Al Gore. A name popularly associated with the much needed efforts to protect the Earth. He was an environmental activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His documentary- An Inconvenient Truth, won appraisals and even an Academy Award. The Live Earth Concert in 2007 also aimed to spread the message of saving the Earth with the aid of celebrities performing and spreading the message. Much controversies and debates had rose from the two significant events. Many had pointed out that the rubbish and litter that was left behind by the spectators of the concert and the massive use of energy to support the concert are both ironic to Al Gore’s message of saving the Earth. The New York Times also reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film. They argued that some of Al Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. Conflicting viewpoints included the climate changes, effects on the melting of ice sheets and the relationship between temperatures and carbon dioxide which led to global warming. These, inevitably undermined the activist’s reputation and more significantly, his aims. Whatever the case, Al Gore’s attempts should be applauded. He managed to cause an impact on the global community and set them thinking about their ways of life-exactly what a sociologist wanted!
Sernau’s reading on “How much can a planet take” and “Promotheus’ fire or Pandora’s Box” already emphasized how capitalism created an ever growing demand of production and the ever going on search for efficient or new ways and new resources to satisfy that demand. The process had led to huge wastage of resources such as plastic and electronic materials which cannot be easily recycled, leading to the destruction of our ecology, and thus, the Earth. Hence, it can be seen that the sociologist’s concerns and aims matched that of Al Gore’s. Thus, we should be grateful that the former vice-president of US managed to convey our concerns to the global population. However, there is a subtle difference between the concerns of the sociologist and Al Gore. The sociologist would believe that the destruction of our habitat would be due to the capitalist belief that the nature is like a resource (an object) which they could exploit, just like what they did to humans too. A sociologist would argue that the poorer nations tended to be the ones contributing to the most destruction as they have no other resources to depend on. Both points were not presented by Al Gore.
However, looking back on Al Gore’s background, he came from a fairly well-to-do family. He had reputable parents and holds a degree from Harvard University. He must be fairly rich to run electorate campaigns. Furthermore, he was born in the US-a country that has long passed the age of the Industrial Revolution where industries contributed most to massive pollution of waters and the air, as seen presently in China. Al Gore and those from developed countries, all thus had the privilege to be concerned about the ecology. The developing nations or those engaging in industrialization do not have this privilege as their path to economic development or even survival would be threatened. They’ll never be able to catch up with the West, which they looked upon with envy and jealousy. So why would they compromise development with environment? This is what Marx termed as the greed of capitalism.
The greed of one to wealth accumulation blinded him from the problems of the ecology which he derives his basic resources from. The painful awareness of the difference between the poor nations and the rich compelled the poor to catch up, using whatever means, to satisfy their greed and is seen as the end to their misery. In this case, how would The Earth Summit and similar programmes be effective when the focus is only on reducing the process of destruction without detailed look into the context of the developing nations? How would preservation of the ecology be effective without eradicating capitalism? To ask the developing nations to stop exploiting the ecology is equivalent to asking the super rich in the developed countries to stop using cars, plastics, electronics materials etc. The rich had found it difficult to compromise their ways of living, so why is it that the poor must do so? To just simply point out the devastating impacts we had done to the Earth, like in the case of Al Gore, and getting people to stop their ways of life which contributed to destruction is not enough. We need to change the mindset of the people on what is deemed as their ideal standards of living and getting them to reflect what is really necessary for them so that they minimizes exploitation of the nature. For the developing nations, we have to help them find better means of production that minimizes destruction of the nature and provide them with the resources and knowledge to acquire and use such means of production. With technology came greater means to destroy the nature, yet as technology is created by the needs of humans, technology can be used to save the Earth too. It only depends on the individuals’ purpose and willingness to achieve the aim. Saving the Earth needs global concerted efforts, but it cannot be achieved if exploitation of the poor is still largely ignored.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Technology & Global Society: When Technology & Globalization meets Terrorism…
Terrorism has been around for centuries. Feudal lords used it as a means to put off opponents and gain resources. Hitler and Stalin used terrorism to wipe out opponents and control the people. However, terrorism first shocked the whole world when the Twin Towers collapsed in New York City in 2001. The formidable America was undermined. The horror and fear gripped people from different nations as the media from all over the world rushed to report, and perhaps exaggerate their own views, on the incident. People believed, or have been politically and socially engineered to believe, that it was the act of the notorious Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda. With that, the US justified itself into an invasion of Afghanistan, where they believed Osama is hiding and to remove the Taliban regime of Afghanistan too.
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Population & Health: Foreigners working in Singapore- a contract which benefits both?
The Singapore government has always stressed that Singapore is a “tiny little red dot” that has no natural resources and that our most valuable resource is the people. Thus they justified that we have to move towards a knowledge- based economy to remain competitive in the world wide economy. However, Singapore has shown a disappointing trend of decreasing birthrates- with a fertility rate of merely 1.29 in mid 2008. The government, on the basis that we lack sufficient number of talents due to the declining birthrates, justified itself for easing migration rules, allowing the influx of foreigners to gain access to our tiny little land so as to fill the missing gaps Singaporeans created ( due to low birth rates and thus less talents produced). I termed the new trend of increased foreigners in Singapore as a contract as I believe that (in a more depressing sense) both the foreigners and Singaporeans are just out to make use of each other. For Singapore, obviously the influx of foreigners can fill the voids of low-wage jobs, which Singaporeans refused to do, and of those of the higher end jobs like science research, which Singaporeans lacked the specialized knowledge as compared to the foreigners. For the foreigners, Singapore seemed to be an attractive stepping stone which they can: get jobs at a higher wage, gain access to the better education system here to improve their own knowledge and thus get a better job, avoid high taxation, political and social strife and much more. And when they fulfilled their aspirations, perhaps, they’ll just pack and leave to search for even better prospects that could come along with their acquired better status. It seemed to be a contract that worked for both, yet I doubt it is actually “very beneficial”.
Due to view of knowledge as a valuable resource worldwide and perhaps also our PAP’s successful policies, education levels had increased tremendously as compared to the colonial times. Singaporeans are now equipped with knowledge and skills to escape from menial labor jobs. However, the country still needs people who are willing to do menial jobs in the factories, construction sites etc. Coupled with the increased acceptance of women into the workforce (to make up for the lack of labor too), domestic helpers are also needed to help Singaporean women juggle with the demands of an employee and a housewife. Thus, we see the trend of Filipinos and Indonesians working as maids. Bangladeshis and people from China filled up the jobs at the factories and construction sites. On the surface, it seemed well- jobs are filled so that the economy functions as usual and Singaporeans, being “multiracial”, should be able to tolerate and accept these foreigners. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite. We were enlightened by the media of horrifying maid abuses that shocked us. We, Singaporeans, thought to be a “civil society” by our government abusing maids like barbarians. Maids, thought to be docile, abuses our infants and elderly. Foreigner male workers raped our women, sometimes even killing them. Suddenly Orchard Road, supposedly for the “higher-class” to shop, became filled with loud chatter and giggles of Filipinos. Suddenly, our neighborhood grass patches began to be filled with Bangladeshis drinking, littering and talking loudly till the middle of the night. Suddenly, the public transport systems are filled with loud Chinese conversations with unfamiliar accents and slangs. All to the irritation of Singaporeans. Hence, we tend to view these “intruders” in negative light. We do not like them. We stereotype them. We make jokes out of them. So much for being “civil” and “multiracial”.
Sadly, actually these foreigners may hold white-collar jobs equivalent as us, self-assumed “superiors” over the foreigners. Yet, they are exploited to do “dirty” jobs, jobs of a lower status than us. They are not viewed as Singaporeans socially, or lawfully. They hold temporary work permits, which means they are denied the rights and benefits of a citizen. They are not provided with subsidies in, especially healthcare, when they are exposed to the more demanding menial and dangerous jobs. Worse, they receive much lower salaries too. They, left their closed ones for our country, tolling long hours for meager salaries. They, appearing in every aspect of our lives, using and eating the similar things we do, are however denied basic rights, social acceptance and government assistance. Even if they are not physically hurt by their jobs or our acts, how we ostracized them will undeniably hurt their psychological health.
Perhaps, it is our fault. Fault of the human nature to believe in ethnocentrism, believing that we are “superior” and refusal to step out of our own comfort zone to accept their differences. It may be the fault of the forces of globalization and capitalism too. Yet, less explicitly, there may be too much assumption on the part of the Singapore government that we can accept and integrate the foreigners into our lives (or was it a deliberate left-out so that we can justify the exploiting the foreigners?). In any sense, it is not a win-win contract. It is a lose-win contract with the foreigners at the losing end due to our exploitation and ostracizing of them.
Due to view of knowledge as a valuable resource worldwide and perhaps also our PAP’s successful policies, education levels had increased tremendously as compared to the colonial times. Singaporeans are now equipped with knowledge and skills to escape from menial labor jobs. However, the country still needs people who are willing to do menial jobs in the factories, construction sites etc. Coupled with the increased acceptance of women into the workforce (to make up for the lack of labor too), domestic helpers are also needed to help Singaporean women juggle with the demands of an employee and a housewife. Thus, we see the trend of Filipinos and Indonesians working as maids. Bangladeshis and people from China filled up the jobs at the factories and construction sites. On the surface, it seemed well- jobs are filled so that the economy functions as usual and Singaporeans, being “multiracial”, should be able to tolerate and accept these foreigners. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite. We were enlightened by the media of horrifying maid abuses that shocked us. We, Singaporeans, thought to be a “civil society” by our government abusing maids like barbarians. Maids, thought to be docile, abuses our infants and elderly. Foreigner male workers raped our women, sometimes even killing them. Suddenly Orchard Road, supposedly for the “higher-class” to shop, became filled with loud chatter and giggles of Filipinos. Suddenly, our neighborhood grass patches began to be filled with Bangladeshis drinking, littering and talking loudly till the middle of the night. Suddenly, the public transport systems are filled with loud Chinese conversations with unfamiliar accents and slangs. All to the irritation of Singaporeans. Hence, we tend to view these “intruders” in negative light. We do not like them. We stereotype them. We make jokes out of them. So much for being “civil” and “multiracial”.
