Human activities have had an impact on the earth we live in. Especially with the phenomenon of industrialization the strain on the earth and its resources are being keenly felt by the inhabitants of the world. With all the problems such as climate change, rising sea levels and deforestation, all being a product of our thirst for energy and production, it is impossible to hope that things can go back to what they once were. That would have to involve human societies reverting back to the old ways of small subsistence farming and hunting and gathering, this is of course on the assumption that the world has suffered reversible damage and not a malignant cancer metastasized beyond the point of no return. Unfortunately even if we were able to all agree to stop using cars and travel on foot; the effects would still be there. However the fact still remains, the world is in crisis, not the crisis between societies, but Mother Nature herself is sick and that simultaneously threatens our very existence. But our existence as society will move along till the point when Mother Nature finally croaks, she’s sick, she’s not dead. Hence our lives must continue, our economic aims must be met, we must consume therefore we must produce; the population of the earth must be fed. We cannot by any means turn the hands of time, at the same time we cannot at any point stagger the progression of our existence just because Mother Nature is sick.
There is now a worldwide movement to attempt to do something about Mother Nature’s hiccups, one that has risen to prominence is the growing awareness to the harmful effects of the burning of fossil fuels, this is taken in isolation besides the fact that fossil fuels will one day run out and we shall have to look for an alternative regardless of the earth’s condition. This growing awareness has heralded new discoveries in terms of new types of energies which are not only renewable but also brings with it clean energy. These new forms of energy however, have their limitations as do oil and the implementation of these forms of energy will require added costs that might counter act this thankless cause of saving the earth, but perhaps societies are not seriously considering integrating these types of energy into our daily lives. It is but an alien concept that brings an image of causing some discomfort to our lives at some point, therefore most people would continue with their lives regardless of the environmental damage; imagine riding a bicycle instead of taking the bus in tropical Singapore.
However what if we can find creative solutions to integrate these fuels into our homes at minimum disruption, Solar panels for example, imagine the rooftops of every HDB block fitted with them, since most of the rooftops are flat anyway and they are unblocked form the sun’s glare would it be enough to at least light the corridors at night? How about the sides of the high rises? Since HDB is a housing project and if all the blocks are fitted with a sea of solar panels, would we not perhaps be able to lower the costs of production and installation? Of course not all forms of energy are all good, there’s too many strings attached should we go with nuclear power, for instance but what about the water from our homes, could we harness the gravitational force exerted on the water as it flows through the pipes of our high rises to turn a turbine to power our lifts perhaps? Surely the feasibility of these ideas would have to be explored but performed simultaneously these installations might just reduce our dependency on not only fossil fuels but power stations. It would reshape the way we live, imagine every small action in our daily lives, things we take for granted counting towards stored energy for use.
This would not be a solution for all countries or even districts, but perhaps the solutions we require are not in the mass production of renewable or not renewable resources or the developments of technology, perhaps there is no unilateral answer to high carbon emissions in countries, each and every society must develop its own methods that are not only unique but also practical to the uses of its people, allowing in to be internalised as part of their daily lives. Perhaps if societies with an advanced stage of development take the lead, developing countries will follow as well thus perpetuating this movement to rehabilitate the blue planet.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Technology rising- The cost of advancement
Technology is undoubtedly one of the hallmarks of this century. With the development of technology there has been an unprecedented advancement in the lives of man. Every aspect of life has significantly improved, at least that is the promise technology has brought. But if one considers the relation between society and technology where both areas are affected at almost equal parity as a result of the other, are all these developments in technology necessary for society and the human race or, the more interesting alternative, are these changes in humanity necessary for technology?
Technology in its most rudimentary form has existed for hundreds of years, about the time when man developed the idea of living together in a society. The development of technology has coincided with the desire of man to facilitate the development of societies needs. Should this technology not have evolved together with society it would by no means signal the end of society’s development, perhaps if the technology had stunted the society would still evolve but at a slower pace and perhaps without a heavy reliance on technology to facilitate its main actors. The Monks in Mongolia for example do not rely heavily on technology in the present day context, yet they are able to evolve as a society within themselves, developing their own culture and more importantly religious institution that govern the way they live. This is in contrast to many people living in the developed and industrialised areas around the world, who would not be able to continue with everyday function without the help of the humble telephone. I am not suggesting that we abandon the luxuries of life and technology in favour of the simple life of monks, however it is important to note that even in this century when technology has aided greatly in the development of society and has been instrumental in some of the directions taken by society in its progress, it does not imply that society would cease to function if new technology was not found or the role of technology is lessened. Therefore would the continued advancement of technology be in societies favour? Surely society would benefit greatly but on the account that society is becoming increasingly riddled with structural deficiencies such as inequality and marginalisation, would further change built upon already weakened foundations cause an inevitable collapse of society and its institutions? This would simultaneously plunge the world into chaos and anarchy the extent of which might be unconceivable.
Alternatively, this relation does not only involve technologies impact on society but rather societies impact on technology as well. With the rise of sophistication of technology, society is becoming ever so dependent on technology in its quest to achieve greater efficiency and productively, mainly this applies to the economic institutions that began to utilise technology on a mass scale from the industrial revolution on, resulting in more products being produced from clothing to cars, although this enabled a larger portion of the growing society to enjoy particular luxuries, the use of these machines has progressed so much so that they are able to take over the role of men in the process of production. It is as though society has endorsed technology so much so that it has displaced its own actors. Unfortunately these displaced actors soon become irrelevant as workers and it results in unemployment and by extension poverty. These workers are not able to overtake machines in certain industrial processes nor will they ever will at the rate technology is being developed. Therefore as the trend suggests more and more agents of production will be by machines owned by men. To what extent will this trend continue? Though it is unlikely that the machines will own the means of production and assimilate into a higher class, they are already taking over roles of the working class, a class in which more people belong to. The displaced workers are forced to reinvent themselves through skills upgrading and state institutions are forced to pour in resources to retrain workers, as Singapore has done with the establishment of the Workers Development Agency or WDA. It is ironic that resources are being poured in to retrain workers to overcome the fact that they have been displaced by machines, the very creation that was suppose to improve lives in the first place. It seems that men now have to play catch up to technology. In a profit driven economy unfortunately this becomes the only logic.
The workers who have survived this onslaught of technology have been those who have the ability to absorb and utilise information. The possession of this information would involve education and retraining of workers already in the system, however with increased standards of education quality and application, would the displaced workers be able to adapt and catch up? It seems that a new hurdle has been erected on the part of the workers to restrict them from maintaining or retaining the level of employment they once had, unlike machines humans are not as expandable and there is only an extent that an individual is able to adapt to the changes, the faster these changes occur, the lesser chance of the workers staying in contention. No doubt some will be able to survive, but it is the large numbers who don’t that ultimately becomes a concern.
Technology in its most rudimentary form has existed for hundreds of years, about the time when man developed the idea of living together in a society. The development of technology has coincided with the desire of man to facilitate the development of societies needs. Should this technology not have evolved together with society it would by no means signal the end of society’s development, perhaps if the technology had stunted the society would still evolve but at a slower pace and perhaps without a heavy reliance on technology to facilitate its main actors. The Monks in Mongolia for example do not rely heavily on technology in the present day context, yet they are able to evolve as a society within themselves, developing their own culture and more importantly religious institution that govern the way they live. This is in contrast to many people living in the developed and industrialised areas around the world, who would not be able to continue with everyday function without the help of the humble telephone. I am not suggesting that we abandon the luxuries of life and technology in favour of the simple life of monks, however it is important to note that even in this century when technology has aided greatly in the development of society and has been instrumental in some of the directions taken by society in its progress, it does not imply that society would cease to function if new technology was not found or the role of technology is lessened. Therefore would the continued advancement of technology be in societies favour? Surely society would benefit greatly but on the account that society is becoming increasingly riddled with structural deficiencies such as inequality and marginalisation, would further change built upon already weakened foundations cause an inevitable collapse of society and its institutions? This would simultaneously plunge the world into chaos and anarchy the extent of which might be unconceivable.
Alternatively, this relation does not only involve technologies impact on society but rather societies impact on technology as well. With the rise of sophistication of technology, society is becoming ever so dependent on technology in its quest to achieve greater efficiency and productively, mainly this applies to the economic institutions that began to utilise technology on a mass scale from the industrial revolution on, resulting in more products being produced from clothing to cars, although this enabled a larger portion of the growing society to enjoy particular luxuries, the use of these machines has progressed so much so that they are able to take over the role of men in the process of production. It is as though society has endorsed technology so much so that it has displaced its own actors. Unfortunately these displaced actors soon become irrelevant as workers and it results in unemployment and by extension poverty. These workers are not able to overtake machines in certain industrial processes nor will they ever will at the rate technology is being developed. Therefore as the trend suggests more and more agents of production will be by machines owned by men. To what extent will this trend continue? Though it is unlikely that the machines will own the means of production and assimilate into a higher class, they are already taking over roles of the working class, a class in which more people belong to. The displaced workers are forced to reinvent themselves through skills upgrading and state institutions are forced to pour in resources to retrain workers, as Singapore has done with the establishment of the Workers Development Agency or WDA. It is ironic that resources are being poured in to retrain workers to overcome the fact that they have been displaced by machines, the very creation that was suppose to improve lives in the first place. It seems that men now have to play catch up to technology. In a profit driven economy unfortunately this becomes the only logic.
