Everywhere we go, whatever we do and whichever circumstance we are in, there is conflict. In this world of chaos, love, despair, faith and the like, conflict can never be avoided. When we were young, most of the time, we encounter conflicts because this boy or girl stole our food, kicked our bag and won't play with us. As we grow up, we experience different kinds of conflict. At times, conflict even leads to violence and other messy instances.
Conflict is never good- for it sets apart the people having misunderstandings. It is the one responsible in dividing people apart. We did not know better when we were at a young age. We fight back, say harsh words and do nasty things just to get back at people. In short, we don't think. We just do what we feel like doing. We just do what our instincts tell us. Most of the time, what we do without thinking leads to conflict due to the emotions present during that specific time.
Bleiker (2009) states that how to address a conflict is not easy at all. There are ways wherein conflict is avoided and one of these is confrontation. Confrontation is basically the talk or an act that occurs when a party directly communicates with the other party and they arrive at a solution. Some confrontations lead to a negative event but some turns out well. Another approach is the engagement approach where at times, the negotiation process is said to be "soft". Most of the time, engagement and dialogue offer good alternatives and options for confrontation but if this approach is used, some bigger and larger issues are not addressed. Here comes the concept of antagonism- hostility that leads to active resistance and opposition (Bleiker, 2009).
Conflict is something that does not only occur within our community but it also extends to the borders of our country. Most of the conflicts that we experience involves state against state that fight over something huge. Bleiker (2009) posits that moving beyond conflict requires negotiation and complete understanding between parties. This compromise must be geared towards justice and peace. The ability to forgive must be present since conflict cannot cease without forgiveness. It is important that we learn how to forgive and forget in order to move on completely. Friedrich Nietzche mentions that we have to "break with the past in order to live".
What forgiving is, is not about forget what happened either. It's more of knowing what happened, learning from it and understanding the causes of this conflict. We do not forget easily and we do not forgive immediately, but in time, it is necessary for each and everyone of us to learn to let go. Grudges will not get us anywhere. An example of having conflicts is North Korea. It experienced a whole lot and politics in Korea displays signs of what Nietzche proclaims (Bleiker, 2009).
Bleiker (2009) states that conflicts arise from historical circumstances. The roots are and will always be engraved with every party. Understanding and dealing with these conflicts is what actually mater because it is up to us alone to create a peaceful environment. There are several approaches to end a conflict- dialogue, negotiation, compromise, engagement, confrontation, etc, but all of these things are relative. Meaning, it still depends on every individual or state.
In political situations, threat and suspicion will never be eliminated. There is mistrust and complete negative emotions involved, which leads to conflict (Bleiker, 2009). What's wrong with this is the assumed thought involved in these instances. Reconciliation is a vital term when it comes to conflict because it reconnects and improves relationships between and among people.
This question is hard to answer since it differs for every entity and individual. However, I agree with Mr. Nietzche when he said that it is important to put the past behind and present on whats left of our lives. We will never achieve a peaceful and harmonious environment if we ourselves do not know how to move on and let go. Acceptance is a key issue. What happened in the past, what harm it may have done to us, shall all be forgotten. The community must move towards a good positive direction, to develop peace and justice.
Elimination of conflict is a road to a successful globalization. Especially now that countries are open to one another and their are several activities that link all the various markets, conflict should be put aside. Individuals must focus on building a healthy future, as one, to be able to establish string relations that may benefit all economies.
Source:
Bleiker, R. (2009). Can we move beyond conflict?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What makes the world dangerous?
The world is becoming more and more dangerous nowadays. With the emergence of several unexpected occurrences. Some people are afraid of political issues (especially now that there's an upcoming elections this May). Some are afraid of economic problems such as GDP indicators, inflation and unemployment. Some are terrified of the natural disasters and calamities which have proved their power to us through several ways (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc). In all aspects, danger cannot be avoided and the coming of these problems are beyond our reach.
As human beings, we continue to search for more- more information, more details and more preparation for what is to come. Due to this search for knowledge about certain events and things, we discover more and realize how dangerous the world is. Every second we breathe, we try to avoid the dangers of life- chaos, famine, instability- this is exactly why we strive to become better persons in every aspect we know.