Sadly, actually these foreigners may hold white-collar jobs equivalent as us, self-assumed “superiors” over the foreigners. Yet, they are exploited to do “dirty” jobs, jobs of a lower status than us. They are not viewed as Singaporeans socially, or lawfully. They hold temporary work permits, which means they are denied the rights and benefits of a citizen. They are not provided with subsidies in, especially healthcare, when they are exposed to the more demanding menial and dangerous jobs. Worse, they receive much lower salaries too. They, left their closed ones for our country, tolling long hours for meager salaries. They, appearing in every aspect of our lives, using and eating the similar things we do, are however denied basic rights, social acceptance and government assistance. Even if they are not physically hurt by their jobs or our acts, how we ostracized them will undeniably hurt their psychological health.
Perhaps, it is our fault. Fault of the human nature to believe in ethnocentrism, believing that we are “superior” and refusal to step out of our own comfort zone to accept their differences. It may be the fault of the forces of globalization and capitalism too. Yet, less explicitly, there may be too much assumption on the part of the Singapore government that we can accept and integrate the foreigners into our lives (or was it a deliberate left-out so that we can justify the exploiting the foreigners?). In any sense, it is not a win-win contract. It is a lose-win contract with the foreigners at the losing end due to our exploitation and ostracizing of them.
Urbanization: Tokyo- Urbanization solves all problems?
If Singapore was “extraordinary” (the term associated with it since it gained independence), I believe Japan, or more explicitly Tokyo, would be a “miracle” after World War Two. Japan was transformed into an economic superpower, second to the America, after the war. It was touted as the safest country with the lowest crime rates as compared to other industrialized nations, and Tokyo was considered relatively safe. It has one of the world’s fastest mode of transport- the bullet train. It is one of the leading countries in technology, games, manga, music and movies, and continuously exports its own culture via these means. Many attributed these successes to the policies implemented to General Macarthur, who was in charge of rebuilding Japan after the war. However, being skeptical, I doubt that Japan is so perfect and flawless. Hence, I’ll be looking at the pressing implications of urbanization on Japan’s megacity, Tokyo.
A capitalist market often comes along with urbanization. The market has no doubt done exceedingly well for Tokyo, transforming Japan into an economic superpower. However it contributed to the high suicide rates due to stress too. The Health Ministry report said 81 people committed suicide or tried to commit suicide because of stress at work in fiscal year 2007. Some of the workers had worked about 160 hours of overtime a month, it said. A typical work week in Japan is 40 hours. Fewer than half of workers take their paid annual leave; there is a mountainous 7.2 billion yen of unpaid overtime; paternity leave remains frowned upon; 41 per cent get less than six hours sleep; and working yourself to death is so ingrained that it is recognized by the courts and honored with a special word, karoshi. Worse, many Japanese regard suicide as a show of sincerity to expiate their shortcomings, and view it as an act that would restore honor (this partly arises from the samurai spirit and culture too) to their name, their family, or organization. Teenagers are not excluded from this too. Recently a 14 year old killed herself by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids, releasing noxious fumes into the air and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people from their homes. Teenagers commit suicides due to the competition to get into the prestigious University of Tokyo or largely because they were being bullied by classmates. Observers say the youngsters may have been taking their cues from the adults, since there is no “wrong” for the adults to commit suicide.
Tokyo is characterized by high costs of living and turning into “MacWorld” too- the teenagers are unduly concerned about acquiring branded stuffs like Gucci, Armani, Mac cosmetics and more. Prostitution has a benefit to young women. With just the sacrifice of their body and without much excessive labor, they can make a great amount of money. A young girl working behind the counters at a fast-food restaurant would make about seven or eight hundred yen an hour. In comparison, she could earn 40 to 50 times that amount by having sex, or even by just spending time, with an older man (Schreiber 84). The money is a significant appeal. Girls brought into police custody from a 1994 police round-up of several date clubs said, "they were not poverty-stricken, but wanted the money to buy expensive clothes" (Moffett, "Strange Moves" 30). In Japan, sex and sexual relations are not viewed as moral issues as they often are in the Western countries and in the United States in particular. Japanese have traditionally viewed sexual relations as a natural phenomenon, "like eating, to be enjoyed in its proper place" (Morrison 1). Thus, prostitution is widely accepted as a natural component and even a necessity in society. This "acceptance" of prostitution in Japanese society can be observed in their very relaxed laws against sex with children and prostitution, which says that it is legal in Tokyo for men to have sex with children as young as the age of twelve. Similarly, under an Antiprostitution Law in Japan, prostitution is deemed illegal, but in effect it is permitted to exist so long as authorities can control it (Morrison 3).
In all, it can be seen that suicide and teenage prostitutions have cultural roots and is coupled with relaxed laws on these two areas too. But it cannot be doubted that due to urbanization, it created a very competitive society in Tokyo where costs of living is extremely high too. To maintain livelihood, one has to keep his job. If everyone work long hours and remain competitive, every individual is compelled, willingly or unwillingly, to do so too, under peer pressure. And when one submits to pressure, it is not surprising that his will to live in a very stress environment is undermined. Due to globalization and trade, branded stuffs find its way to Tokyo too. They represented trend in the fashion-conscious state, thus it is no surprise teenagers are attracted to them. Yet, as teens, they do not have the monetary means to acquire these products. The capitalist system somehow encouraged an individualist character and fuels consumerism. Hence, teens may find nothing wrong to acquire something they wanted, even if it meant selling their bodies. Therefore, though urbanization brought benefits to Japan, it contributed to issues that are intertwined with other factors, and these issues may not be healthy in the views of others. Japan, is not free of problems due to urbanization too.
References:
· “Suicide rate takes a worrisome jump”. Edwin Karmiol. 1999. http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/AH04Dh01.html
· “Suicides in Japan directly linked to work-related stress increases”. MARI YAMAGUCHI.2008. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4923254
· “Overworked Japanese feel the strain”. Deborah Cameron. 2006. http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=55
· “Prostitution in Japan: A Young Body Worth a Profit”. Nguyet Thu Nguyen. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/nnguyen/cof.html
· “Spate of ‘detergent suicides’ hit Japan”. 2008. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/detergent.suicide/index.html
A capitalist market often comes along with urbanization. The market has no doubt done exceedingly well for Tokyo, transforming Japan into an economic superpower. However it contributed to the high suicide rates due to stress too. The Health Ministry report said 81 people committed suicide or tried to commit suicide because of stress at work in fiscal year 2007. Some of the workers had worked about 160 hours of overtime a month, it said. A typical work week in Japan is 40 hours. Fewer than half of workers take their paid annual leave; there is a mountainous 7.2 billion yen of unpaid overtime; paternity leave remains frowned upon; 41 per cent get less than six hours sleep; and working yourself to death is so ingrained that it is recognized by the courts and honored with a special word, karoshi. Worse, many Japanese regard suicide as a show of sincerity to expiate their shortcomings, and view it as an act that would restore honor (this partly arises from the samurai spirit and culture too) to their name, their family, or organization. Teenagers are not excluded from this too. Recently a 14 year old killed herself by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids, releasing noxious fumes into the air and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people from their homes. Teenagers commit suicides due to the competition to get into the prestigious University of Tokyo or largely because they were being bullied by classmates. Observers say the youngsters may have been taking their cues from the adults, since there is no “wrong” for the adults to commit suicide.
Tokyo is characterized by high costs of living and turning into “MacWorld” too- the teenagers are unduly concerned about acquiring branded stuffs like Gucci, Armani, Mac cosmetics and more. Prostitution has a benefit to young women. With just the sacrifice of their body and without much excessive labor, they can make a great amount of money. A young girl working behind the counters at a fast-food restaurant would make about seven or eight hundred yen an hour. In comparison, she could earn 40 to 50 times that amount by having sex, or even by just spending time, with an older man (Schreiber 84). The money is a significant appeal. Girls brought into police custody from a 1994 police round-up of several date clubs said, "they were not poverty-stricken, but wanted the money to buy expensive clothes" (Moffett, "Strange Moves" 30). In Japan, sex and sexual relations are not viewed as moral issues as they often are in the Western countries and in the United States in particular. Japanese have traditionally viewed sexual relations as a natural phenomenon, "like eating, to be enjoyed in its proper place" (Morrison 1). Thus, prostitution is widely accepted as a natural component and even a necessity in society. This "acceptance" of prostitution in Japanese society can be observed in their very relaxed laws against sex with children and prostitution, which says that it is legal in Tokyo for men to have sex with children as young as the age of twelve. Similarly, under an Antiprostitution Law in Japan, prostitution is deemed illegal, but in effect it is permitted to exist so long as authorities can control it (Morrison 3).