The workers who have survived this onslaught of technology have been those who have the ability to absorb and utilise information. The possession of this information would involve education and retraining of workers already in the system, however with increased standards of education quality and application, would the displaced workers be able to adapt and catch up? It seems that a new hurdle has been erected on the part of the workers to restrict them from maintaining or retaining the level of employment they once had, unlike machines humans are not as expandable and there is only an extent that an individual is able to adapt to the changes, the faster these changes occur, the lesser chance of the workers staying in contention. No doubt some will be able to survive, but it is the large numbers who don’t that ultimately becomes a concern.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Imposing wellness
The threat of a global pandemic is a major concern to nation states, corporations and individuals alike. Although global spread of diseases has not been new however the concerns are further amplified with the speed at which people can now travel around the world seamlessly. As proven by the SARS epidemic, the movement of the infected individuals was so fast that by the time authorities realised something was wrong the disease had already spread to several cities each with its own mass of people living in high density settings. However it is interesting to note the steps taken to prevent SARS and also steps taken to immediately prevent HIV have been very different. As for the case of SARS, it was a virus that had the potential to infect quickly with a high rate of transmission between individuals but the latter is also true for HIV as well, yet the immediate response has not been on the same scale as the SARS epidemic. Why is there a disparity between the handling of these two particular diseases?
HIV has drawn a worldwide response as many scientists are working on a cure for the disease across many parts of the world. Financial institutions such as the World Bank are also stepping in to provide financial assistance to improve education and preventive measures to avert the virus. However the virus is still deadly and has now spread to many other parts of the world. Unlike the SARS virus which resulted in many of the patients being quarantined, as in the case of Singapore, in a designated hospital. Temperature taking was also introduced at many public areas such as schools and entry points into the country to isolate cases early so that it may be treated. But the same treatment is not given to HIV. Testing for HIV is not compulsory neither is there impositions made by the state to ensure that travellers or more importantly residents know of the status of their health. This has been left to the digression of the individual, partly due to the costs and the time required to conduct such tests and also due to privacy issues however wouldn’t a virus such as this that is able to spread from person to person through particular normal human functions demand a waiver of privacy at least?
The nature of HIV is such that it can remain dormant in a host for an extended period of time therefore it would require immediate attention when the individual begins to show signs of infection. However as individuals have the freedom to choose whether to be tested or not, the pretext of ignorance is often utilised when unexpected effects occur. These effects often involves innocent parties who do not subscribe to the lifestyle associated with HIV, to be infected with the disease, as with unborn children infected through their mothers and women infected by their travelling husbands. These could have been prevented if the individuals had been tested regularly. The treatment of the results from the test might differ from person to person however with the assumption there is a basic sense of concern by most people with regards to the well being of others this information would be treated with the upmost importance that would possibly causing a change in lifestyles. No doubt education and prevention are fundamental tools to prevent the spread of HIV however such tools pale in comparison to the results of a lab test.
Due to the global spread of the virus it is undoubtedly difficult for states to impose testing on individuals to ascertain their HIV status but perhaps this can be done at the point of travel between borders as was the case with SARS. However this does not insinuate that states have to subsequently undertake measures to begin medical care on the individual but perhaps with the knowledge of their HIV status they will exercise a level of self control and not infect their loved ones at least. This would not stop the spread of HIV altogether but it could slow down the rate of infection significantly. Consequently with the imposition of these testing measures, research and development will be done to further streamline the testing process to make it more effective and cheaper to meet the demands of the world. Therefore indiscriminate testing might provide the ballast needed to complement the many preventive educational campaigns that are ongoing all over the world to raise the awareness of HIV.
Perhaps these measures are not considered workable as they involve heavy logistical demands as well as a heavy state imposition on a disease that is ravaging many parts of the world in poverty. Hence unlike SARS, urgent steps taken to actively prevent the spread are not taken as states are reluctant to spend added resources on a virus that has already spread across the world and more importantly the fact that the most infected states are developing countries teetering on poverty and not the developed areas of the world. There is therefore an important disparity between reactions to viruses as it affects different demographics especially when it comes to income disparities. It is time for the world to look beyond such differences and focus on the principle of viruses, as treats to the human race.
HIV has drawn a worldwide response as many scientists are working on a cure for the disease across many parts of the world. Financial institutions such as the World Bank are also stepping in to provide financial assistance to improve education and preventive measures to avert the virus. However the virus is still deadly and has now spread to many other parts of the world. Unlike the SARS virus which resulted in many of the patients being quarantined, as in the case of Singapore, in a designated hospital. Temperature taking was also introduced at many public areas such as schools and entry points into the country to isolate cases early so that it may be treated. But the same treatment is not given to HIV. Testing for HIV is not compulsory neither is there impositions made by the state to ensure that travellers or more importantly residents know of the status of their health. This has been left to the digression of the individual, partly due to the costs and the time required to conduct such tests and also due to privacy issues however wouldn’t a virus such as this that is able to spread from person to person through particular normal human functions demand a waiver of privacy at least?
The nature of HIV is such that it can remain dormant in a host for an extended period of time therefore it would require immediate attention when the individual begins to show signs of infection. However as individuals have the freedom to choose whether to be tested or not, the pretext of ignorance is often utilised when unexpected effects occur. These effects often involves innocent parties who do not subscribe to the lifestyle associated with HIV, to be infected with the disease, as with unborn children infected through their mothers and women infected by their travelling husbands. These could have been prevented if the individuals had been tested regularly. The treatment of the results from the test might differ from person to person however with the assumption there is a basic sense of concern by most people with regards to the well being of others this information would be treated with the upmost importance that would possibly causing a change in lifestyles. No doubt education and prevention are fundamental tools to prevent the spread of HIV however such tools pale in comparison to the results of a lab test.
Due to the global spread of the virus it is undoubtedly difficult for states to impose testing on individuals to ascertain their HIV status but perhaps this can be done at the point of travel between borders as was the case with SARS. However this does not insinuate that states have to subsequently undertake measures to begin medical care on the individual but perhaps with the knowledge of their HIV status they will exercise a level of self control and not infect their loved ones at least. This would not stop the spread of HIV altogether but it could slow down the rate of infection significantly. Consequently with the imposition of these testing measures, research and development will be done to further streamline the testing process to make it more effective and cheaper to meet the demands of the world. Therefore indiscriminate testing might provide the ballast needed to complement the many preventive educational campaigns that are ongoing all over the world to raise the awareness of HIV.
Perhaps these measures are not considered workable as they involve heavy logistical demands as well as a heavy state imposition on a disease that is ravaging many parts of the world in poverty. Hence unlike SARS, urgent steps taken to actively prevent the spread are not taken as states are reluctant to spend added resources on a virus that has already spread across the world and more importantly the fact that the most infected states are developing countries teetering on poverty and not the developed areas of the world. There is therefore an important disparity between reactions to viruses as it affects different demographics especially when it comes to income disparities. It is time for the world to look beyond such differences and focus on the principle of viruses, as treats to the human race.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Shattered cities
The urbanization process has brought with it new challenges for all the major cities. It is an inevitable process that has occurred through the centuries. With industrialization and globalization added to the mix, urbanization has taken on an even greater role as it integrates and develops the city or core area of a particular place, physically and socially to ensure that the city’s inhabitance are able to develop according to the cities progression. However with the movement of people and goods our of the city’s centre towards areas outside the city, would the cities be distinct form one another, or would they be reduced to shell like entities that will take on any role at any given time by anyone?
Increasingly, with the deindustrialization of many cities, the cities are taking on the role as areas of cultural interest with ethnic diversity being key, although this adds life to the otherwise decapitated areas of the city, the city is transformed to accommodate this change, buildings and warehouses are converted to restaurants and museums. However the power to utilize these functions effectively has been at the hands of new immigrants as they seek to develop their own unique ethnic enclave for them to assimilate with. With the locals almost abandoning the city in acceptance of the enticements presented by the suburban areas, would the city change drastically to result in the locals being unable to relate to it? With the locals no longer actively participating in the cultural developments of the city, would a new culture be created that is foreign to the identity of the city?
Would the city then become a hotbed of conflict as picket lines are drawn between the city dwellers and the rest of the society?
Undoubtedly the development and progression of ethnic enclaves has injected some life into the areas of the city otherwise left to wither away. It has also allowed the city to revitalize its own image to remain relevant in face of competition from the suburban areas but the freedom in which the developers of these enclaves enjoy might lead to changes to the city that are not transitory in nature. The city has lost some of its activities through the relocation of industrial areas outside the city to cheaper areas as well as its residential blocks for suburb living, these facilities have moved on to “greener pastures” at the promise of greater living space and cheaper costs, however the development of ethnic enclaves based on cultural aspects might result in historical and emotional connections being made that would entrench the particular area permanently as a cultural enclave for a particular ethnic group. Would these ethnic groups allow for the same areas to be transformed for different purposes when the needs of the city call for it? Unlike the deindustrialization and migration of people based on economic lines, areas with emotional and cultural significance might be more difficult to part with. This cultural enclave also serves as a gateway for new immigrants as a transition point to aid the integration and assimilation process, with more of the city being left as unused areas and with the increase of immigrants, these ethnic enclaves will increase in size. This will automatically give these areas a louder voice and a stronger purpose to exist. Hence making it difficult to remove or relocate should the need arise. Therefore should there be a new wave of purpose that envelops the city, the city developers might be forced to tip-toe around these areas to prevent conflict.