Dillon (2009) states that the things that are never ending is not fixed. For him, these changes are constantly evolving into something else. Out leaders (military, political, economic, professors) always tells us to be prepared for the real world. This is perhaps why they teach us skills to be able to defend ourselves when we face life the hard way.
Out mentors constantly warns us that transformation is change are the only things that are constant in this world. At the same time, they themselves are frightened of this fact. As the world transforms, we ourselves evolve into more mature persons as well. Dillon (2009) posits that if we are being-in-formation, we become dangerous. He mentions that nobody can predict the future. In line with this, former President Roosevelt also said that we shall not fear anything but itself (Dillon, 2009).
The more we try to make sure, the more we force to foresee the future, and the more intend to secure ourselves, the more we endanger ourselves. Dillon (2009) says that "The very instruments and the very preoccupations which tell us what to fear and how to protect ourselves from danger often also threaten us". According to him, we are the ones who make the world dangerous by trying to escape from danger.
I do believe that by avoiding danger, we are prone to it more. There is a saying that goes "What you don't know won't hurt you". This statement is true- if you don't know anything and if you don't anticipate or expect the things to come, you won't even be wasting brain cells to research about it or be scared of it. Though I believe that knowing more is better, there are some things that shouldn't be known. An example of this is the "End of the world" or "Judgement day" rumor of the people. There was a movie shown that shows what it can do to our work like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "2010". I do not close my mind to the possibility of the event. I do believe that it may be possible, but I don't stress about it because I know whatever I do, this is unavoidable. This point of mine gives me a new realization- what makes the world dangerous is its people, for thinking too much about the possible dangers that may occur. Indeed, we endanger ourselves because we think too much about danger. My belief is that what matters is now, the present. Make the most out of everything. Accept and bounce back with whatever it is life will bring to you. Danger cannot be avoided but regret can. By living and seeing things clearly, we get to love life, love everything about it- the politics, the economy, all of it. After all, the world evolves constantly. What changes it is our perception of our own world.
Source:
Dillon, M. (2009). What makes the world dangerous?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
As human beings, we continue to search for more- more information, more details and more preparation for what is to come. Due to this search for knowledge about certain events and things, we discover more and realize how dangerous the world is. Every second we breathe, we try to avoid the dangers of life- chaos, famine, instability- this is exactly why we strive to become better persons in every aspect we know.
Dillon (2009) states that the things that are never ending is not fixed. For him, these changes are constantly evolving into something else. Out leaders (military, political, economic, professors) always tells us to be prepared for the real world. This is perhaps why they teach us skills to be able to defend ourselves when we face life the hard way.
Out mentors constantly warns us that transformation is change are the only things that are constant in this world. At the same time, they themselves are frightened of this fact. As the world transforms, we ourselves evolve into more mature persons as well. Dillon (2009) posits that if we are being-in-formation, we become dangerous. He mentions that nobody can predict the future. In line with this, former President Roosevelt also said that we shall not fear anything but itself (Dillon, 2009).
The more we try to make sure, the more we force to foresee the future, and the more intend to secure ourselves, the more we endanger ourselves. Dillon (2009) says that "The very instruments and the very preoccupations which tell us what to fear and how to protect ourselves from danger often also threaten us". According to him, we are the ones who make the world dangerous by trying to escape from danger.
I do believe that by avoiding danger, we are prone to it more. There is a saying that goes "What you don't know won't hurt you". This statement is true- if you don't know anything and if you don't anticipate or expect the things to come, you won't even be wasting brain cells to research about it or be scared of it. Though I believe that knowing more is better, there are some things that shouldn't be known. An example of this is the "End of the world" or "Judgement day" rumor of the people. There was a movie shown that shows what it can do to our work like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "2010". I do not close my mind to the possibility of the event. I do believe that it may be possible, but I don't stress about it because I know whatever I do, this is unavoidable. This point of mine gives me a new realization- what makes the world dangerous is its people, for thinking too much about the possible dangers that may occur. Indeed, we endanger ourselves because we think too much about danger. My belief is that what matters is now, the present. Make the most out of everything. Accept and bounce back with whatever it is life will bring to you. Danger cannot be avoided but regret can. By living and seeing things clearly, we get to love life, love everything about it- the politics, the economy, all of it. After all, the world evolves constantly. What changes it is our perception of our own world.
