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.
Friday, September 19, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)