In all, it can be seen that suicide and teenage prostitutions have cultural roots and is coupled with relaxed laws on these two areas too. But it cannot be doubted that due to urbanization, it created a very competitive society in Tokyo where costs of living is extremely high too. To maintain livelihood, one has to keep his job. If everyone work long hours and remain competitive, every individual is compelled, willingly or unwillingly, to do so too, under peer pressure. And when one submits to pressure, it is not surprising that his will to live in a very stress environment is undermined. Due to globalization and trade, branded stuffs find its way to Tokyo too. They represented trend in the fashion-conscious state, thus it is no surprise teenagers are attracted to them. Yet, as teens, they do not have the monetary means to acquire these products. The capitalist system somehow encouraged an individualist character and fuels consumerism. Hence, teens may find nothing wrong to acquire something they wanted, even if it meant selling their bodies. Therefore, though urbanization brought benefits to Japan, it contributed to issues that are intertwined with other factors, and these issues may not be healthy in the views of others. Japan, is not free of problems due to urbanization too.
References:
· “Suicide rate takes a worrisome jump”. Edwin Karmiol. 1999. http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/AH04Dh01.html
· “Suicides in Japan directly linked to work-related stress increases”. MARI YAMAGUCHI.2008. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4923254
· “Overworked Japanese feel the strain”. Deborah Cameron. 2006. http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=55
· “Prostitution in Japan: A Young Body Worth a Profit”. Nguyet Thu Nguyen. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/nnguyen/cof.html
· “Spate of ‘detergent suicides’ hit Japan”. 2008. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/detergent.suicide/index.html
Globalized identity: Homosexuals, do they have a commonly accepted identity?
Some argued that due to globalization, local and traditional cultures are giving way to the Western liberalist ideals. Western ideas may, and normally does, come into conflict with religious and traditional beliefs. Hence, these Western influences may be seen as undesirable and as a threat to one’s identity. However, in my opinion, if globalization is eroding cultures worldwide, it is not putting a stop to our long disdain against the homosexuals. I also feel that the homosexuals, being ostracized and discriminated against, do not really have an identity.
I do not deny that due to the spread of Western ideas such as democracy, freedom of choice and freedom of speech, we are more willing to accept the homosexuals. We are enlightened by psychologists that there is nothing wrong being a homosexual. But, I feel, that does not mean we are integrating them in our lives. We still tend to stereotype them, viewed that they are “unnatural” and make jokes about them. In social, political and religious aspects, we are still denying them an identity as long as we do not view them as equals to heterosexuals. To me, discriminating against them is no difference from the unequal treatment resulting from racial discrimination. True, homosexuals may have good economic status, received good education and better opportunities than compared to, maybe, the minorities in a country, but they are not viewed as the “normal” people that fall into the common social norms. They are still marginalized in the three aspects I mentioned above. If they have an identity, it would be a hybrid of the resistance and project identity.
The two largest religions around the world, Islam and Christianity, do not accept homosexuals- they are the outcasts, just like those in the Indian caste system. The Bible state specifically that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). The Islamic Sharia laws, too, view homosexuality as a crime and is forbidden in most Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is also not encouraged in most religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and more. Those who firmly believe in their religions will not accept the homosexuals. They are socialized by religions to reject the homosexuals.
The rejection of homosexuals can be further justified, and hence encouraged, via political laws. In Singapore, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes homosexual sex. Homosexuals are also denied the right to purchase public houses since same-sex marriage is banned in Singapore. The Indian Penal Code, too, punishes anyone who has voluntarily committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (now, a homosexual is regarded as an equal to an animal here, so a homosexual is inferior being?). In Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Nigeria and Sudan, same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty. Even if death penalty is not legitimized in the countries, the government can incorporate jail terms, fines or even whipping as punishment. In the Taliban era, public execution is legitimized (homosexuals may be punished by letting a wall collapse onto them. If they survive the impact after 30 mins, they are deemed forgiven and given treatment). Homosexuals are also legally persecuted in communist China. Such laws further justify (if religion did not) the act of ostracizing and discrimination against the homosexuals. The laws further enhanced our beliefs that the homosexuals are the “untouchables”, and deserved to be treated unfairly.
Professor mentioned that religion and politics themselves serve as very powerful tools to legitimize the “correct” identity, and this identity can be further used to justify their acts. In dealing with homosexuals, politics and religions are intertwined, thus creating an even more powerful force to justify our unfair treatment towards the homosexuals. This may be the main reason why we are unwilling to integrate the homosexuals in our social lives. We think it is “right” to view them as weirdos, unnatural beings, and thus denying them the right to be our equals (equal here do not mean allowing positive discrimination, it just means as a “normal” human to me).
Hence, even though homosexuals have better opportunities in some countries (namely the Western countries which are more willing to acknowledge the rights of homosexuals to live as equals), socially, they are still very deprived of the freedom to live like a “normal” person. To me, this is not much difference to say the minorities or even the terrorists, because it is basically the same fundamental deprivation- the right to be treated as equal, “normal” or “the majority” that caused them to be without a recognized and approved identity.
References:
Ø The Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Christian Church. Emily Holland. http://www.fatalistic.net/kouri/discrim.html
Ø Indian Penal Code. http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S377.htm
I do not deny that due to the spread of Western ideas such as democracy, freedom of choice and freedom of speech, we are more willing to accept the homosexuals. We are enlightened by psychologists that there is nothing wrong being a homosexual. But, I feel, that does not mean we are integrating them in our lives. We still tend to stereotype them, viewed that they are “unnatural” and make jokes about them. In social, political and religious aspects, we are still denying them an identity as long as we do not view them as equals to heterosexuals. To me, discriminating against them is no difference from the unequal treatment resulting from racial discrimination. True, homosexuals may have good economic status, received good education and better opportunities than compared to, maybe, the minorities in a country, but they are not viewed as the “normal” people that fall into the common social norms. They are still marginalized in the three aspects I mentioned above. If they have an identity, it would be a hybrid of the resistance and project identity.
The two largest religions around the world, Islam and Christianity, do not accept homosexuals- they are the outcasts, just like those in the Indian caste system. The Bible state specifically that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). The Islamic Sharia laws, too, view homosexuality as a crime and is forbidden in most Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is also not encouraged in most religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and more. Those who firmly believe in their religions will not accept the homosexuals. They are socialized by religions to reject the homosexuals.
The rejection of homosexuals can be further justified, and hence encouraged, via political laws. In Singapore, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes homosexual sex. Homosexuals are also denied the right to purchase public houses since same-sex marriage is banned in Singapore. The Indian Penal Code, too, punishes anyone who has voluntarily committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (now, a homosexual is regarded as an equal to an animal here, so a homosexual is inferior being?). In Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Nigeria and Sudan, same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty. Even if death penalty is not legitimized in the countries, the government can incorporate jail terms, fines or even whipping as punishment. In the Taliban era, public execution is legitimized (homosexuals may be punished by letting a wall collapse onto them. If they survive the impact after 30 mins, they are deemed forgiven and given treatment). Homosexuals are also legally persecuted in communist China. Such laws further justify (if religion did not) the act of ostracizing and discrimination against the homosexuals. The laws further enhanced our beliefs that the homosexuals are the “untouchables”, and deserved to be treated unfairly.
Professor mentioned that religion and politics themselves serve as very powerful tools to legitimize the “correct” identity, and this identity can be further used to justify their acts. In dealing with homosexuals, politics and religions are intertwined, thus creating an even more powerful force to justify our unfair treatment towards the homosexuals. This may be the main reason why we are unwilling to integrate the homosexuals in our social lives. We think it is “right” to view them as weirdos, unnatural beings, and thus denying them the right to be our equals (equal here do not mean allowing positive discrimination, it just means as a “normal” human to me).
Hence, even though homosexuals have better opportunities in some countries (namely the Western countries which are more willing to acknowledge the rights of homosexuals to live as equals), socially, they are still very deprived of the freedom to live like a “normal” person. To me, this is not much difference to say the minorities or even the terrorists, because it is basically the same fundamental deprivation- the right to be treated as equal, “normal” or “the majority” that caused them to be without a recognized and approved identity.
References:
Ø The Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Christian Church. Emily Holland. http://www.fatalistic.net/kouri/discrim.html
Ø Indian Penal Code. http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S377.htm
Democracy and Human Rights: Is Iraq ready for democracy?
We are all familiar with the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Americans invaded Iraq despite the United Nations’ decision against it. The Americans ousted the notorious Saddam Hussein- a tyrant of all atrocities to his own people. In this paper, I shall not attempt to judge the decision behind the invasion (it has happened) but rather whether Iraq is ready for democracy and whether the people are for democracy.
President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq was ready for democracy. He mentioned that “There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom”.[1] Perhaps, in the key categories such as per capita income, literacy, male-to-female literacy ratio, and urbanization, Iraq’s numbers are comparable to those of many other states that have enjoyed real progress in the transition from autocracy to democracy, such as Bangladesh, Kenya, and Bolivia. [2] But for the people, I doubt, are ready to accept democracy.
In my opinion, maybe, initially, they were rejoicing for the invasion by the Americans. It represented a way out of Saddam’s rule and atrocities. It meant the end of misery. However, even with the death of Saddam, the people of Iraq are beginning to feel that perhaps it is better to remain in Saddam’s rule. Why? It is because America had failed to deliver the promises it had said or was expected of them.