Although this would result in distinctive cities that would have its own unique flavour, it would have to come at a cost, especially for cities with space constraints. This coupled with the fact that suburbs are beginning to invade parts of the cities outermost boundaries, the city would be choked for expansion and future development. Hence this would make this cultural enclave the final transition of the particular area. This would not be a source of concern unless the cities lose out on opportunities by virtue of these cultural enclaves. These lost opportunities especially those of an economic nature would present itself as a source of resentment an eventually conflict between the state, the society at large and the tenants of the city.
Increasingly, with the deindustrialization of many cities, the cities are taking on the role as areas of cultural interest with ethnic diversity being key, although this adds life to the otherwise decapitated areas of the city, the city is transformed to accommodate this change, buildings and warehouses are converted to restaurants and museums. However the power to utilize these functions effectively has been at the hands of new immigrants as they seek to develop their own unique ethnic enclave for them to assimilate with. With the locals almost abandoning the city in acceptance of the enticements presented by the suburban areas, would the city change drastically to result in the locals being unable to relate to it? With the locals no longer actively participating in the cultural developments of the city, would a new culture be created that is foreign to the identity of the city?
Would the city then become a hotbed of conflict as picket lines are drawn between the city dwellers and the rest of the society?
Undoubtedly the development and progression of ethnic enclaves has injected some life into the areas of the city otherwise left to wither away. It has also allowed the city to revitalize its own image to remain relevant in face of competition from the suburban areas but the freedom in which the developers of these enclaves enjoy might lead to changes to the city that are not transitory in nature. The city has lost some of its activities through the relocation of industrial areas outside the city to cheaper areas as well as its residential blocks for suburb living, these facilities have moved on to “greener pastures” at the promise of greater living space and cheaper costs, however the development of ethnic enclaves based on cultural aspects might result in historical and emotional connections being made that would entrench the particular area permanently as a cultural enclave for a particular ethnic group. Would these ethnic groups allow for the same areas to be transformed for different purposes when the needs of the city call for it? Unlike the deindustrialization and migration of people based on economic lines, areas with emotional and cultural significance might be more difficult to part with. This cultural enclave also serves as a gateway for new immigrants as a transition point to aid the integration and assimilation process, with more of the city being left as unused areas and with the increase of immigrants, these ethnic enclaves will increase in size. This will automatically give these areas a louder voice and a stronger purpose to exist. Hence making it difficult to remove or relocate should the need arise. Therefore should there be a new wave of purpose that envelops the city, the city developers might be forced to tip-toe around these areas to prevent conflict.
Although this would result in distinctive cities that would have its own unique flavour, it would have to come at a cost, especially for cities with space constraints. This coupled with the fact that suburbs are beginning to invade parts of the cities outermost boundaries, the city would be choked for expansion and future development. Hence this would make this cultural enclave the final transition of the particular area. This would not be a source of concern unless the cities lose out on opportunities by virtue of these cultural enclaves. These lost opportunities especially those of an economic nature would present itself as a source of resentment an eventually conflict between the state, the society at large and the tenants of the city.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Please sir, I don’t want your identity
A dark skinned, heavily bearded, middle-eastern man walks into the departure gate of Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris to board a flight to New York. He is loosely dressed in black, with a bracelet of a cross tied to his wrist and a Jewish skull cap on his head. He carries a heavy bag marked with the initials OBL embossed in gold. He also carries with him a first class ticket.
Imagine the conflicting images faced by security at the airport. The individual painted above does not conform to any marked boundaries of someone who might pose a terrorist threat. Could he be a terrorist? Could he be the elusive OBL that the Americans have been searching for? Or could it just be a conflicted individual who has no clear definition of who his identity is coupled with a strong interest in religious fashion? It is likely that the members of the airport security will proceed to ascertain further if this individual does pose a threat to the security on board the plane, especially since the origins and motives of the individual could not be ascertained without a shadow of a doubt. However this scenario regardless of the result will present a discourse amongst the airport security officials at least, on the superficial attributes that would point out a person’s identity.
Identity is something that is very fluid in nature. With the socialization of each individual different situations relating to his affairs with others, technically everyone would have a different identity or set of principles. There is however a peculiarly strong tendency to lump many similarities between identities together into one group of individuals. With this characterization come the political, economic and social implications for that particular individual or that particular group. When the group is characterized externally in order to fit pre existing models or stereotypes would it become fair for the unfortunate individuals who are lumped in that group to begin to subscribe to the stereotypes themselves? A moderate Arabian man for example, having been heavily prejudices in the Western world for being of Arab descent is pushed to consider the extreme views of his brethren seriously. Having found a source to affiliate with the entire group would it not mean that the binding principle of the group, be it fundamentalist or otherwise, become acceptable to some degree to the members within irregardless of the inclinations of the majority of the group before the lumping process. Would we have not created a new batch of sympathizers or worse still extremist fundamentalists itching to further strengthen their beliefs?
This is a highly likely scenario when one considers the prejudices that are faced by individuals who are scrutinized for just the simplest of similarities. In cases where it is dismissed as mistaken identity it would probably not cause such a heavy grievance as compared to an innocent individual who is placed to be persecuted with those who are perceived as threats even when they are innocent to begin with.
In a world where religious fervour and fundamentalism is becoming more prominent, perhaps its rise is not more so of strong political unhappiness but rather the cases of persecution from a set of perceived notions based on the labeling of ones identity by others.
Imagine the conflicting images faced by security at the airport. The individual painted above does not conform to any marked boundaries of someone who might pose a terrorist threat. Could he be a terrorist? Could he be the elusive OBL that the Americans have been searching for? Or could it just be a conflicted individual who has no clear definition of who his identity is coupled with a strong interest in religious fashion? It is likely that the members of the airport security will proceed to ascertain further if this individual does pose a threat to the security on board the plane, especially since the origins and motives of the individual could not be ascertained without a shadow of a doubt. However this scenario regardless of the result will present a discourse amongst the airport security officials at least, on the superficial attributes that would point out a person’s identity.
Identity is something that is very fluid in nature. With the socialization of each individual different situations relating to his affairs with others, technically everyone would have a different identity or set of principles. There is however a peculiarly strong tendency to lump many similarities between identities together into one group of individuals. With this characterization come the political, economic and social implications for that particular individual or that particular group. When the group is characterized externally in order to fit pre existing models or stereotypes would it become fair for the unfortunate individuals who are lumped in that group to begin to subscribe to the stereotypes themselves? A moderate Arabian man for example, having been heavily prejudices in the Western world for being of Arab descent is pushed to consider the extreme views of his brethren seriously. Having found a source to affiliate with the entire group would it not mean that the binding principle of the group, be it fundamentalist or otherwise, become acceptable to some degree to the members within irregardless of the inclinations of the majority of the group before the lumping process. Would we have not created a new batch of sympathizers or worse still extremist fundamentalists itching to further strengthen their beliefs?
This is a highly likely scenario when one considers the prejudices that are faced by individuals who are scrutinized for just the simplest of similarities. In cases where it is dismissed as mistaken identity it would probably not cause such a heavy grievance as compared to an innocent individual who is placed to be persecuted with those who are perceived as threats even when they are innocent to begin with.
In a world where religious fervour and fundamentalism is becoming more prominent, perhaps its rise is not more so of strong political unhappiness but rather the cases of persecution from a set of perceived notions based on the labeling of ones identity by others.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Big to small- shrinking democracy
The evolution of society has undergone many processes, one of which is the establishment of institutions in many aspects of our lives. The political institution specifically is important in a sense that it affects the lives of many if not all the members within the society. Therefore the evolution of this particular institution to its current state and its ongoing transition to meet the needs of an ever-changing societal and global landscape is a matter of importance in the lives of all global citizens
Historically this institution began its process when man decided to live together instead of individually. They in turn, developed interdependence on one another to an extent where a network was established. Even though this network was primitive and was rather light in the interdependency spectrum it is however the beginnings of an era where the need for others became important. With the establishment of this network, there was a need to make decisions collectively as a unit. These decisions had to benefit the network in some way or at least point them in a direction in which they are able to complement each other instead of competing against one another. This decision maker was chosen under several requirements, influence and wisdom being the initial rudimentary requirements. This quickly evolved to more complex forms of selection in tandem with the ever growing complexity of the society. The criteria for the choice of decision maker or leader vary from society to society however the need for such a role is prevalent in all.
This role and selection process has evolved drastically over the centuries. In its current form it is known as a democracy having risen in prominence since the end of the era of empires. The development of democracy was inspired by the demand for more representation and freedom of the larger society, hence an important shift was initiated, and the power of the decision maker no longer rested in the hands of one individual however there was a collective voice of opinion when an issue was raised. Hence the views of the individuals are represented by persons who are aware of views and possible implications of the individuals represented.
This system works partly because there is the notion that the majority actually do have a say in the running of the state or nation state. This gives the majority a sense of control over how their lives are marshalled, through agents such as policies and legislation for example. Unlike in the past when there was unequal or no representation of the voices of the majority it now has an avenue to be heard. This system does have its drawbacks however and has failed or has been perverted in some form by individuals with a hunger for power and control. However these faults will not be discussed here, instead the question I would like to raise is; will democracy be able to sustain its appeal in light of the new challenge posed by the ongoing process of globalisation?