Source:
Dillon, M. (2009). What makes the world dangerous?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Why do some people think they know what is good for others?
It is a part of one’s life to expect to receive something in return for their actions. In our society, there is always someone who thinks that he knows better which is why he teaches those under to him to do some actions. An example of this is the care and support that our parents continually give us. We know that our parents want the best for us and though their intentions are good, we tend to break away from what they are asking us to do. They know best- but we occasionally disobey them because we think that they lack judgement and understanding with what we are going through. A huge part of us thinks that they give us advice based on their experiences which are old, making it incompatible with our present problem. We treat their advice as intrusions and that they do this to limit us from what we want to do. As a result, we have this thirst for independence and aims to defend our integrity (Inayatullah, 2009).
A bigger picture of the example I just stated is the way policy makers from rich countries feel compelled to teach others how to manage their resources and respective institutions. We have International agencies such as the World Bank, who guides all financial institutions per state for peace and order. It is in human nature to do good to others. This is exactly the trail of thought why we believe that providing what is best for others essential especially in human responsibility. However, why is it that when someone teaches us or shows us guidance, we think that we are guarded? And they’re just there because they want to become superior over us? Due to this negative effect, we stop ourselves from warning others. In that case, are we denying our full humanity since it is natural for people to do good in relation to those around him (Inayatullah, 2009)?
There are two contemporary interventions in history: one from Euston Manifesto and the other one from Robert Cooper. Euston Manifesto reformed the left. He believed that cultural variation means that some communities failed to learn about the modern life. These people reject what is good. Inayatullah (2009) mentions that the Manifesto writers did not care about the powerful and how they use ideals as masks to eliminate the powerless. They firmly believe that modernity and democracy that is free and liberal will benefit the people. Robert Cooper from the right, in the other hand presented arguments that jumpstart imperialism and colonialism. According to Cooper, postmodernity is the most advanced stage among the three civilizational stages. Postmodern, he said, is the full realization of modernity (Inayatullah, 2009).
Exclusive knowledge is the belief that we have superior knowledge. Inayatullah (2009) says that the need for superiority emerges from the doubt that maybe we are inferior to others. Superior or the act of knowing more as compared to others turns good intentions into charitable arrogance at times depending on how others see it. But what is the issue with superiority? Inayatullah (2009) posits that when we emphasize what is good for those around us, we only avoid in order to face the pain of our own lack. People give because they need to receive, because the people lack knowledge.
We are all donors and receivers. We are all victims of exclusive knowledge and the ultimate challenge is to change our way of thinking that those who “know more” and teach us wants to remain superior over us because it is possible that they only want to do good. The cycle of mutual incrimination must be transformed into a cycle of mutual enrichment (Inayatullah, 2009). This is what I think should be the case. People must always see the best in others because it is in human nature that individuals are good. This can be related to several key players in the role of globalization today. Governments, multination corporation, etc will always play an important role in relation to its own home country and for globalization to work, there should not be anyone superior and inferior. Exclusive knowledge cannot be eliminated but I believe that what we should change is our way of thinking itself to develop as one nation. In the light of globalization that is emerging nowadays, people must learn how to live in relation with one another. Accept, be open-minded and explore ideas. Knowledge is broad and no one entity knows everything. It is our role to guide those around us, to do good and to establish strong relations in the outbreak of globalization.
Source:
Inayatullah, N. (2009). How Why do some people think they know what is good for others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
A bigger picture of the example I just stated is the way policy makers from rich countries feel compelled to teach others how to manage their resources and respective institutions. We have International agencies such as the World Bank, who guides all financial institutions per state for peace and order. It is in human nature to do good to others. This is exactly the trail of thought why we believe that providing what is best for others essential especially in human responsibility. However, why is it that when someone teaches us or shows us guidance, we think that we are guarded? And they’re just there because they want to become superior over us? Due to this negative effect, we stop ourselves from warning others. In that case, are we denying our full humanity since it is natural for people to do good in relation to those around him (Inayatullah, 2009)?