Democracy generally, meant freedom and the granting of basic human rights to all. However, after the invasion, the citizens saw a wave of instability. Three months after the end of the war, Iraqis express a growing sense of disappointment in the new, American order—or, to be more precise, the lack of order. There is no dictatorship, but there is also no electricity, work, safety, or government.[3] Under the Americans, invasions of privacy and insecurity compounded the atrocities that were committed during Saddam’s rule such as the frequent raids, rapes and robberies. Their lives were turned upside down. Everyday, they witness deaths, experience injuries and intolerant behaviors towards even the innocent. What kind of life is that supposed to be? If that kind of misery is imposed onto anybody, including the Americans themselves, it is not difficult to see why the Iraqis are beginning to detest the American invasion. Nobody will want that kind of life where you, already having no basic necessities and human rights, do not know when you will be the next victim of death. The below extract will only add on to my claim that the citizens resented the invasion: (“Americans took over Iraq in three weeks but they have not been able to restore the electricity in three months. What kind of power is that? They promised us democracy, but where is the government?” asks a citizen. He says that the soldiers sometimes venture into the old part of Baghdad where he lives, Abu Safijan, but they do not talk to the people, do not ask about their needs and wishes. “We hate Saddam, but under his rule it was safe, at least,” adds his 70-year-old mother. “Once you could have slept in a bed set outside the house. Now, our daughters are afraid to walk to school. The gangsters rob, rape, and shoot,” the old woman laments. All around us children laugh and shout, “Saddam Ali Baba! Bush Ali Baba!” which is to say that both are thieves, each as bad as the other. ) Even children regard President Bush as an evil equivalent to Saddam. How is one able to expect the people of Iraq to accept the American invasion and the spread of the ideals of democracy? To them, democracy has failed. It was even better under Saddam’s era! They are rejecting America, and thus rejecting democracy. So what if specialists feel that Iraq, as a country, has the foundations to build a democratic country? The people, too disappointed with the aftermath of the invasion, had, in their hearts, rejected democracy. In this case, so what if there is a new democratic government imposed onto them? They will not find it appealing and may even find means to topple it. In all, the Americans had lost the hearts and favor of the Iraqis, which by the rules of democracy, is essential for building a democratic country.
[1] Democracy in Iraq? Feb 23, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
[2] Democracy in Iraq? THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2003. http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summer_bymanpollack.pdf
[3] Iraq, Three Months After the War. July 10, 2003. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1361.cfm
President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq was ready for democracy. He mentioned that “There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom”.[1] Perhaps, in the key categories such as per capita income, literacy, male-to-female literacy ratio, and urbanization, Iraq’s numbers are comparable to those of many other states that have enjoyed real progress in the transition from autocracy to democracy, such as Bangladesh, Kenya, and Bolivia. [2] But for the people, I doubt, are ready to accept democracy.
In my opinion, maybe, initially, they were rejoicing for the invasion by the Americans. It represented a way out of Saddam’s rule and atrocities. It meant the end of misery. However, even with the death of Saddam, the people of Iraq are beginning to feel that perhaps it is better to remain in Saddam’s rule. Why? It is because America had failed to deliver the promises it had said or was expected of them.
Democracy generally, meant freedom and the granting of basic human rights to all. However, after the invasion, the citizens saw a wave of instability. Three months after the end of the war, Iraqis express a growing sense of disappointment in the new, American order—or, to be more precise, the lack of order. There is no dictatorship, but there is also no electricity, work, safety, or government.[3] Under the Americans, invasions of privacy and insecurity compounded the atrocities that were committed during Saddam’s rule such as the frequent raids, rapes and robberies. Their lives were turned upside down. Everyday, they witness deaths, experience injuries and intolerant behaviors towards even the innocent. What kind of life is that supposed to be? If that kind of misery is imposed onto anybody, including the Americans themselves, it is not difficult to see why the Iraqis are beginning to detest the American invasion. Nobody will want that kind of life where you, already having no basic necessities and human rights, do not know when you will be the next victim of death. The below extract will only add on to my claim that the citizens resented the invasion: (“Americans took over Iraq in three weeks but they have not been able to restore the electricity in three months. What kind of power is that? They promised us democracy, but where is the government?” asks a citizen. He says that the soldiers sometimes venture into the old part of Baghdad where he lives, Abu Safijan, but they do not talk to the people, do not ask about their needs and wishes. “We hate Saddam, but under his rule it was safe, at least,” adds his 70-year-old mother. “Once you could have slept in a bed set outside the house. Now, our daughters are afraid to walk to school. The gangsters rob, rape, and shoot,” the old woman laments. All around us children laugh and shout, “Saddam Ali Baba! Bush Ali Baba!” which is to say that both are thieves, each as bad as the other. ) Even children regard President Bush as an evil equivalent to Saddam. How is one able to expect the people of Iraq to accept the American invasion and the spread of the ideals of democracy? To them, democracy has failed. It was even better under Saddam’s era! They are rejecting America, and thus rejecting democracy. So what if specialists feel that Iraq, as a country, has the foundations to build a democratic country? The people, too disappointed with the aftermath of the invasion, had, in their hearts, rejected democracy. In this case, so what if there is a new democratic government imposed onto them? They will not find it appealing and may even find means to topple it. In all, the Americans had lost the hearts and favor of the Iraqis, which by the rules of democracy, is essential for building a democratic country.
[1] Democracy in Iraq? Feb 23, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
[2] Democracy in Iraq? THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2003. http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summer_bymanpollack.pdf
[3] Iraq, Three Months After the War. July 10, 2003. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1361.cfm
Friday, September 19, 2008
War and terror: Rwanda- an aftermath of the World Wars?
Rwanda, a country infamous for its 1994 genocide. The genocide shocked the world with a total death toll of about 800,000 to 100,000. At the first sight, it is difficult to connect the link of the genocide as an aftermath for the two World Wars or even the Cold War. Most would only view it as a result of social inequality and discrimination. However, in my own opinion, the genocide is still considerably linked to the ideals and policies favored by the majority during and after the wars.
Before the wars, Rwanda was a colony under the Germans. After World War II Ruanda-Urundi became a United Nations (UN) "trust territory" administered by Belgium. Both the Germans and Belgians maintained the old system of monarchy in Rwanda. Under that system, the some Tutsi minorities were considered the upper class as compared to the Hutus majorities. But basically, there is no real difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu. If a Hutu has enough wealth, he can move up the social ladder, and be considered as a Tutsi. However, what created the unhappiness between the people was that under both colonies, the Tutsis were favored and given the white-collar jobs. The Germans even helped the Tutsis put down a rebellion of Hutus in the northern part of Rwanda who did not wish to submit to central Tutsi control. Even worse, the Belgians abolished the local posts of traditional chiefs’ positions. In doing so they stripped the Hutus of their limited local power over land. The Belgians, in doing so, may had the initial idea of incorporating the western way of bureaucracy and abolishing what they thought was inefficient traditions. But by doing this, it showed the Hutus that the Tutsis are favored, and created resentment. This showed that foreign ideas may not suit a country, even if the ideas worked for others. And, after the wars, there was an anxious attempt to spread America ideologies to prevent failing nations from falling to the hands of communism. This may also contribute to the oversight of the Belgians of the real problems in Rwanda, thus exacerbating the painful awareness of the social inequalities between people.
Furthermore, it was during the Cold War which the ideas of democracy was most advocated. The ideas of democracy may have contributed to the wave of Pan-Africanism that swept through Central Africa, including Rwanda. Anti-colonial sentiment and ideas of unity and equality for all may be the aftermath of the ideologies spread in the Cold War too. The Hutus became even more aware of the inequality that existed between them and the Tutsis. Hence, when the Tutsis pressed for independence and upset the Belgians, the Hutus were favored. The new power given to the Hutus threatened the long withstanding superiority of the Tutsis. The Hutus, repressed in history, had the chance to vent all their unhappiness on the Tutsis, and this was allowed by the Belgians. This resulted in the genocide and a Hutu-dominated-one-party-state in Rwanda. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the need for independence and equality, as influenced by the ideologies after the wars, could have lead to the genocide.
Also, nationalism reached its peak during the World Wars. Nationalism is a powerful tool in unifying people, as mentioned by the professor in the lecture. It is also used by the state to justify its interests and exerts its power. In Rwanda, this can be seen best during the rule of President Juvenal Habyarimana, who used his power and the concept of nationalism to bring hatred and fear against the Tutsis. The violence was justified in Rwanda by him, just like the violence that was justified in the wars by the respective leaders. With justification, people do not see any wrong in committing the atrocities they did in Rwanda. Killings, rape, torture, were justified to create fear in their enemies and also as “revenge” against their enemies. It was normalized through the manipulation of the concept of nationalism and state control- a product of the wars.
In all, I’m not trying to say that it was due to the ideologies or policies spread during and after the World Wars or Cold War that lead to the Rwanda Genocide. However, these ideologies and policies, after being intertwined with Rwanda’s long history of social inequalities and discrimination, have exacerbated the friction between the two groups. And along with other factors, like the UN’s inabilities to solve the problem, the genocide occurred, much to the horrors felt by the rest of the world.
Before the wars, Rwanda was a colony under the Germans. After World War II Ruanda-Urundi became a United Nations (UN) "trust territory" administered by Belgium. Both the Germans and Belgians maintained the old system of monarchy in Rwanda. Under that system, the some Tutsi minorities were considered the upper class as compared to the Hutus majorities. But basically, there is no real difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu. If a Hutu has enough wealth, he can move up the social ladder, and be considered as a Tutsi. However, what created the unhappiness between the people was that under both colonies, the Tutsis were favored and given the white-collar jobs. The Germans even helped the Tutsis put down a rebellion of Hutus in the northern part of Rwanda who did not wish to submit to central Tutsi control. Even worse, the Belgians abolished the local posts of traditional chiefs’ positions. In doing so they stripped the Hutus of their limited local power over land. The Belgians, in doing so, may had the initial idea of incorporating the western way of bureaucracy and abolishing what they thought was inefficient traditions. But by doing this, it showed the Hutus that the Tutsis are favored, and created resentment. This showed that foreign ideas may not suit a country, even if the ideas worked for others. And, after the wars, there was an anxious attempt to spread America ideologies to prevent failing nations from falling to the hands of communism. This may also contribute to the oversight of the Belgians of the real problems in Rwanda, thus exacerbating the painful awareness of the social inequalities between people.