With globalisation there has been an increase in the movement of individuals across many borders. This has resulted in a more uniform version of democracy to be adopted by many nation states to aid in the movement of individuals. Nation states are now forming into larger regional groups to discuss and decide on matters pertaining to the progress of the particular region. With the collectivisation of the states to a more regional form, would it be a mirror of the empires of old? In a sense the implications of decisions made affect a wide range of people, some of whom might suffer as a result of new policies or laws passed. Would this not undermine the entire basis of a democracy since the voice of particular peoples are no longer heard? It does not imply however that local governments, would be able to satisfy everyone’s needs when a legislation is passed however smaller areas of governance would not differ greatly in terms of social conditions therefore such policy or legislation would not have a large detrimental effect on the local economy or local people. A regional decision that tries encompass many areas at once will surely not be able to satisfy all regions and worse of all might leave some in a precarious position.
Therefore instead of expanding and collectivising democracies, perhaps for democracy to remain relevant and true to its basic function a reversal needs to be sought, which would bring about many smaller states instead of a larger regional fraternity. These smaller states will be able to satisfy the needs of the people more effectively, not only from an economic viewpoint but also culturally as well.
Historically this institution began its process when man decided to live together instead of individually. They in turn, developed interdependence on one another to an extent where a network was established. Even though this network was primitive and was rather light in the interdependency spectrum it is however the beginnings of an era where the need for others became important. With the establishment of this network, there was a need to make decisions collectively as a unit. These decisions had to benefit the network in some way or at least point them in a direction in which they are able to complement each other instead of competing against one another. This decision maker was chosen under several requirements, influence and wisdom being the initial rudimentary requirements. This quickly evolved to more complex forms of selection in tandem with the ever growing complexity of the society. The criteria for the choice of decision maker or leader vary from society to society however the need for such a role is prevalent in all.
This role and selection process has evolved drastically over the centuries. In its current form it is known as a democracy having risen in prominence since the end of the era of empires. The development of democracy was inspired by the demand for more representation and freedom of the larger society, hence an important shift was initiated, and the power of the decision maker no longer rested in the hands of one individual however there was a collective voice of opinion when an issue was raised. Hence the views of the individuals are represented by persons who are aware of views and possible implications of the individuals represented.
This system works partly because there is the notion that the majority actually do have a say in the running of the state or nation state. This gives the majority a sense of control over how their lives are marshalled, through agents such as policies and legislation for example. Unlike in the past when there was unequal or no representation of the voices of the majority it now has an avenue to be heard. This system does have its drawbacks however and has failed or has been perverted in some form by individuals with a hunger for power and control. However these faults will not be discussed here, instead the question I would like to raise is; will democracy be able to sustain its appeal in light of the new challenge posed by the ongoing process of globalisation?
With globalisation there has been an increase in the movement of individuals across many borders. This has resulted in a more uniform version of democracy to be adopted by many nation states to aid in the movement of individuals. Nation states are now forming into larger regional groups to discuss and decide on matters pertaining to the progress of the particular region. With the collectivisation of the states to a more regional form, would it be a mirror of the empires of old? In a sense the implications of decisions made affect a wide range of people, some of whom might suffer as a result of new policies or laws passed. Would this not undermine the entire basis of a democracy since the voice of particular peoples are no longer heard? It does not imply however that local governments, would be able to satisfy everyone’s needs when a legislation is passed however smaller areas of governance would not differ greatly in terms of social conditions therefore such policy or legislation would not have a large detrimental effect on the local economy or local people. A regional decision that tries encompass many areas at once will surely not be able to satisfy all regions and worse of all might leave some in a precarious position.
Therefore instead of expanding and collectivising democracies, perhaps for democracy to remain relevant and true to its basic function a reversal needs to be sought, which would bring about many smaller states instead of a larger regional fraternity. These smaller states will be able to satisfy the needs of the people more effectively, not only from an economic viewpoint but also culturally as well.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
War- Can’t we just get along?
HS103: War
A new version of war has taken the world by storm. Terrorism it seems is the new buzz word for individuals willing to start or engage in an already prevalent conflict. To be a terrorist seems to be the ideal for individuals looking for a higher purpose in life, regardless of the motivation and influence. It is also a highly useful term for the state to classify individuals who are not toeing the line as far as the state is concerned. At a grander scale the latter classification presents an opportunity for the state to exercise new found powers to ensure the safety of other individuals under its protection. But is this classification really needed? Is the states on going crackdown on deviance a catalyst for deadlier or at the very least increased terrorist activity or will terrorism persist regardless of the actions taken by the state to either appease or destroy it?
Unfortunately the answer is not so obvious, depending on the perspectives taken terrorism can be seen to have its merits. I am not however, implying that attacks on civilians and the lost of innocent life can be justified in any manner. The argument here revolves around the justifications of being a terrorist more importantly what can be methods employed to prevent terrorism from causing more negative implications. To understand this perhaps the assumption that the reasons terrorists have for terror are justified must be taken.
The answer lies not in further complicating situations with violence and endless negotiations, nor can we use intimidation tactics by the more powerful on the less powerful, neither can we enforce a system which is alien to that particular group of individuals. I believe the warring parties must be given space to mediate and work out their differences, free from external influences. Could we trust each other to allow the societies or places with conflict to sort themselves out? But that could mean a rise of an eventual government who might not be within the ideals of democracy set out by the west. As in the case of Vietnam which became communist after the end of the Vietnam civil war after the pull out of the United States. A rise of an individual ala Osama or Saddam who might aspire to conquer the world or violently change it to suit their ideals could also emerge, but let us not forget, the latter was at one point supported by the Americans, while the former is fighting against the Western ideas being imposed on the things that were previously familiar to him. In both cases the involvement of a foreign power is central to the starting or aggravating the conflict. Would foreign intervention in these conflicts, though meant to solve it, put us back where we started?
The European continent has had centuries of strife before they achieved a level of cooperation and understanding that allowed them to have peace. Although this peace is only 60 years old, it is a stable peace with the majority of its members happy and content with their territories and relations with one another. Again this was only achieved after endless conflicts for hundreds of years, after resettlements and the rise and fall of great empires. The rest of the world it seems has not been given such an opportunity to flower and progress in a similar fashion. Since the dawn of the colonial age many parts of the world have been stunted in this development of resolution of conflicts amongst the many different nations as well as within the nations themselves.
This stunted development is not only due to the colonization by European powers but also as a result of the ensuing world wars which ultimately resulted in the end of the colonial era. Since then these countries and regions have not been able to progress at the same rate as the Europeans. Even though they have some way to go before that level is eventually reached, it seems that the values of the Westerners which they accumulated after many years is being imposed on the countries or regions facing conflicts. Often times these imposed solutions do not take into account the regional or factual specifications of each conflict. Although there are periods of seeming success in the resolution of such conflicts but it is more likely to result in the marginalisation of some sections of the society unwilling to accept the imposed values. Often these imposed values are seen as a bigger source of conflict rather than the original conflict. This of course leads to rebellions that are often made up of groups of individuals. Hence comes the age of terrorism where violence and attacks on innocent civilians is he only means of voicing discontent such is the case now with Iraq, where militias have been formed and are attacking the “coalition of the willing” daily. Ironically these militias are deadlier than Saddam’s forces not for their added firepower but rather for the fact that they answer to no one.
It is apparent that some of these problems have arisen as a result of foreign or western involvement in local affairs and this involvement has permeated the region, economically, socially and politically. So deep is the ripple of involvement that it becomes extremely difficult for the society to carry on with these values. Hence they attempt to create a hybrid but in essence it is just adding to the fault lines already prevalent in a volatile society.
Therefore perhaps the only way for conflicts to resolve themselves, it would require the two parties to mediate with one another without the intervention or influence of others. Perhaps only when this is allowed to take place will we see more viable solutions in conflict zones which are more readily adopted by both sides in their reconciliation. Of course the drawback might include hundreds maybe thousands of casualties.
The world would not stand and watch such atrocities like genocide and ethnic cleansing, and would be compelled under humanitarian reasons to intervene. How far should then our intervention be? Just to save the injured civilians? Or eliminate the conflicts in the first place? The latter is true as history suggests. But we have seen the longer lasting fall out of this result. Perhaps we should consider a new solution, suppose an arms embargo was imposed and strictly adhered to. Suppose the 2 factions did not have access to arms, as impossible as that may sound, perhaps if arms are taken out of the equation together with external influences, the factions in conflict could finally pursue the option of diplomacy, or some form of peaceful negotiation. Perhaps when both sides can be seen as and can view each other as equals, the search for a peaceful solution and more importantly an end can be found.
A new version of war has taken the world by storm. Terrorism it seems is the new buzz word for individuals willing to start or engage in an already prevalent conflict. To be a terrorist seems to be the ideal for individuals looking for a higher purpose in life, regardless of the motivation and influence. It is also a highly useful term for the state to classify individuals who are not toeing the line as far as the state is concerned. At a grander scale the latter classification presents an opportunity for the state to exercise new found powers to ensure the safety of other individuals under its protection. But is this classification really needed? Is the states on going crackdown on deviance a catalyst for deadlier or at the very least increased terrorist activity or will terrorism persist regardless of the actions taken by the state to either appease or destroy it?
Unfortunately the answer is not so obvious, depending on the perspectives taken terrorism can be seen to have its merits. I am not however, implying that attacks on civilians and the lost of innocent life can be justified in any manner. The argument here revolves around the justifications of being a terrorist more importantly what can be methods employed to prevent terrorism from causing more negative implications. To understand this perhaps the assumption that the reasons terrorists have for terror are justified must be taken.