There are two contemporary interventions in history: one from Euston Manifesto and the other one from Robert Cooper. Euston Manifesto reformed the left. He believed that cultural variation means that some communities failed to learn about the modern life. These people reject what is good. Inayatullah (2009) mentions that the Manifesto writers did not care about the powerful and how they use ideals as masks to eliminate the powerless. They firmly believe that modernity and democracy that is free and liberal will benefit the people. Robert Cooper from the right, in the other hand presented arguments that jumpstart imperialism and colonialism. According to Cooper, postmodernity is the most advanced stage among the three civilizational stages. Postmodern, he said, is the full realization of modernity (Inayatullah, 2009).
Exclusive knowledge is the belief that we have superior knowledge. Inayatullah (2009) says that the need for superiority emerges from the doubt that maybe we are inferior to others. Superior or the act of knowing more as compared to others turns good intentions into charitable arrogance at times depending on how others see it. But what is the issue with superiority? Inayatullah (2009) posits that when we emphasize what is good for those around us, we only avoid in order to face the pain of our own lack. People give because they need to receive, because the people lack knowledge.
We are all donors and receivers. We are all victims of exclusive knowledge and the ultimate challenge is to change our way of thinking that those who “know more” and teach us wants to remain superior over us because it is possible that they only want to do good. The cycle of mutual incrimination must be transformed into a cycle of mutual enrichment (Inayatullah, 2009). This is what I think should be the case. People must always see the best in others because it is in human nature that individuals are good. This can be related to several key players in the role of globalization today. Governments, multination corporation, etc will always play an important role in relation to its own home country and for globalization to work, there should not be anyone superior and inferior. Exclusive knowledge cannot be eliminated but I believe that what we should change is our way of thinking itself to develop as one nation. In the light of globalization that is emerging nowadays, people must learn how to live in relation with one another. Accept, be open-minded and explore ideas. Knowledge is broad and no one entity knows everything. It is our role to guide those around us, to do good and to establish strong relations in the outbreak of globalization.
Source:
Inayatullah, N. (2009). How Why do some people think they know what is good for others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Why is the people's movement restricted?
People always prefer if they move freely in everything that they do. They want space to themselves. They also want free time from time to time in order to enjoy what they want to do alone. Most of the time, people prefer if the people around them ignore what they are doing or what they want to do, because they don't want others to meddle with their own activities in life. You see, people enjoy their private and personal space.
Similarly, countries want their personal territories, personal space and own title to land and other assets. In our world today where globalization is emerging, space is becoming more and more neglected. People travel all over the world due to several reasons- work, travel, vacation- the point is, all the nation states open their territories for other people to go to. For these people to be able to travel from border to border, the government of every state also implement rules and regulations to promote peace and order.
The movement of the people is somewhat prohibited in a way that individuals find it hard to travel from place to place, from state to state. Due to several documents and requirements by the governing body for traveling abroad, people see this as a hassle and end up not fixing all the requirements in order to be able to go to places. What is violated here is a human's privacy, personal space and personal reasons. A people who just graduated from college may want to rest and take a vacation, but this act is restricted due to several barriers along the way such as visas for security and safety. The literal flow and movement of normal individuals are restricted because of safety and simple precautions for every state. A fresh grad who wants to go to New Zealand to visit his relatives is immediately blocked to apply for visa (not approved) because of the fear that he might be running away from the Philippines.
It is beneficial for everyone if all governments are like this. However, only the developed countries exercise this kind of strict security. Here in the Philippines, it's not really the case. When we look at the bigger picture though, it is good that this kind of security is implemented to bring order in one's country. Though some individuals are restricted, this does not mean that they can no longer be able to do what they want. It is just right that in our world today, regulations and strict supervisions are maintained in order to progress.
Globalization promotes the integration of different people, cultures, traditions and even products of corporations. Though there are also restrictions for these entities, it is just fair for the country's government to ask for documents, files, etc to make sure that the entry of these institutions and people will not bring chaos in their territory.