Furthermore, it was during the Cold War which the ideas of democracy was most advocated. The ideas of democracy may have contributed to the wave of Pan-Africanism that swept through Central Africa, including Rwanda. Anti-colonial sentiment and ideas of unity and equality for all may be the aftermath of the ideologies spread in the Cold War too. The Hutus became even more aware of the inequality that existed between them and the Tutsis. Hence, when the Tutsis pressed for independence and upset the Belgians, the Hutus were favored. The new power given to the Hutus threatened the long withstanding superiority of the Tutsis. The Hutus, repressed in history, had the chance to vent all their unhappiness on the Tutsis, and this was allowed by the Belgians. This resulted in the genocide and a Hutu-dominated-one-party-state in Rwanda. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the need for independence and equality, as influenced by the ideologies after the wars, could have lead to the genocide.
Also, nationalism reached its peak during the World Wars. Nationalism is a powerful tool in unifying people, as mentioned by the professor in the lecture. It is also used by the state to justify its interests and exerts its power. In Rwanda, this can be seen best during the rule of President Juvenal Habyarimana, who used his power and the concept of nationalism to bring hatred and fear against the Tutsis. The violence was justified in Rwanda by him, just like the violence that was justified in the wars by the respective leaders. With justification, people do not see any wrong in committing the atrocities they did in Rwanda. Killings, rape, torture, were justified to create fear in their enemies and also as “revenge” against their enemies. It was normalized through the manipulation of the concept of nationalism and state control- a product of the wars.
In all, I’m not trying to say that it was due to the ideologies or policies spread during and after the World Wars or Cold War that lead to the Rwanda Genocide. However, these ideologies and policies, after being intertwined with Rwanda’s long history of social inequalities and discrimination, have exacerbated the friction between the two groups. And along with other factors, like the UN’s inabilities to solve the problem, the genocide occurred, much to the horrors felt by the rest of the world.
Crime and Globalization
Who are those most easily influenced into committing crime, and why?
Crime is generally committing an act that offends certain very strong collective sentiments, as said by Emile Durkheim. It normally involves inflicting some form of hurt or damage to others, for whatever cause justified. Crime has no boundaries. It can occur anywhere, anytime, to anybody.
Generally, researches have shown that one is influenced into committing a crime due to his environment. It may be due to the country’s history and culture, it may be due to the social, political or economic conditions that forces one into crime. Most concluded that the most significant factor that forces one into crime would be inequality in economy status. But of course, it may or may not be coupled with the reasons I mentioned above. However, my main concern is that who and which groups of people who are the most likely to turn to crime to bring out their unhappiness, given that all humans should have the same general collective sentiments about crime (so why should some turn to crime and some do not?).
One of the groups which people normally acknowledge would be the lower income group living in the urban and developed countries. Like mentioned in the lecture, and other studies, this group of people are mostly from the rural parts or developing world. They do not belong to the urban, developed country. Thus, they lack the education level and resources to compete with the citizens of the country. Coupled with the discrimination and lack of basic living rights and necessities, they feel frustrated and hopeless; hence they turn to crime- to survive or voice their resentment.
I do agree that due to the economic circumstances, one may be end up committing crime. But in my own opinion, the most susceptible who ended up joining organized crime or even just committing crime, would the youths and the men facing the conditions as mentioned above.
Some feel that the transition from youths to adulthood would be the period when the youths enter the labor market, taking up the civic and political responsibilities. However, youths may experience a lost in identity when they cannot find employment due to the increased competition in a globalised labor market. Biologically, they feel that they are full grown adults. However, mentally, due to the constraints of the economy, they do not necessary feel that they have reached adulthood. Yet, they bear the financial burden of bringing income home to the family (since they are assumed to be adults already). When youths find that they are unable to fulfill the expectations of others, they may feel guilty, frustrated and stressed. They also lacked the experience to deal with the situation they are in. Worse, they are being stereotyped as being more adaptable to changing circumstances and are able to embrace the benefits of globalization. In this case, it would be difficult to find any state policies or family aid to help them overcome their problems. Also, in the case of Rosario, Argentina, the people faced the extra problems of politicization of institutions (even the judiciary and key bureaucratic appointments), and police violence. The state cannot keep up with the structural changes, causing drastic unemployment with the middle class being poorer until they had to live in slums. The continuous harassment n violence executed by the police adds more annoyance to the people. Without any solutions, they may find joining gangs, committing crimes appealing. Gangs give them a form of identity. Killings, organizing deadly activities to show their protests against the environment made them feel valued. Looting, robbery, going into the drug trade gives them a source of income. Therefore, due to the lack of experience of the youths, it is far easier to influence them to see that crime is the best option to their problems. And this creates a problem as the age of youths committing crimes are decreasing over the years. It means more and more youths are being mislead to the path of destruction, and that the forces of these organized criminality is increased. By then, will we be able to eradicate the problem?
Men, in my opinion, would be another group that would be very susceptible to criminality too. Usually, males are expected to obtain jobs and provide economic support to families and are the “brave” ones. (Clinnard and Abbott, 1973). Men have these social norms of masculinity instilled in them since generations ago. They are also biologically built to have a more difficult time to come to terms with failure, due to their innate pride and ego. Hence, once they find that they cannot provide or care for the family, they termed themselves as “losers” and feel ashamed to face their family. They would need to find their worth again. Then, again, the idea of gangs and crime would be appealing like the case of the youths. Worse, men felt that violence is part of the meaning of manhood. It makes them the “real” man. Furthermore, if one is living in South Africa, where violence is part of their history, the use of violence would be even more justified to the men to achieve their cause. Crime is already a tricky social problem to society. Crime coupled with violence is more deadly, and the damage done to society is even more disastrous. Moreover, if it is an organized transnational crime, with massive arms fire, there would be dire consequences. Hence, men, together with the unfavorable environment they are in, can also take on the path to self-annihilation, and pose threats to the world.
In conclusion, even though the economy, political, cultural and social conditions can shape a criminal, the most susceptible groups of people falling to the category would be the youths and men.
Sources:
Youth criminality and urban social conflict in the city of Rosario, Argentina. Maria Celina Del Felice. 2006. http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/DelFelice.pdf
Crime in South Africa: A country and cities profile. Martin Schönteich & Antoinette Louw, Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies. 2001. http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Papers/49/Paper49.html
Crime is generally committing an act that offends certain very strong collective sentiments, as said by Emile Durkheim. It normally involves inflicting some form of hurt or damage to others, for whatever cause justified. Crime has no boundaries. It can occur anywhere, anytime, to anybody.
Generally, researches have shown that one is influenced into committing a crime due to his environment. It may be due to the country’s history and culture, it may be due to the social, political or economic conditions that forces one into crime. Most concluded that the most significant factor that forces one into crime would be inequality in economy status. But of course, it may or may not be coupled with the reasons I mentioned above. However, my main concern is that who and which groups of people who are the most likely to turn to crime to bring out their unhappiness, given that all humans should have the same general collective sentiments about crime (so why should some turn to crime and some do not?).
One of the groups which people normally acknowledge would be the lower income group living in the urban and developed countries. Like mentioned in the lecture, and other studies, this group of people are mostly from the rural parts or developing world. They do not belong to the urban, developed country. Thus, they lack the education level and resources to compete with the citizens of the country. Coupled with the discrimination and lack of basic living rights and necessities, they feel frustrated and hopeless; hence they turn to crime- to survive or voice their resentment.
I do agree that due to the economic circumstances, one may be end up committing crime. But in my own opinion, the most susceptible who ended up joining organized crime or even just committing crime, would the youths and the men facing the conditions as mentioned above.
Some feel that the transition from youths to adulthood would be the period when the youths enter the labor market, taking up the civic and political responsibilities. However, youths may experience a lost in identity when they cannot find employment due to the increased competition in a globalised labor market. Biologically, they feel that they are full grown adults. However, mentally, due to the constraints of the economy, they do not necessary feel that they have reached adulthood. Yet, they bear the financial burden of bringing income home to the family (since they are assumed to be adults already). When youths find that they are unable to fulfill the expectations of others, they may feel guilty, frustrated and stressed. They also lacked the experience to deal with the situation they are in. Worse, they are being stereotyped as being more adaptable to changing circumstances and are able to embrace the benefits of globalization. In this case, it would be difficult to find any state policies or family aid to help them overcome their problems. Also, in the case of Rosario, Argentina, the people faced the extra problems of politicization of institutions (even the judiciary and key bureaucratic appointments), and police violence. The state cannot keep up with the structural changes, causing drastic unemployment with the middle class being poorer until they had to live in slums. The continuous harassment n violence executed by the police adds more annoyance to the people. Without any solutions, they may find joining gangs, committing crimes appealing. Gangs give them a form of identity. Killings, organizing deadly activities to show their protests against the environment made them feel valued. Looting, robbery, going into the drug trade gives them a source of income. Therefore, due to the lack of experience of the youths, it is far easier to influence them to see that crime is the best option to their problems. And this creates a problem as the age of youths committing crimes are decreasing over the years. It means more and more youths are being mislead to the path of destruction, and that the forces of these organized criminality is increased. By then, will we be able to eradicate the problem?