The answer lies not in further complicating situations with violence and endless negotiations, nor can we use intimidation tactics by the more powerful on the less powerful, neither can we enforce a system which is alien to that particular group of individuals. I believe the warring parties must be given space to mediate and work out their differences, free from external influences. Could we trust each other to allow the societies or places with conflict to sort themselves out? But that could mean a rise of an eventual government who might not be within the ideals of democracy set out by the west. As in the case of Vietnam which became communist after the end of the Vietnam civil war after the pull out of the United States. A rise of an individual ala Osama or Saddam who might aspire to conquer the world or violently change it to suit their ideals could also emerge, but let us not forget, the latter was at one point supported by the Americans, while the former is fighting against the Western ideas being imposed on the things that were previously familiar to him. In both cases the involvement of a foreign power is central to the starting or aggravating the conflict. Would foreign intervention in these conflicts, though meant to solve it, put us back where we started?
The European continent has had centuries of strife before they achieved a level of cooperation and understanding that allowed them to have peace. Although this peace is only 60 years old, it is a stable peace with the majority of its members happy and content with their territories and relations with one another. Again this was only achieved after endless conflicts for hundreds of years, after resettlements and the rise and fall of great empires. The rest of the world it seems has not been given such an opportunity to flower and progress in a similar fashion. Since the dawn of the colonial age many parts of the world have been stunted in this development of resolution of conflicts amongst the many different nations as well as within the nations themselves.
This stunted development is not only due to the colonization by European powers but also as a result of the ensuing world wars which ultimately resulted in the end of the colonial era. Since then these countries and regions have not been able to progress at the same rate as the Europeans. Even though they have some way to go before that level is eventually reached, it seems that the values of the Westerners which they accumulated after many years is being imposed on the countries or regions facing conflicts. Often times these imposed solutions do not take into account the regional or factual specifications of each conflict. Although there are periods of seeming success in the resolution of such conflicts but it is more likely to result in the marginalisation of some sections of the society unwilling to accept the imposed values. Often these imposed values are seen as a bigger source of conflict rather than the original conflict. This of course leads to rebellions that are often made up of groups of individuals. Hence comes the age of terrorism where violence and attacks on innocent civilians is he only means of voicing discontent such is the case now with Iraq, where militias have been formed and are attacking the “coalition of the willing” daily. Ironically these militias are deadlier than Saddam’s forces not for their added firepower but rather for the fact that they answer to no one.
It is apparent that some of these problems have arisen as a result of foreign or western involvement in local affairs and this involvement has permeated the region, economically, socially and politically. So deep is the ripple of involvement that it becomes extremely difficult for the society to carry on with these values. Hence they attempt to create a hybrid but in essence it is just adding to the fault lines already prevalent in a volatile society.
Therefore perhaps the only way for conflicts to resolve themselves, it would require the two parties to mediate with one another without the intervention or influence of others. Perhaps only when this is allowed to take place will we see more viable solutions in conflict zones which are more readily adopted by both sides in their reconciliation. Of course the drawback might include hundreds maybe thousands of casualties.
The world would not stand and watch such atrocities like genocide and ethnic cleansing, and would be compelled under humanitarian reasons to intervene. How far should then our intervention be? Just to save the injured civilians? Or eliminate the conflicts in the first place? The latter is true as history suggests. But we have seen the longer lasting fall out of this result. Perhaps we should consider a new solution, suppose an arms embargo was imposed and strictly adhered to. Suppose the 2 factions did not have access to arms, as impossible as that may sound, perhaps if arms are taken out of the equation together with external influences, the factions in conflict could finally pursue the option of diplomacy, or some form of peaceful negotiation. Perhaps when both sides can be seen as and can view each other as equals, the search for a peaceful solution and more importantly an end can be found.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Crime- Institutionalized thugs?
The relation between crime and globalisation is incredibly intricate and complex. There is no one way to explain and decode the relation. This is simply because the impact that globalisation has on the society is so great at so many different levels. To look at crime which is relational to globalisation one cannot help but note a similar impact. But is the increase of crime in this environment a by- product of globalisation or is it an evolution, similar to how society has progressed?
It’s easier to consider the former as crime has proven to have become more widespread as individuals moved from thier home towns to the cities in search of the promise of a better life. However on occasions when this promise was not realised, it has lead to the rise of a group of individuals who are away from the elements which they have found comfortable, developing a sense of dislocation. Of course this sense of dislocation does not necessarily mean that they will lead to a life of crime, taken as a factor on its own it’s not very apparent that this could be a root cause of crime and its associated developing sophistication. However when dislocation is considered in a society that is fast moving and developing economically new factors have to be considered and this further enhances the acute problem of dislocation. Often times, this leads to a level of poverty as the new migrants are not able to secure jobs that would allow them to successfully flourish in the urban setting. Leading to urban poverty, among others. This phenomenon of poverty develops several traits into the group of individuals. I think the most important factor is the marginalisation of these individuals which causes them to find solace in the plight of the rest of their community. A barrier is developed between them and the larger society and this creates a society in itself. Hence with the seeds of marginalisation sown into the thinking of the individuals, a new found solidarity develops and this could lead to damaging implications on the rest of society. The values that society has is subscribed to it as a whole package but rather in parts, with the poor and marginalised picking values that they can subscribe to at that particular frame in time while others are taken at entirely different level. The material wealth of society for example, becomes a value that is practised on an entirely different level. Since these individuals are not able to gain these items they develop alternative methods of obtaining them, such as through theft and robbery. Essentially they are still hold the same value true however, the application is entirely different. Imagine however what would be the implication of an organisation of people who hold the same values and ideas.
As seen in the phenomenon that is MS13, the poor and in poverty unite under a cause that appeals to them and they engage in a sense of revolt on society in general. The demarcation of territories and emerging gang violence are just some of the activities this group engages in and its members are willing participants because of the fact they no longer hold on to the values of the society at large and hence there is little need to play by the rules that society has set. Therefore activities such as vice and violence, shunned by society becomes a common trait that engages thus group. This group slowly develops and institution of its own, politically and economically. Similar to other societal institutions this group seeks to enhance its legitimacy and exercise its power by the use of violence and more importantly the development of products and services to cater to the poor. Hence the group has initiation ceremonies to develop a sense of belonging and kinship, to emphasize the importance and legitimacy of the organization. The practices of initiation are not the concern here but rather the fact that an initiation exists suggests that the institution seeks legitimacy. The development of products and services seeks to further expand the need for this institutions, the provision of drugs and prostitution among others, allows the organization to be able to appeal to those members of the community who do not necessary have a thirst of violence and a rebel inclination towards recognised society. Nonetheless they too require this group to survive. Let’s not forget the employment factor as well. The fact that these products and services exist means that there is also the need for a workforce to ensure the chain of goods and services is sufficiently staffed and continues to be efficient.
From the factors listed, it becomes clear that globalisation has in fact brought about the development of crime, more importantly organised crime. But the idea that crime has increased because of globalisation, that it is a by-product might not be completely accurate as undoubtedly globalisation has given crime a new dimension of motivation and it is this increased motivation towards crime taken collectively that has provided a more alarming implication, the development of crime as an institution whose roles and functions increasingly mimic the institutions of society. With the development of institutions it becomes natural that a micro-society develops that becomes an entity of its own, with its own rules, its own values, and its own identity. The problem of crime would then evolve from, How to stop it to how to live with it.
It’s easier to consider the former as crime has proven to have become more widespread as individuals moved from thier home towns to the cities in search of the promise of a better life. However on occasions when this promise was not realised, it has lead to the rise of a group of individuals who are away from the elements which they have found comfortable, developing a sense of dislocation. Of course this sense of dislocation does not necessarily mean that they will lead to a life of crime, taken as a factor on its own it’s not very apparent that this could be a root cause of crime and its associated developing sophistication. However when dislocation is considered in a society that is fast moving and developing economically new factors have to be considered and this further enhances the acute problem of dislocation. Often times, this leads to a level of poverty as the new migrants are not able to secure jobs that would allow them to successfully flourish in the urban setting. Leading to urban poverty, among others. This phenomenon of poverty develops several traits into the group of individuals. I think the most important factor is the marginalisation of these individuals which causes them to find solace in the plight of the rest of their community. A barrier is developed between them and the larger society and this creates a society in itself. Hence with the seeds of marginalisation sown into the thinking of the individuals, a new found solidarity develops and this could lead to damaging implications on the rest of society. The values that society has is subscribed to it as a whole package but rather in parts, with the poor and marginalised picking values that they can subscribe to at that particular frame in time while others are taken at entirely different level. The material wealth of society for example, becomes a value that is practised on an entirely different level. Since these individuals are not able to gain these items they develop alternative methods of obtaining them, such as through theft and robbery. Essentially they are still hold the same value true however, the application is entirely different. Imagine however what would be the implication of an organisation of people who hold the same values and ideas.
