle of Modern Slavery compounds over time through accrual of additional debt, the absence of alternatives, and a deeply embedded sense of duty that is rooted in the caste system.
“Attempts to understand these patterns using only resources provided by economic theories will miss the deeper relational fabric used to stage together this socioeconomic tapestry…. The economics of vulnerability are stark, but economics alone is insufficient to describe the complex interplay of debt and duty at work.”
According to Choi-Fitzpatrick, caste continues to provide a framework that maintains interpersonal and intergroup inequality. Hence, caste serves as a way to justify the behavior of oppressors, who interpret their role as one of protection over the bonded laborers who are seen to have a duty to work for them in exchange of food and lodging. In this context, the author finds that the emancipation of the workers is perceived not only as a threat to their labor pool, but also as a broader threat to a status quo that depends on social bonds that are slowly eroding. A relevant consequence of this cultural element is that what “freedom” means will also depend on the possibilities afforded in this environment: there are “significant pre-existing cultural conditions that contribute to the dehumanization before, during, and after emancipation. Bluntly put, vulnerability persists despite technical emancipation.”
If this characterization is to be taken seriously, anti-slavery efforts need to transform the systems and structures that make it possible. Although our gut reaction is to “free the slaves” it is important to take stock of what that actually entails. The author goes on to identify 11 paths out of slavery: rescue, community mobilization, rebellion, erosion of the political economy, voluntary manumission, debt repayment, escape, discard, death, legal emancipation, and passing.
Overall, overcoming Modern Slavery will require providing alternate livelihoods for survivors and perpetrators, and an alternative social structure that enables this new status quo. For this to take place, social adaptation and a constant spirit of innovation and evolution is necessary. Choi-Fitzpatrick’s research highlights the complexities involved in curtailing this crime and allows us to better understand the beliefs and behaviors of slaveholders in rural India.