Men, in my opinion, would be another group that would be very susceptible to criminality too. Usually, males are expected to obtain jobs and provide economic support to families and are the “brave” ones. (Clinnard and Abbott, 1973). Men have these social norms of masculinity instilled in them since generations ago. They are also biologically built to have a more difficult time to come to terms with failure, due to their innate pride and ego. Hence, once they find that they cannot provide or care for the family, they termed themselves as “losers” and feel ashamed to face their family. They would need to find their worth again. Then, again, the idea of gangs and crime would be appealing like the case of the youths. Worse, men felt that violence is part of the meaning of manhood. It makes them the “real” man. Furthermore, if one is living in South Africa, where violence is part of their history, the use of violence would be even more justified to the men to achieve their cause. Crime is already a tricky social problem to society. Crime coupled with violence is more deadly, and the damage done to society is even more disastrous. Moreover, if it is an organized transnational crime, with massive arms fire, there would be dire consequences. Hence, men, together with the unfavorable environment they are in, can also take on the path to self-annihilation, and pose threats to the world.
In conclusion, even though the economy, political, cultural and social conditions can shape a criminal, the most susceptible groups of people falling to the category would be the youths and men.
Sources:
Youth criminality and urban social conflict in the city of Rosario, Argentina. Maria Celina Del Felice. 2006. http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/DelFelice.pdf
Crime in South Africa: A country and cities profile. Martin Schönteich & Antoinette Louw, Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies. 2001. http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Papers/49/Paper49.html
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Women and the family
Do the family-friendly polices employed by corporations encourage working adults to spend more time with the family?
Due to the spread of ideas of equality between genders, more women are getting educated and possessed the ability to pursue a job to their liking. Also, due to globalization and the rising costs of living, more women felt the need to work and contribute to supporting the family. Many feel that these rising phenomena posed a threat to family, as women are generally seen as the pillar of the family- shouldering the needs of all the family members. They feel that when women go to work, the welfare of the family will be compromised. However, as the world gradually accepts the fact that the women’s role in the economy is needed, we try to come up with policies and ideas to lessen the burden of the women and ensure that the welfare of the family is not sacrificed.
One of the help extended by society would be that corporations are employing family-friendly policies to aid working parents cope with the juggle between work and family. Some corporations introduced policies like the flexi-time, parental or child care leave, or even allow employees to work from home, so that they have more time for the family. However, in spite of all these, majority does not use such policies and still find it difficult to achieve a balance between family and work. Why is that so? In this essay, I shall attempt to evaluate the usefulness of the policies and suggest what caused the failures.
Firstly, in my own opinion, corporations come up with such policies not because they are concerned about the amount of time the employees spend with their family. The policies are profit-driven. If the workers are distracted by problems in the family, their performance at work will be affected. When their service is not up to standard, it may affect the impression of the customers, and hence affect the image of the company, reducing sales. Also, when women find that they cannot cope with the burden of being a quality mother and a quality worker, they may just leave the job. In the competitive world, where labor and talent is scarce, the companies cannot afford to have the women leaving and having nobody to fill the gap. Hence, companies find it necessary to implement policies to lessen the burden of the employees. However, as mentioned earlier, the motive behind the policies are still profit-driven, thus it can be questioned whether these policies nip the bud in its roots.
One of the policies is offering part-time as an alternative to the workers. Workers can work three to four days a week, instead of the five-day-work week for full time workers. This way, workers have at least an extra day off for the family. There would be time for bonding and improving the family relationships. However, my concern is that not all jobs can afford to allow their workers to work part-time. For jobs that require a lot of planning and research, like jobs of the lawyers and managers, much time is needed to produce good quality work. Even if they opted for part-time, they may find that at the end of the day, they still must stay back to finish their work. Working part-time is not feasible for them. Furthermore, not all companies are willing to offer the alternative of a part-time job. As mentioned, competition is tough, especially with globalization. Employers can easily find another worker who has no burden of the family and is able to work full time. Hence, the employee who is unable to work full time may lose the job and the source of income. Furthermore, working part-time means the worker does not have the same amount of wages and benefits from that of a full time worker. Thus, if the medical benefits, paid leave and higher amount of wages post a more attractive idea to a worker, especially one from a lower income group, he may in the end opt for working full time. Therefore, it can be seen as to why the policy did not work out for the employees.
As to the flexi-time policy, for in example, HP, workers can choose the timings of their work, as long as they fulfill their daily eight hours. 'HP's goal is to help employees handle dependent care responsibilities for children, elders or partners so they can achieve their business objectives while they are at work,’ HP's vice-president of human resources for Asia Pacific and Japan, Rich Vosburgh said. (The Business Times, Feb 24, 2004. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/award_singapore.pdf). Although employees can choose the preferred time to start work, so as to send their children to school, prepare dinner etc, it still doesn’t cut the amount of time they spend at work. And if necessary, they still may have to work over time, attend inquires at home too. Majority of the time is still not available for the family.
The Sun Microsystems also adopted a policy called the iWork, which, coupled with mobile technology, enables staff to choose where, when and how to work. (The Business Times, Feb 24, 2004. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/award_singapore.pdf). Employees can now work from outside the office and produce the same quality of work too. However, even when employees work from home, it does not mean they have more time for the family- they are still working. Moreover, such a concept is rare in Asian countries, where they still prefer employees working in the office. Also, not all jobs can offer such an alternative. Laboratories related jobs require the professionals to be situated in the labs itself. For those in the service line, it is quite impossible for them to work at home too. Hence, the policy is not application to all situations too.
Lastly, the most common policy used by corporations would be offering parental or child care leave. Workers can apply for the leave to spend time with the family, mostly with the children. However, most of them only apply for the leave during emergencies like when the child is sick. Also, for the top elites, their job may be so time consuming that applying for leaves seemed impossible, let alone to spend time with the family. Hence the policy does not solve the problem of allowing working adults to spend more time with the family again.
To me, I feel that the policies adopted by the companies can only help and encourage, to a certain extent, the workers to spend more time with the family. For the lower income group, they simply need the job to provide the necessities needed for the family. They may even juggle a few jobs to ensure livelihood, despite knowing they should spend more time with their family. Survival is equally important. And that the policies leased out by the corporations may not meet their needs due to lack of comprehension of the situation. For the upper or middle income group, there’s a feeling that parenting and home making is increasingly becoming a chore. They do not get the satisfaction they do at work. Hence, they are reluctant to spend more time at home. Also, they are the ones who can afford the costs of care services, and thus need not worry so much about the physical needs of the family. Therefore, in conclusion, I feel that corporations can only do so much. At the end of the day, it’s still up to the individual and the environment they are in to judge how much time they can spend with their family.
Due to the spread of ideas of equality between genders, more women are getting educated and possessed the ability to pursue a job to their liking. Also, due to globalization and the rising costs of living, more women felt the need to work and contribute to supporting the family. Many feel that these rising phenomena posed a threat to family, as women are generally seen as the pillar of the family- shouldering the needs of all the family members. They feel that when women go to work, the welfare of the family will be compromised. However, as the world gradually accepts the fact that the women’s role in the economy is needed, we try to come up with policies and ideas to lessen the burden of the women and ensure that the welfare of the family is not sacrificed.
One of the help extended by society would be that corporations are employing family-friendly policies to aid working parents cope with the juggle between work and family. Some corporations introduced policies like the flexi-time, parental or child care leave, or even allow employees to work from home, so that they have more time for the family. However, in spite of all these, majority does not use such policies and still find it difficult to achieve a balance between family and work. Why is that so? In this essay, I shall attempt to evaluate the usefulness of the policies and suggest what caused the failures.
Firstly, in my own opinion, corporations come up with such policies not because they are concerned about the amount of time the employees spend with their family. The policies are profit-driven. If the workers are distracted by problems in the family, their performance at work will be affected. When their service is not up to standard, it may affect the impression of the customers, and hence affect the image of the company, reducing sales. Also, when women find that they cannot cope with the burden of being a quality mother and a quality worker, they may just leave the job. In the competitive world, where labor and talent is scarce, the companies cannot afford to have the women leaving and having nobody to fill the gap. Hence, companies find it necessary to implement policies to lessen the burden of the employees. However, as mentioned earlier, the motive behind the policies are still profit-driven, thus it can be questioned whether these policies nip the bud in its roots.
One of the policies is offering part-time as an alternative to the workers. Workers can work three to four days a week, instead of the five-day-work week for full time workers. This way, workers have at least an extra day off for the family. There would be time for bonding and improving the family relationships. However, my concern is that not all jobs can afford to allow their workers to work part-time. For jobs that require a lot of planning and research, like jobs of the lawyers and managers, much time is needed to produce good quality work. Even if they opted for part-time, they may find that at the end of the day, they still must stay back to finish their work. Working part-time is not feasible for them. Furthermore, not all companies are willing to offer the alternative of a part-time job. As mentioned, competition is tough, especially with globalization. Employers can easily find another worker who has no burden of the family and is able to work full time. Hence, the employee who is unable to work full time may lose the job and the source of income. Furthermore, working part-time means the worker does not have the same amount of wages and benefits from that of a full time worker. Thus, if the medical benefits, paid leave and higher amount of wages post a more attractive idea to a worker, especially one from a lower income group, he may in the end opt for working full time. Therefore, it can be seen as to why the policy did not work out for the employees.