As seen in the phenomenon that is MS13, the poor and in poverty unite under a cause that appeals to them and they engage in a sense of revolt on society in general. The demarcation of territories and emerging gang violence are just some of the activities this group engages in and its members are willing participants because of the fact they no longer hold on to the values of the society at large and hence there is little need to play by the rules that society has set. Therefore activities such as vice and violence, shunned by society becomes a common trait that engages thus group. This group slowly develops and institution of its own, politically and economically. Similar to other societal institutions this group seeks to enhance its legitimacy and exercise its power by the use of violence and more importantly the development of products and services to cater to the poor. Hence the group has initiation ceremonies to develop a sense of belonging and kinship, to emphasize the importance and legitimacy of the organization. The practices of initiation are not the concern here but rather the fact that an initiation exists suggests that the institution seeks legitimacy. The development of products and services seeks to further expand the need for this institutions, the provision of drugs and prostitution among others, allows the organization to be able to appeal to those members of the community who do not necessary have a thirst of violence and a rebel inclination towards recognised society. Nonetheless they too require this group to survive. Let’s not forget the employment factor as well. The fact that these products and services exist means that there is also the need for a workforce to ensure the chain of goods and services is sufficiently staffed and continues to be efficient.
From the factors listed, it becomes clear that globalisation has in fact brought about the development of crime, more importantly organised crime. But the idea that crime has increased because of globalisation, that it is a by-product might not be completely accurate as undoubtedly globalisation has given crime a new dimension of motivation and it is this increased motivation towards crime taken collectively that has provided a more alarming implication, the development of crime as an institution whose roles and functions increasingly mimic the institutions of society. With the development of institutions it becomes natural that a micro-society develops that becomes an entity of its own, with its own rules, its own values, and its own identity. The problem of crime would then evolve from, How to stop it to how to live with it.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Family- Dare to change?
Mohamed Haikel Fansuri Bin Mohamed Latiff T3
HS103: Gender and family
Title: Family, Dare to change?
It is undeniable that many of the structures and traditional institutions that we once took for granted are in some level of transition. However perhaps it comes as a surprise that one of the most fundamental beliefs that we have been inculcated with for centuries is at the forefront of this change. The gender roles in society.
This is indeed a surprise for some sections of society who are still trying to come to terms with the idea of a changing gender role. The males in parts of society are still coming to terms with this fact and have been heavily affected by the transition. Hence we see a multitude of problems that have arisen from this change. There seems to be a societal lag between the new roles of women and the males who make up the other significant character in the society. But if as Scott Sernau suggests that the changing roles of family has been dominated by the rise of feminism as well as females asking for more responsibility and to be treated equally with men beginning form World War 2 onwards wouldn’t that mean that society would have had at least 50 years to adjust to the changing times?
If that is the case, then what is the reason behind the inertia? It appears as though it is not only males who are lagging behind in perceptions but also society as a whole that is lagging behind. The institutions of society do not facilitate this new drive by women. This multitude of lags has only been further exposed in the age of globalisation the impacts of which have made many groundbreaking changes to every institution in society. More importantly it is the family institution that has undergone an overhaul.
This inertia to adapt and change is best illustrated with family as a principle example. Since the era of industrialization women have begun to step out of her stereotyped family roles and had begun experimenting with earning and working outside the household. Although the earning potential of the women at this point was not essential in the context of the family economy it provided a chance for women to have a taste of things to come. This was further developed and capitalised on during the period of the war. The women were asked to perform male dominated duties to support the men to fight the war. Surely this mobilisation was orchestrated by an institution which saw the potential that women could bring. Perhaps the very institution that mobilised the women potential did not realise that this power once turned on could not be so easily turned off. As history has proven, women have grown in economic influence. More importantly they have begun to explore the same opportunities afforded to males.
Since then women’s impact has been undeniable, yet very little was done to ensure that their primary function which was to look after the family and household duties would be lightened or changed. I believe that the solutions afforded to families now such as day care and parental leave for fathers have been meant to complement the family institution which is no longer relevant in the new scheme of things. Hence problems such as the time bind as well as neglected children and divorces have begun to rise. The strain on the traditional family institution is becoming more apparent and unbearable. Therefore instead of trying to install as many crutches as possible to ensure that the institution is able to hobble along, perhaps it is time to consider a whole new system and institution which can manoeuvre better in this current climate.
This entirely new imstitution, as radical as it sounds, might offer some solutions to the problems of changing gender roles. It is obvious that gender roles will never be the same again and the stereotypes once afforded will continue to change. Hence perhaps we must look beyond the role of the family and question certain aspects of it that we have taken for granted. Consider for a moment the idea of the mother as the child bearer for instance, as we have recently seen, fertility rates are going down as women delay having children for work or decide not to have children altogether in favour of work, obviously the child does contribute positively or negatively to one's career. Judging by the trend however it would appear that negative is the current trend. Imagine if we could for an instant remove this long held stereotype that the women in the household must be the child bearer. Clearly the father cannot take over that responsibility but what if the child bearing can be outsourced somehow for a fee as it has already been practised in some places? Perhaps the developement of science or surrogate mothers might afford a reasonable answer. With this outsourcing both parents are free to concentrate on thier careers and not be burdened by the demands of the family. Especially when a child enters the fray there is a more pressing need for gender roles to be expressed. What if the child could be returned at a later age when he or she is able to take care of him or herself? Radical? Unemotional? perhaps. But for everyone to take part in gender equality and for eveyone to be able to overcome the new gender roles, perhaps such measures do not appear too cruel.
Perhaps it is when we throw out the old ideas and the old infrastructure of what the family institution use to be, the inertia and lag between the different genders would no longer play a paralysing role. It is at this point that families can begin to look at things in a different dimension. More importantly it could be the boost of energy that males require to come to terms with the new climate as well as the balance that is so desperately needed in the lives of married men and women in the world today.
I believe that this movement cannot be afforded by families alone, but the state has to play a more vital role in bringing forth this new change. Similar to 50 years ago when they utilized women to power the economy in the face of war and the absence of men, they must now find some way of finding a balance between the 2 forces in society. A new institution might just be the answer. But it is important to remember that flexibility and empowerment is a key component. The family itself must be put in charge and be able to decide what is best for its longevity.
Should a new institution be discovered or built the benefits would be vast. The problem of displacement, where men no longer have a role after their initial roles of being sole breadwinners has been taken away from them would cease to exist. Even the poverty might be limited. I believe that the results could be so positive it would affect the economy and businesses and the subsequent policies implemented by government. Perhaps then we would no longer see a world that is continually fragmenting and falling apart at its seams. The question now is, are we ready for such a change?
HS103: Gender and family
Title: Family, Dare to change?
It is undeniable that many of the structures and traditional institutions that we once took for granted are in some level of transition. However perhaps it comes as a surprise that one of the most fundamental beliefs that we have been inculcated with for centuries is at the forefront of this change. The gender roles in society.
This is indeed a surprise for some sections of society who are still trying to come to terms with the idea of a changing gender role. The males in parts of society are still coming to terms with this fact and have been heavily affected by the transition. Hence we see a multitude of problems that have arisen from this change. There seems to be a societal lag between the new roles of women and the males who make up the other significant character in the society. But if as Scott Sernau suggests that the changing roles of family has been dominated by the rise of feminism as well as females asking for more responsibility and to be treated equally with men beginning form World War 2 onwards wouldn’t that mean that society would have had at least 50 years to adjust to the changing times?
If that is the case, then what is the reason behind the inertia? It appears as though it is not only males who are lagging behind in perceptions but also society as a whole that is lagging behind. The institutions of society do not facilitate this new drive by women. This multitude of lags has only been further exposed in the age of globalisation the impacts of which have made many groundbreaking changes to every institution in society. More importantly it is the family institution that has undergone an overhaul.
This inertia to adapt and change is best illustrated with family as a principle example. Since the era of industrialization women have begun to step out of her stereotyped family roles and had begun experimenting with earning and working outside the household. Although the earning potential of the women at this point was not essential in the context of the family economy it provided a chance for women to have a taste of things to come. This was further developed and capitalised on during the period of the war. The women were asked to perform male dominated duties to support the men to fight the war. Surely this mobilisation was orchestrated by an institution which saw the potential that women could bring. Perhaps the very institution that mobilised the women potential did not realise that this power once turned on could not be so easily turned off. As history has proven, women have grown in economic influence. More importantly they have begun to explore the same opportunities afforded to males.
Since then women’s impact has been undeniable, yet very little was done to ensure that their primary function which was to look after the family and household duties would be lightened or changed. I believe that the solutions afforded to families now such as day care and parental leave for fathers have been meant to complement the family institution which is no longer relevant in the new scheme of things. Hence problems such as the time bind as well as neglected children and divorces have begun to rise. The strain on the traditional family institution is becoming more apparent and unbearable. Therefore instead of trying to install as many crutches as possible to ensure that the institution is able to hobble along, perhaps it is time to consider a whole new system and institution which can manoeuvre better in this current climate.
This entirely new imstitution, as radical as it sounds, might offer some solutions to the problems of changing gender roles. It is obvious that gender roles will never be the same again and the stereotypes once afforded will continue to change. Hence perhaps we must look beyond the role of the family and question certain aspects of it that we have taken for granted. Consider for a moment the idea of the mother as the child bearer for instance, as we have recently seen, fertility rates are going down as women delay having children for work or decide not to have children altogether in favour of work, obviously the child does contribute positively or negatively to one's career. Judging by the trend however it would appear that negative is the current trend. Imagine if we could for an instant remove this long held stereotype that the women in the household must be the child bearer. Clearly the father cannot take over that responsibility but what if the child bearing can be outsourced somehow for a fee as it has already been practised in some places? Perhaps the developement of science or surrogate mothers might afford a reasonable answer. With this outsourcing both parents are free to concentrate on thier careers and not be burdened by the demands of the family. Especially when a child enters the fray there is a more pressing need for gender roles to be expressed. What if the child could be returned at a later age when he or she is able to take care of him or herself? Radical? Unemotional? perhaps. But for everyone to take part in gender equality and for eveyone to be able to overcome the new gender roles, perhaps such measures do not appear too cruel.