Similarly, countries want their personal territories, personal space and own title to land and other assets. In our world today where globalization is emerging, space is becoming more and more neglected. People travel all over the world due to several reasons- work, travel, vacation- the point is, all the nation states open their territories for other people to go to. For these people to be able to travel from border to border, the government of every state also implement rules and regulations to promote peace and order.
The movement of the people is somewhat prohibited in a way that individuals find it hard to travel from place to place, from state to state. Due to several documents and requirements by the governing body for traveling abroad, people see this as a hassle and end up not fixing all the requirements in order to be able to go to places. What is violated here is a human's privacy, personal space and personal reasons. A people who just graduated from college may want to rest and take a vacation, but this act is restricted due to several barriers along the way such as visas for security and safety. The literal flow and movement of normal individuals are restricted because of safety and simple precautions for every state. A fresh grad who wants to go to New Zealand to visit his relatives is immediately blocked to apply for visa (not approved) because of the fear that he might be running away from the Philippines.
It is beneficial for everyone if all governments are like this. However, only the developed countries exercise this kind of strict security. Here in the Philippines, it's not really the case. When we look at the bigger picture though, it is good that this kind of security is implemented to bring order in one's country. Though some individuals are restricted, this does not mean that they can no longer be able to do what they want. It is just right that in our world today, regulations and strict supervisions are maintained in order to progress.
Globalization promotes the integration of different people, cultures, traditions and even products of corporations. Though there are also restrictions for these entities, it is just fair for the country's government to ask for documents, files, etc to make sure that the entry of these institutions and people will not bring chaos in their territory.
Friday, April 2, 2010
What can we do to stop harming others?
It is part of human nature to care for those around us. One form of hurting people is intervening in their lives especially when they don't want us to. Often times we do not know that our actions hurt other people especially our loved ones. Most times, we are too occupied focusing on the small things that we tend to forget the big picture. We fail to take into account what we should be taking good care of, or simply what our actions portray to those around us. Similarly, the people we meet every single day do not notice that at times, they hurt us and in return, we feel bad without them knowing.
This question is complicated to answer. It may be answered by two main approaches: Political and legal approach. The political approach asks what can be realistically and legitimately done to stop people from hurting each other? What main political organizations must play a role in preventing others from harming the people? It's a dilemma about the limits of lawful authority during times of emergency (Orford, 2009). There is what we call the Metaphysical account of law which was shown when NATO intervened in Kosovo in the year 1999. Many argued that the intervention was illegal but legitimate. It is in this law that the universal law is taken into account because this gives legitimacy to intervention itself (Orford, 2009). There's what we call the realist account of law where it comprehends the law as an expression of the interests and desire of states. Here, global politics and humans are expected act naturally and instrumentally (Orford, 2009). She also mentions that "the realist approach privileges bilateral relations as the heart of international order". She states that the third type of account of law is the Decisionist account of law which states that the primary role of the state is to protect its people and it shall survive depending on the life of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). Lastly, there is a Democratic account of law which centers on understanding relations and commitments between individuals in terms of politics. Here, the claims to authority shall always be seen and contestable.
Though there are several views regarding the law and how our political and legal law affects how we see the relations of each entity in the society, the question stills holds valid and unanswerable. In terms of politics, in order to be effective in preventing people from harming one another, we should think about the possible measures that are required of the community in terms of humanitarian processes (Orford, 2009). In other words, it is up to us to change these political queries into our own understanding. These views must be challenged and geared towards our own initiative to participate in molding the circumstances in our lives and those around us.
Now we move on to think about how we can properly stop people from hurting others, in terms of legal means. This raises the issue of legal authorities and legal protocols but in the end, it is still in us and what we can do that can only be determined and justified by us alone. Our decisions about protection must be informed by a lawful and political concept. The law we know must be based on a common political order, which requires respect and obligations from each member of the whole community (Orford, 2009). As such, we can only stop people from violence and trouble based on how we see their actions, intentions and perceptions. It is based on out own minds to be able to think critically and know right actions from wrong.