As to the flexi-time policy, for in example, HP, workers can choose the timings of their work, as long as they fulfill their daily eight hours. 'HP's goal is to help employees handle dependent care responsibilities for children, elders or partners so they can achieve their business objectives while they are at work,’ HP's vice-president of human resources for Asia Pacific and Japan, Rich Vosburgh said. (The Business Times, Feb 24, 2004. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/award_singapore.pdf). Although employees can choose the preferred time to start work, so as to send their children to school, prepare dinner etc, it still doesn’t cut the amount of time they spend at work. And if necessary, they still may have to work over time, attend inquires at home too. Majority of the time is still not available for the family.
The Sun Microsystems also adopted a policy called the iWork, which, coupled with mobile technology, enables staff to choose where, when and how to work. (The Business Times, Feb 24, 2004. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/award_singapore.pdf). Employees can now work from outside the office and produce the same quality of work too. However, even when employees work from home, it does not mean they have more time for the family- they are still working. Moreover, such a concept is rare in Asian countries, where they still prefer employees working in the office. Also, not all jobs can offer such an alternative. Laboratories related jobs require the professionals to be situated in the labs itself. For those in the service line, it is quite impossible for them to work at home too. Hence, the policy is not application to all situations too.
Lastly, the most common policy used by corporations would be offering parental or child care leave. Workers can apply for the leave to spend time with the family, mostly with the children. However, most of them only apply for the leave during emergencies like when the child is sick. Also, for the top elites, their job may be so time consuming that applying for leaves seemed impossible, let alone to spend time with the family. Hence the policy does not solve the problem of allowing working adults to spend more time with the family again.
To me, I feel that the policies adopted by the companies can only help and encourage, to a certain extent, the workers to spend more time with the family. For the lower income group, they simply need the job to provide the necessities needed for the family. They may even juggle a few jobs to ensure livelihood, despite knowing they should spend more time with their family. Survival is equally important. And that the policies leased out by the corporations may not meet their needs due to lack of comprehension of the situation. For the upper or middle income group, there’s a feeling that parenting and home making is increasingly becoming a chore. They do not get the satisfaction they do at work. Hence, they are reluctant to spend more time at home. Also, they are the ones who can afford the costs of care services, and thus need not worry so much about the physical needs of the family. Therefore, in conclusion, I feel that corporations can only do so much. At the end of the day, it’s still up to the individual and the environment they are in to judge how much time they can spend with their family.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Work and Trade: Are we able to pursue a career in our area of interest?
Why do we work? We work to earn money, and in turn get the necessities we need for our daily lives. Or even, to get the material goods we desire. In this way, many find work a drudgery-working for the sake of it, as we are trapped in the vicious cycle to work to get what we want and need in our lives. There is no motivation to work (other than the need to). Some argued that if we are able to find a job we like, we are less likely to find working a chore. In our area of interests, we are motivated to work. However, how many are able to get a job they like?
In Singapore, due to its relatively limited resources and our government’s policies, our economy is more focused on the commerce sector and recently, in the science and technology. As a result, there are higher chances of finding a job in the commerce sector. Just take a walk in the Central Development District, majority are the skyscrapers of the banks. We need to work to survive. So will we go into an area where there are more jobs available or pursue our interest as, say, a curator where the need for such talent is in scarce demand? Hence the majority may end up in a job they do not like but have to accept in order to survive. I mentioned that the government is developing out science and technology sector, so presumably, there will be more jobs available too. However, for this sector, it is not so much of ‘learn as you do’ work like in the commerce. Knowledge is needed. Not everybody has the knowledge needed, and again, they will be forced to accept a job that they do not have an interest in.
In other countries, they may not face the limitations due to lack of resources as we do, but globalization has affected them too. As the global economy becomes more integrated, and countries become more specialized in an area, it is even more difficult to find a job that one is truly interested in. for example, in the poor African nations, they focus largely on their agriculture sector. It is almost impossible for one to get a job in other areas. Likewise, for developed nations like the US, much is focused on the knowledge-based economy, like technology. It is increasingly becoming more difficult to find a job in the manufacturing sector. It gets even worse when large corporations outsource jobs to reduce production costs. Layoffs became frequent. When one cannot even secure a job, how can he have the privilege to choose a job he is interested in? Many also critised that those in the poor nations are exploited. But they do not have a choice. If they do, will they be willing to settle for a low-paid manufacturing job? Thus, in a sense, globalization has also resulted in confining one to do a job we may not really like.
Even if one decided to pursue his own interests, despite how the economy is like, influence from his family may keep him from doing so. Typically, parents and relative will have a generalized idea on which jobs has a “better and more stable salary”. So as parents, they may want the child to go for such jobs to have “a better future”. An example would be that majority feel that getting a business degree is more useful that getting a, say, arts degree. A business degree will more probably secure a job as more emphasis is placed on the commerce sector. Hence, a student may opt for a degree programme that he does not really like. Also, when one is married with has a family, the problem of livelihood is more important that one’s interests. Bills have to be paid, bread is needed and the children needs education. One cannot easily neglect all these to pursue his own interests. Then, again, one is settling for a job that he may not like.
Thus, the economy and our environment do not allow us to pursue a job within our interests all the time. Then, what for we work? Because there is a need to. We are trapped in the cycle to work to survive, despite our misery.
Why do we work? We work to earn money, and in turn get the necessities we need for our daily lives. Or even, to get the material goods we desire. In this way, many find work a drudgery-working for the sake of it, as we are trapped in the vicious cycle to work to get what we want and need in our lives. There is no motivation to work (other than the need to). Some argued that if we are able to find a job we like, we are less likely to find working a chore. In our area of interests, we are motivated to work. However, how many are able to get a job they like?
In Singapore, due to its relatively limited resources and our government’s policies, our economy is more focused on the commerce sector and recently, in the science and technology. As a result, there are higher chances of finding a job in the commerce sector. Just take a walk in the Central Development District, majority are the skyscrapers of the banks. We need to work to survive. So will we go into an area where there are more jobs available or pursue our interest as, say, a curator where the need for such talent is in scarce demand? Hence the majority may end up in a job they do not like but have to accept in order to survive. I mentioned that the government is developing out science and technology sector, so presumably, there will be more jobs available too. However, for this sector, it is not so much of ‘learn as you do’ work like in the commerce. Knowledge is needed. Not everybody has the knowledge needed, and again, they will be forced to accept a job that they do not have an interest in.
In other countries, they may not face the limitations due to lack of resources as we do, but globalization has affected them too. As the global economy becomes more integrated, and countries become more specialized in an area, it is even more difficult to find a job that one is truly interested in. for example, in the poor African nations, they focus largely on their agriculture sector. It is almost impossible for one to get a job in other areas. Likewise, for developed nations like the US, much is focused on the knowledge-based economy, like technology. It is increasingly becoming more difficult to find a job in the manufacturing sector. It gets even worse when large corporations outsource jobs to reduce production costs. Layoffs became frequent. When one cannot even secure a job, how can he have the privilege to choose a job he is interested in? Many also critised that those in the poor nations are exploited. But they do not have a choice. If they do, will they be willing to settle for a low-paid manufacturing job? Thus, in a sense, globalization has also resulted in confining one to do a job we may not really like.
Even if one decided to pursue his own interests, despite how the economy is like, influence from his family may keep him from doing so. Typically, parents and relative will have a generalized idea on which jobs has a “better and more stable salary”. So as parents, they may want the child to go for such jobs to have “a better future”. An example would be that majority feel that getting a business degree is more useful that getting a, say, arts degree. A business degree will more probably secure a job as more emphasis is placed on the commerce sector. Hence, a student may opt for a degree programme that he does not really like. Also, when one is married with has a family, the problem of livelihood is more important that one’s interests. Bills have to be paid, bread is needed and the children needs education. One cannot easily neglect all these to pursue his own interests. Then, again, one is settling for a job that he may not like.
Thus, the economy and our environment do not allow us to pursue a job within our interests all the time. Then, what for we work? Because there is a need to. We are trapped in the cycle to work to survive, despite our misery.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Class & Inequalities: Will there really be equality in the economic aspect?
In this century where democracy prevails, the majority hopes to move to a more equal and fairer world. But my question is, is equality ever possible in the economic aspect?
In the lecture, ideas of reducing poverty were vehemently discussed. But, within a country itself, is it possible to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and how? We can introduce the social welfare system like what the British did in the 1940s. Subsidies were given to those running business and social services were either free or highly subsidized. However, it is argued that the poor will become reliant on the government and have no incentive to work or be efficient as they feel that the government will support them no matter what. If everyone has this mentality, nobody will want to work! There would not be a division between the rich and poor. But it upsets the forces of the economy and capitalism will not thrive. Is it advisable then, for such a policy, when nobody will drive the economy?
Income can also be redistributed from the rich to the poor to produce a fairer society. However, given the human nature, the rich is bound to make protests. What for their hard work and efforts then if the rewards are not theirs? Nobody will be willing to put their best foot forward at work anymore. Then, where do we find the income to redistribute? Furthermore, who shall be in charge of the income redistribution even if we adopt the policy? Is the government completely reliable? But there are corrupted governments like Indonesia’s Suharto. Some suggested handing the responsibility to Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). But in the light of incidents where the head of charity organizations like the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) in Singapore mishandled funds, how can people trust them completely? Then, who is capable of taking up the responsibility?
Another alternative would be to provide the same opportunities to the poor. We can provide everyone education and send them to training, like what Singapore did to ensure that its pool of workers are still competitive. Despite all these, it still largely depends on one’s abilities and meritocracy for one to climb the corporate ladder. We still fall into Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, so we are still trapped in the vicious cycle! It is impossible to close the gap between the rich and poor.