Perhaps it is when we throw out the old ideas and the old infrastructure of what the family institution use to be, the inertia and lag between the different genders would no longer play a paralysing role. It is at this point that families can begin to look at things in a different dimension. More importantly it could be the boost of energy that males require to come to terms with the new climate as well as the balance that is so desperately needed in the lives of married men and women in the world today.
I believe that this movement cannot be afforded by families alone, but the state has to play a more vital role in bringing forth this new change. Similar to 50 years ago when they utilized women to power the economy in the face of war and the absence of men, they must now find some way of finding a balance between the 2 forces in society. A new institution might just be the answer. But it is important to remember that flexibility and empowerment is a key component. The family itself must be put in charge and be able to decide what is best for its longevity.
Should a new institution be discovered or built the benefits would be vast. The problem of displacement, where men no longer have a role after their initial roles of being sole breadwinners has been taken away from them would cease to exist. Even the poverty might be limited. I believe that the results could be so positive it would affect the economy and businesses and the subsequent policies implemented by government. Perhaps then we would no longer see a world that is continually fragmenting and falling apart at its seams. The question now is, are we ready for such a change?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HS 103 Lecture 3- Work and trade.
Title: Let's get cheap
The idea of work is related to not only one’s ability to perform the work required but it is also about the challenges involved to keep the job. This might not involve the workers ability in the first place, as companies and corporations have become so empowered now, they survive on a self consuming drive for higher profits. The lack of responsibility a company has towards a country or a society enables it to be extremely mobile. The lack of obligations allows the company to freely choose the cheapest and most value for money region that can support its industries. For the average worker, this process is beyond their control. This process implies that, even if the worker or group of workers are highly productive and efficient, it does no mean that they will get to keep their jobs, they would be passed over when the company deems that a cheaper alternative is available. As in the case of Maytag (Maytag goes to Mexico) the company insisted on moving its plant to Mexico even though the workers wanted to negotiate and promise the company higher efficiency. It seems clear that the focus on companies now is to utilize cheaper labour to drive down production costs. Hence demanding for better pay seems to be working against the workers as they will eventually be passed over for a cheaper group of workers somewhere in the world once their pay requirements cross a certain threshold. The alternative would be the loss of jobs. The bottomline seems to be ruthless yet exceedingly simple, work for as little pay as you can get and you might secure the longevity of your job for just a little bit longer.
The movement of companies to relocate away from the traditional areas in which they were founded on, have gone in line with the reinvention of corporate companies and industries to adapt to the changing world markers, this has lead to the new international division of labour which involves the inclusion of more places geographically in the world to be involved in the production of a single product. This to an extent is good for the world as more people are able to have jobs across the world, this would also theoretically mean that people will become more affluent as the trickle down effects from the profits of the companies goes back to the local economy. However this has largely not been the case as emerging markets hang on to this false reality and invite foreign companies into their country, they do provide jobs for the people, however at the end of the day the quality of these jobs is not improving in line with the movement of societies and the world as a whole. When child labour was commonplace in America in the early twentieth century it is now a phenomenon in India and south Asia. The same problems are still there, it is just in a different place at a different time. Perhaps when India strengthens and enforces harsher labour laws companies will not look at ending the problem but rather extending it to another region who have yet to adapt to the problem. Would companies who are increasing in profits and wealth eventually find a morally sound solution when they run out of regions to utilize child labour for example? Would we then finally see a shift in capitalism to include the repercussions towards the labour force, the force that generates profits in the first place? Is that the final solution to the problems of global poverty and disproportionate distribution of wealth?
Unfortunately companies are creative enough to remain one step ahead of the game, they will likely be able to find a way somehow to reinvent themselves to ensure their profits remain. I believe that governments should be the ones taking ownership and putting the needs of the people first rather than the needs of the country, maybe with this perspective the capitalist centered companies themselves will be forced to rethink their methods and strategies and adapt to the global consensus, instead of it being the other way round.
The idea of work is related to not only one’s ability to perform the work required but it is also about the challenges involved to keep the job. This might not involve the workers ability in the first place, as companies and corporations have become so empowered now, they survive on a self consuming drive for higher profits. The lack of responsibility a company has towards a country or a society enables it to be extremely mobile. The lack of obligations allows the company to freely choose the cheapest and most value for money region that can support its industries. For the average worker, this process is beyond their control. This process implies that, even if the worker or group of workers are highly productive and efficient, it does no mean that they will get to keep their jobs, they would be passed over when the company deems that a cheaper alternative is available. As in the case of Maytag (Maytag goes to Mexico) the company insisted on moving its plant to Mexico even though the workers wanted to negotiate and promise the company higher efficiency. It seems clear that the focus on companies now is to utilize cheaper labour to drive down production costs. Hence demanding for better pay seems to be working against the workers as they will eventually be passed over for a cheaper group of workers somewhere in the world once their pay requirements cross a certain threshold. The alternative would be the loss of jobs. The bottomline seems to be ruthless yet exceedingly simple, work for as little pay as you can get and you might secure the longevity of your job for just a little bit longer.
The movement of companies to relocate away from the traditional areas in which they were founded on, have gone in line with the reinvention of corporate companies and industries to adapt to the changing world markers, this has lead to the new international division of labour which involves the inclusion of more places geographically in the world to be involved in the production of a single product. This to an extent is good for the world as more people are able to have jobs across the world, this would also theoretically mean that people will become more affluent as the trickle down effects from the profits of the companies goes back to the local economy. However this has largely not been the case as emerging markets hang on to this false reality and invite foreign companies into their country, they do provide jobs for the people, however at the end of the day the quality of these jobs is not improving in line with the movement of societies and the world as a whole. When child labour was commonplace in America in the early twentieth century it is now a phenomenon in India and south Asia. The same problems are still there, it is just in a different place at a different time. Perhaps when India strengthens and enforces harsher labour laws companies will not look at ending the problem but rather extending it to another region who have yet to adapt to the problem. Would companies who are increasing in profits and wealth eventually find a morally sound solution when they run out of regions to utilize child labour for example? Would we then finally see a shift in capitalism to include the repercussions towards the labour force, the force that generates profits in the first place? Is that the final solution to the problems of global poverty and disproportionate distribution of wealth?
Unfortunately companies are creative enough to remain one step ahead of the game, they will likely be able to find a way somehow to reinvent themselves to ensure their profits remain. I believe that governments should be the ones taking ownership and putting the needs of the people first rather than the needs of the country, maybe with this perspective the capitalist centered companies themselves will be forced to rethink their methods and strategies and adapt to the global consensus, instead of it being the other way round.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
HS103-Lect 2 Class
Class- From pyramid to hourglass
Divisions in class in society have been part and parcel of man’s evolutionary cycle since there was an order put in place. It is undoubtedly inevitable that different people will be classified into a particular group according to whatever values is defined by that society of that particular regioin at that particular time. These classifications differ with time and with the needs of that particular society, once upon a time, influcence and profession were the benchmarks for the inclusion into a particular class, such as nobles and peasants. Certain professions seemed to grant certain groups an amount of influence that immediately elevated their status into the upper echelons of the society, priests are an example of this.
In an age of gloablisation however, things are not so simple. Class is being increasingly defined via the socio economic potential of individuals. This economic potential does not necessarily rely on the individuals abilities or profession. It is very much dependant on the desires of the world markets of which most people have no control over, unless of course one falls in the category of the Super Rich, which is far too exclusive for many to enter. It is my opinion that the fact that most individuals are no longer in control of how their livelihoods survive in the global economy, is extremely alarming.This is especially so when there is no figure or institution that can guarantee the survival of their citizens or their way of life in the new interdependent economy. The needs of the markets can change almost overnight and certain products might no longer be in high demand hence the people who rely on it for their livelihoods are the hardest hit. It is this lack of control over ones future regardless of abilities and educational level, that should has to be addressed somehow. The income disparity between the rich and the poor is increasing, as even the middle class, those with abilities and some level of specialised skills are being relegated out of the economy as their skills and abilities are deemed obsolete.
This much power to change the lives of so many people in almost a blink of an eye should not rest in the hands of those who are propelled by wealth and generation of profits. At this rate everyone becomes expandable at one point or another. When one considers that more and more people are deemed expandable, and that more and more people are joining the painful poverty class, it becomes extremely alarming that this system is allowed to continue at the cost of so many lives. Surely this trend is set to continue as new technologies are invented that render human resource of lesser skilled labourers unnecessary, with the drive for efficiency at the forefront there is no doubt that more and more jobs will become irrelevant in the new economy. Of course it can be argued that machines for instance creates jobs for maintenance, however these jobs are not created at the same rate it takes away, hence there is a net unemployment and newer members to the poverty cycle are added. Lets not forget when these jobs are taken; there is a net increase in profits, which just gives the result of a widening income gap.
