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.