In the light of the emergence of globalization everywhere, we shall take into account the views from before and use these to become a more harmonized global world. Interventions and revolutions are harmful ways of containing order in a specific geographical area. Thus, we must put into mind how we can effectively and properly execute peace among individuals.
Source:
Orford, A. (2009). What can we do to stop harming others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
This question is complicated to answer. It may be answered by two main approaches: Political and legal approach. The political approach asks what can be realistically and legitimately done to stop people from hurting each other? What main political organizations must play a role in preventing others from harming the people? It's a dilemma about the limits of lawful authority during times of emergency (Orford, 2009). There is what we call the Metaphysical account of law which was shown when NATO intervened in Kosovo in the year 1999. Many argued that the intervention was illegal but legitimate. It is in this law that the universal law is taken into account because this gives legitimacy to intervention itself (Orford, 2009). There's what we call the realist account of law where it comprehends the law as an expression of the interests and desire of states. Here, global politics and humans are expected act naturally and instrumentally (Orford, 2009). She also mentions that "the realist approach privileges bilateral relations as the heart of international order". She states that the third type of account of law is the Decisionist account of law which states that the primary role of the state is to protect its people and it shall survive depending on the life of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). Lastly, there is a Democratic account of law which centers on understanding relations and commitments between individuals in terms of politics. Here, the claims to authority shall always be seen and contestable.
Though there are several views regarding the law and how our political and legal law affects how we see the relations of each entity in the society, the question stills holds valid and unanswerable. In terms of politics, in order to be effective in preventing people from harming one another, we should think about the possible measures that are required of the community in terms of humanitarian processes (Orford, 2009). In other words, it is up to us to change these political queries into our own understanding. These views must be challenged and geared towards our own initiative to participate in molding the circumstances in our lives and those around us.
Now we move on to think about how we can properly stop people from hurting others, in terms of legal means. This raises the issue of legal authorities and legal protocols but in the end, it is still in us and what we can do that can only be determined and justified by us alone. Our decisions about protection must be informed by a lawful and political concept. The law we know must be based on a common political order, which requires respect and obligations from each member of the whole community (Orford, 2009). As such, we can only stop people from violence and trouble based on how we see their actions, intentions and perceptions. It is based on out own minds to be able to think critically and know right actions from wrong.
In the light of the emergence of globalization everywhere, we shall take into account the views from before and use these to become a more harmonized global world. Interventions and revolutions are harmful ways of containing order in a specific geographical area. Thus, we must put into mind how we can effectively and properly execute peace among individuals.
Source:
Orford, A. (2009). What can we do to stop harming others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
Thursday, April 1, 2010
How is the world organized economically?
The world is arranged in a way wherein countries are divided territorially, religiously, economically and politically. States are divided into geographical areas so each nation-state could have its own people, culture, traditions and resources. With the outbreak of capitalism and industrialism, the shift from being culturally focused transferred to being wealth focused. This means that countries now see the value of resources and riches that may be derived from their respective boundaries. Exchanging of goods and service or barter trade was the practice long ago. It evolved into different types of activities until it has reached where we are right now.
The Economics of how the world is organized involves several factors such as profits, the labor force or the law on demand and supply. The link between the world politics with economics has been though of ever since before. There were bright thinkers such as Adam Smith, there was also what we call the Marxist theory. Economics is everywhere in this world and as long as we live, it will always find ways to reach the highest peak of globalization.
One important approach in global politics is the liberal and neoliberal approach. The liberal tradition and its promotion by neoclassical economists associate the economy with free market policies. Assumptions such as markets are efficient and desirable practice of competitive advantage, growth will trickle down to the poor, etc were believed to occur in this free market society. Adam Smith was responsible for the "laissez-faire" principle which states that economies are self correcting in a way that government intervention is not necessary for it to function well. He promoted the free market society and thought of each individual to be responsible enough to do what is right for all.