This system clearly will result in suffering and torment in the long run and even though governments are tasked to look after their citizens even there are powerless at the face of economic pressure and uncertainties. Would Marx’s theories then come true? History has proven that this ideology also has its pitfalls. Does this all add up to a word with a structure resembling a lopsided hour glass rather than the iconic pyramids associated with societal diagrams? Perhaps this is the evolution that the world is heading towards and it is just another part of our progress as mankind. At this rate however it does not indicate many bright days ahead.
Divisions in class in society have been part and parcel of man’s evolutionary cycle since there was an order put in place. It is undoubtedly inevitable that different people will be classified into a particular group according to whatever values is defined by that society of that particular regioin at that particular time. These classifications differ with time and with the needs of that particular society, once upon a time, influcence and profession were the benchmarks for the inclusion into a particular class, such as nobles and peasants. Certain professions seemed to grant certain groups an amount of influence that immediately elevated their status into the upper echelons of the society, priests are an example of this.
In an age of gloablisation however, things are not so simple. Class is being increasingly defined via the socio economic potential of individuals. This economic potential does not necessarily rely on the individuals abilities or profession. It is very much dependant on the desires of the world markets of which most people have no control over, unless of course one falls in the category of the Super Rich, which is far too exclusive for many to enter. It is my opinion that the fact that most individuals are no longer in control of how their livelihoods survive in the global economy, is extremely alarming.This is especially so when there is no figure or institution that can guarantee the survival of their citizens or their way of life in the new interdependent economy. The needs of the markets can change almost overnight and certain products might no longer be in high demand hence the people who rely on it for their livelihoods are the hardest hit. It is this lack of control over ones future regardless of abilities and educational level, that should has to be addressed somehow. The income disparity between the rich and the poor is increasing, as even the middle class, those with abilities and some level of specialised skills are being relegated out of the economy as their skills and abilities are deemed obsolete.
This much power to change the lives of so many people in almost a blink of an eye should not rest in the hands of those who are propelled by wealth and generation of profits. At this rate everyone becomes expandable at one point or another. When one considers that more and more people are deemed expandable, and that more and more people are joining the painful poverty class, it becomes extremely alarming that this system is allowed to continue at the cost of so many lives. Surely this trend is set to continue as new technologies are invented that render human resource of lesser skilled labourers unnecessary, with the drive for efficiency at the forefront there is no doubt that more and more jobs will become irrelevant in the new economy. Of course it can be argued that machines for instance creates jobs for maintenance, however these jobs are not created at the same rate it takes away, hence there is a net unemployment and newer members to the poverty cycle are added. Lets not forget when these jobs are taken; there is a net increase in profits, which just gives the result of a widening income gap.
This system clearly will result in suffering and torment in the long run and even though governments are tasked to look after their citizens even there are powerless at the face of economic pressure and uncertainties. Would Marx’s theories then come true? History has proven that this ideology also has its pitfalls. Does this all add up to a word with a structure resembling a lopsided hour glass rather than the iconic pyramids associated with societal diagrams? Perhaps this is the evolution that the world is heading towards and it is just another part of our progress as mankind. At this rate however it does not indicate many bright days ahead.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
HS103-Lect 1 introduction to global problems
Globalization, a process that has grown in prominence increasingly in the past decade. Its interesting that this phenomenon is able to affect so many people in so many different places in the world. Its powerful enough to unite while at the same time dividing us, the human race. Strong enough to form commonality between the many civilizations while at the same time powerful enough to wedge new divisions.
When the topic of globalization is raised, McDonald's is the first thing that comes to mind. Not so much due to the for digestive whims of a thinking individual but rather the effect McDonald's has brought onto the world. I believe McDonald's in many ways symbolises the opportunities presented by globalisation. This fast-food restaurant has brought with it a physical form of commonality between different regions. If a poll was done on familiar foods by people of varying regions the results would place the "Big Mac" would earn a higher standing as compared to the "Nasi Lemak". Food aside, this commonality though physical in nature has provided people across the world an avenue to discuss important topics that relates to everyone in the world. Problems such as obesity in young children has come into the fore for many developing or developed countries. No doubt this is related to the rise of fast food as an adopted staple food in many developed regions nonetheless this has resulted in the issue being recognised as a problem in more countries and regions. This is possible due to the common features, effects and implications noted from other regions with a similar demographic. Hence through the identification of this problem as an issue that is not isolated to one particular society it becomes easier to receive a wide range of possible solutions primarily due to the fact that more academics and scientists as well as stake holders are looking at the same problem. This obviously leads to more ideas being floated around and new solutions being discovered. Although it must be noted that no solution fits all, it is still a positive phenomenon that a solution or a range of solutions exist to be adopted or tweaked to fit the respective demographic facing the problem.
Globalization however has brought about new divisions between societies as well. Every society or group of people who have lived together for a particular period of time would like to protect certain aspects of their lives to ensure that their traditions and beliefs are not eroded with time. As globalization presents an opportunity for societies to streamline thought the presentation of many avenues to do so, it also produces by-products of societies adopting the values held by each other, and occasionally the values that were once held by the particular society becomes watered down or even worse forgotten altogether. This streamlining inadvertently leads to a common system of beliefs and values needed to make progress under globalization a reality. It has become more of a necessity to change values to fit the changing times rather than the desire of the society to develop to a higher level of sphere of evolutionary thought. The streamlining of values in this manner is not a negative effect. In fact it helps the society adapt to the changing times, but, there is a trade off which results in the "special" factor of being in a particular society to be eroded. As society is an entity involving many individuals it is expected that some individuals will reject this phenomenon and this develops into a kind of resistance. Although resistance could bring about more dialogue within a society resulting in it becoming a hybrid of ideas, a mixture of young and old values of beliefs, it can also result in feelings of uneasiness especially when the external newer beliefs attempt to impose themselves onto the society. As in the case of Afghanistan where a western styled democracy was installed to bring peace and order to a country that is already steeped in tradition and history, as the change of such a big idea was brought upon the society through force not all the members took it in readily. Hence a splinter group emerged with views that were considered radical in the newly created environment. This resulted in terrorism to still ravage the country as they attempt to look for a solution to their current predicament. Overall it might result in a feeling of resentment to the west the longer this drags on as people seek to return to life before turmoil. The values or systems or problems faced back then becoming less important as they seek to regain some balance within their lives. Though its probable that even prior to the War there were critics within that society but there was a sense of order as there was a group that was in control. The methods employed by this group is of course not being discussed here, rather only the effects produced from it.
When the topic of globalization is raised, McDonald's is the first thing that comes to mind. Not so much due to the for digestive whims of a thinking individual but rather the effect McDonald's has brought onto the world. I believe McDonald's in many ways symbolises the opportunities presented by globalisation. This fast-food restaurant has brought with it a physical form of commonality between different regions. If a poll was done on familiar foods by people of varying regions the results would place the "Big Mac" would earn a higher standing as compared to the "Nasi Lemak". Food aside, this commonality though physical in nature has provided people across the world an avenue to discuss important topics that relates to everyone in the world. Problems such as obesity in young children has come into the fore for many developing or developed countries. No doubt this is related to the rise of fast food as an adopted staple food in many developed regions nonetheless this has resulted in the issue being recognised as a problem in more countries and regions. This is possible due to the common features, effects and implications noted from other regions with a similar demographic. Hence through the identification of this problem as an issue that is not isolated to one particular society it becomes easier to receive a wide range of possible solutions primarily due to the fact that more academics and scientists as well as stake holders are looking at the same problem. This obviously leads to more ideas being floated around and new solutions being discovered. Although it must be noted that no solution fits all, it is still a positive phenomenon that a solution or a range of solutions exist to be adopted or tweaked to fit the respective demographic facing the problem.
Globalization however has brought about new divisions between societies as well. Every society or group of people who have lived together for a particular period of time would like to protect certain aspects of their lives to ensure that their traditions and beliefs are not eroded with time. As globalization presents an opportunity for societies to streamline thought the presentation of many avenues to do so, it also produces by-products of societies adopting the values held by each other, and occasionally the values that were once held by the particular society becomes watered down or even worse forgotten altogether. This streamlining inadvertently leads to a common system of beliefs and values needed to make progress under globalization a reality. It has become more of a necessity to change values to fit the changing times rather than the desire of the society to develop to a higher level of sphere of evolutionary thought. The streamlining of values in this manner is not a negative effect. In fact it helps the society adapt to the changing times, but, there is a trade off which results in the "special" factor of being in a particular society to be eroded. As society is an entity involving many individuals it is expected that some individuals will reject this phenomenon and this develops into a kind of resistance. Although resistance could bring about more dialogue within a society resulting in it becoming a hybrid of ideas, a mixture of young and old values of beliefs, it can also result in feelings of uneasiness especially when the external newer beliefs attempt to impose themselves onto the society. As in the case of Afghanistan where a western styled democracy was installed to bring peace and order to a country that is already steeped in tradition and history, as the change of such a big idea was brought upon the society through force not all the members took it in readily. Hence a splinter group emerged with views that were considered radical in the newly created environment. This resulted in terrorism to still ravage the country as they attempt to look for a solution to their current predicament. Overall it might result in a feeling of resentment to the west the longer this drags on as people seek to return to life before turmoil. The values or systems or problems faced back then becoming less important as they seek to regain some balance within their lives. Though its probable that even prior to the War there were critics within that society but there was a sense of order as there was a group that was in control. The methods employed by this group is of course not being discussed here, rather only the effects produced from it.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)