On the other hand, are we capable of bridging the gap between the rich and poor nations then? It is argued that ethically, the richer nations should help the poorer ones. But the question is, how much aid would be suitable so that they will not be over-reliant on foreign aid? It is difficult to judge. According to the UN World Food programme spokesman, the Africans are just too poor to feed themselves whenever there’s a slight disruption in their environment. Millions of them have next to nothing to eat. Then, are we able to help them forever? Are we able to give them aid forever? It is impossible! It is also impossible for us to change the environment to be suited towards agriculture and impossible for the whole lot of them to leave their country. Moreover, how will the people in the rich countries feel when resources are given to other nations over a long period of time? They will not be happy as there are also poor people in their own countries who needed help too.
Some even suggested we can rely on the world organizations such as the UN, WTO, IMF and more to provide capital, resources and technology to the poor countries to improve their lives. But there are concerns that the aid provided comes with strings attached so much so that the poor countries are exploited instead of showing signs of improvement. These organizations are mostly influenced by the rich countries like America and British too. Which means, if any policies made will have negative effects on the rich nations, they may oppose the policies and aid will not be given to the poor nations. There are also failures of such organizations too. The UN humanitarian chief mentioned that as many people die in Congo every eight months as the 2004 Tsunami. They still fail to help the poor. Also, even if free education is provided to these people, will they be willing to wait till the children complete their education and find better means of life? Can hunger and poverty wait?
Thus, it seemed impossible to reach equality even though many advocated it.
In this century where democracy prevails, the majority hopes to move to a more equal and fairer world. But my question is, is equality ever possible in the economic aspect?
In the lecture, ideas of reducing poverty were vehemently discussed. But, within a country itself, is it possible to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and how? We can introduce the social welfare system like what the British did in the 1940s. Subsidies were given to those running business and social services were either free or highly subsidized. However, it is argued that the poor will become reliant on the government and have no incentive to work or be efficient as they feel that the government will support them no matter what. If everyone has this mentality, nobody will want to work! There would not be a division between the rich and poor. But it upsets the forces of the economy and capitalism will not thrive. Is it advisable then, for such a policy, when nobody will drive the economy?
Income can also be redistributed from the rich to the poor to produce a fairer society. However, given the human nature, the rich is bound to make protests. What for their hard work and efforts then if the rewards are not theirs? Nobody will be willing to put their best foot forward at work anymore. Then, where do we find the income to redistribute? Furthermore, who shall be in charge of the income redistribution even if we adopt the policy? Is the government completely reliable? But there are corrupted governments like Indonesia’s Suharto. Some suggested handing the responsibility to Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). But in the light of incidents where the head of charity organizations like the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) in Singapore mishandled funds, how can people trust them completely? Then, who is capable of taking up the responsibility?
Another alternative would be to provide the same opportunities to the poor. We can provide everyone education and send them to training, like what Singapore did to ensure that its pool of workers are still competitive. Despite all these, it still largely depends on one’s abilities and meritocracy for one to climb the corporate ladder. We still fall into Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, so we are still trapped in the vicious cycle! It is impossible to close the gap between the rich and poor.
On the other hand, are we capable of bridging the gap between the rich and poor nations then? It is argued that ethically, the richer nations should help the poorer ones. But the question is, how much aid would be suitable so that they will not be over-reliant on foreign aid? It is difficult to judge. According to the UN World Food programme spokesman, the Africans are just too poor to feed themselves whenever there’s a slight disruption in their environment. Millions of them have next to nothing to eat. Then, are we able to help them forever? Are we able to give them aid forever? It is impossible! It is also impossible for us to change the environment to be suited towards agriculture and impossible for the whole lot of them to leave their country. Moreover, how will the people in the rich countries feel when resources are given to other nations over a long period of time? They will not be happy as there are also poor people in their own countries who needed help too.
Some even suggested we can rely on the world organizations such as the UN, WTO, IMF and more to provide capital, resources and technology to the poor countries to improve their lives. But there are concerns that the aid provided comes with strings attached so much so that the poor countries are exploited instead of showing signs of improvement. These organizations are mostly influenced by the rich countries like America and British too. Which means, if any policies made will have negative effects on the rich nations, they may oppose the policies and aid will not be given to the poor nations. There are also failures of such organizations too. The UN humanitarian chief mentioned that as many people die in Congo every eight months as the 2004 Tsunami. They still fail to help the poor. Also, even if free education is provided to these people, will they be willing to wait till the children complete their education and find better means of life? Can hunger and poverty wait?
Thus, it seemed impossible to reach equality even though many advocated it.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Sociology Problems in a Global Context
Modernity creates violence. Is this always true?
In the lecture, paradoxes of modern societies were mentioned. One of the paradoxes would be that modernity creates violence but modern society encourages peace. When countries choose to embrace globalization, they are welcoming modernity. This leads to the acceptance of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) like GAP, Starbucks and more. It also introduces the usage of technology and a knowledge-based economy (KBE). With the introduction of more powerful companies and technology, a country’s economy becomes more competitive. The locals will find it difficult to keep up with the MNCs in terms of resources, capital, talents and experience. Home entrepreneurship is thus discouraged. Locals also lose jobs to more talented foreigners- as hiring of foreign workers and outsourcing of jobs become more popular to cut costs and increase efficiency. When the locals feel that they are losing their rights, they may reject modernity- for example, the communist countries like China and North Korea. In their course of rejecting modernity and foreign western help, violence may occur in the process, like the people of Iraq, where some feel that the new democratic government was not doing any better than the previous Saddam Hussein’s empire. They react violently, some joining the terrorist groups to go against the democratic forces.
But is it always true that modernity results in violent reactions? Singapore, too, is still going through the process of modernity due to globalization. We, too, experience the problem of the influx of foreign companies and workers, coupled with problems of outsourcing and mergers of big corporations. Locals cannot find an “iron rice bowl” anymore. But we do not resort to violence to voice our displeasures. We do make crude remarks of the foreigners and complain about them. But we accepted the foreigners as part and parcel of accepting globalization. We do not assault them. Also, in the western countries like America, if they are unhappy about the economic policies or worried about their job future, they protest by holding strikes and writing petitions to the government, not violence.
Furthermore, it is not always just due to the factor of modernity that constitutes violence. In the Iraq example, it is also due to the instability and constant fighting that induces people to join the terrorists in hope of finding peace. It is the environment that forces them to be violent to achieve their aims.
Another example would be the Tamils and Sri Lankans. It is not due to modernity that violence prevails in the country, even though the country accepts the forces of globalization. It is the long history of hatred, bias and unequal treatment that lead the Tamils into violent means of protesting their rights and fight for equality.
Moreover, it may not always be true that modern society encourages peace. True, with peace and stability, economies can function better and the government can focus more on solving other problems of society. But it is also an innate feeling for humans to desire peace and cease sufferings due to rampant violence.
Also, for countries like Iran and North Korea, which goes into nuclear experimentations, how can we say that these societies are advocating peace? They are viewed worldwide as potential threats due to the nuclear programme which could jeopardize peace and stability.
Therefore, it is not true that modernity will always create violence-there are other factors. It is also not always true that all societies encourage peace.
In the lecture, paradoxes of modern societies were mentioned. One of the paradoxes would be that modernity creates violence but modern society encourages peace. When countries choose to embrace globalization, they are welcoming modernity. This leads to the acceptance of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) like GAP, Starbucks and more. It also introduces the usage of technology and a knowledge-based economy (KBE). With the introduction of more powerful companies and technology, a country’s economy becomes more competitive. The locals will find it difficult to keep up with the MNCs in terms of resources, capital, talents and experience. Home entrepreneurship is thus discouraged. Locals also lose jobs to more talented foreigners- as hiring of foreign workers and outsourcing of jobs become more popular to cut costs and increase efficiency. When the locals feel that they are losing their rights, they may reject modernity- for example, the communist countries like China and North Korea. In their course of rejecting modernity and foreign western help, violence may occur in the process, like the people of Iraq, where some feel that the new democratic government was not doing any better than the previous Saddam Hussein’s empire. They react violently, some joining the terrorist groups to go against the democratic forces.
But is it always true that modernity results in violent reactions? Singapore, too, is still going through the process of modernity due to globalization. We, too, experience the problem of the influx of foreign companies and workers, coupled with problems of outsourcing and mergers of big corporations. Locals cannot find an “iron rice bowl” anymore. But we do not resort to violence to voice our displeasures. We do make crude remarks of the foreigners and complain about them. But we accepted the foreigners as part and parcel of accepting globalization. We do not assault them. Also, in the western countries like America, if they are unhappy about the economic policies or worried about their job future, they protest by holding strikes and writing petitions to the government, not violence.
Furthermore, it is not always just due to the factor of modernity that constitutes violence. In the Iraq example, it is also due to the instability and constant fighting that induces people to join the terrorists in hope of finding peace. It is the environment that forces them to be violent to achieve their aims.
Another example would be the Tamils and Sri Lankans. It is not due to modernity that violence prevails in the country, even though the country accepts the forces of globalization. It is the long history of hatred, bias and unequal treatment that lead the Tamils into violent means of protesting their rights and fight for equality.
Moreover, it may not always be true that modern society encourages peace. True, with peace and stability, economies can function better and the government can focus more on solving other problems of society. But it is also an innate feeling for humans to desire peace and cease sufferings due to rampant violence.
Also, for countries like Iran and North Korea, which goes into nuclear experimentations, how can we say that these societies are advocating peace? They are viewed worldwide as potential threats due to the nuclear programme which could jeopardize peace and stability.
Therefore, it is not true that modernity will always create violence-there are other factors. It is also not always true that all societies encourage peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)