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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)