The Marxist approach that came from Karl Marx attempts to develop and improve more structured explanations of how markets, corporations and governments should interact with society. The Marxist way takes firms seriously and detailed. Here, the company is analyzed in relation to power differentials. This theory focuses on cultures and offers research on organizational changes in the production, divisions of labor, regulation dynamics and the class and geopolitical hierarchies. Marxists believe that capital accumulation is based no only on profits derived from formal mechanisms of exchange and production but also from profits through non-capitalist means (Peterson, 2009).
Inequalities such as the gendered division of labor, the costs of exclusion, etc have been present long ago. Peterson (2009) states that the inequalities associated with production and labor did not come with neoliberalism. The hierarchies of "difference" were already institutionalized, and the difference from capitalism before and capitalism today is that now, it has the capacity to reach markets abroad, or markets beyond its reach long ago. The world has been functioning years back, and the same economic factors are still present up until now. The drive for profits and the maximization of firms are still the key components of capitalism and business owners nowadays. Inequality will not be eliminated at an instant and some problems before are still dilemmas now. However, what matters at the present is the bigger picture.
What is the bigger picture? Well, for me, what we must consider is the ability of economic concepts and practices to be present in every market nowadays. Capitalism has widely contributed to economic growth and these corporations have gone international- the ability to transact beyond its borders. The concept of International Economics is familiar to us and it is currently one of the most important economic stimulators in the world. Countries increase the exports to be competitive and to carry the products of their country. In relation to this, governments consider the foreign exchange appreciation since it hurts exporters. They have to consider imports as well. The country's trade openness is very crucial in an economy and the world is now evolving into a more advanced system where markets merge as one.
Though countries have their own boundaries, international economics plays an important role in its development. This is where globalization enters, because without the interaction and transactions with foreign markets, states will lose its way towards globalization. What I am saying here is that markets are designed to be interactive, and the more this occurs, the more globalized our world becomes, which is a great thing. Globalization involves the advancement of anything and everything. Hence, economics is taking its course towards this modernization that will benefit each and everyone of us living in earth.
Source:
Peterson, V. (2009). How is the world organized economically. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
The Economics of how the world is organized involves several factors such as profits, the labor force or the law on demand and supply. The link between the world politics with economics has been though of ever since before. There were bright thinkers such as Adam Smith, there was also what we call the Marxist theory. Economics is everywhere in this world and as long as we live, it will always find ways to reach the highest peak of globalization.
One important approach in global politics is the liberal and neoliberal approach. The liberal tradition and its promotion by neoclassical economists associate the economy with free market policies. Assumptions such as markets are efficient and desirable practice of competitive advantage, growth will trickle down to the poor, etc were believed to occur in this free market society. Adam Smith was responsible for the "laissez-faire" principle which states that economies are self correcting in a way that government intervention is not necessary for it to function well. He promoted the free market society and thought of each individual to be responsible enough to do what is right for all.
The Marxist approach that came from Karl Marx attempts to develop and improve more structured explanations of how markets, corporations and governments should interact with society. The Marxist way takes firms seriously and detailed. Here, the company is analyzed in relation to power differentials. This theory focuses on cultures and offers research on organizational changes in the production, divisions of labor, regulation dynamics and the class and geopolitical hierarchies. Marxists believe that capital accumulation is based no only on profits derived from formal mechanisms of exchange and production but also from profits through non-capitalist means (Peterson, 2009).
Inequalities such as the gendered division of labor, the costs of exclusion, etc have been present long ago. Peterson (2009) states that the inequalities associated with production and labor did not come with neoliberalism. The hierarchies of "difference" were already institutionalized, and the difference from capitalism before and capitalism today is that now, it has the capacity to reach markets abroad, or markets beyond its reach long ago. The world has been functioning years back, and the same economic factors are still present up until now. The drive for profits and the maximization of firms are still the key components of capitalism and business owners nowadays. Inequality will not be eliminated at an instant and some problems before are still dilemmas now. However, what matters at the present is the bigger picture.
What is the bigger picture? Well, for me, what we must consider is the ability of economic concepts and practices to be present in every market nowadays. Capitalism has widely contributed to economic growth and these corporations have gone international- the ability to transact beyond its borders. The concept of International Economics is familiar to us and it is currently one of the most important economic stimulators in the world. Countries increase the exports to be competitive and to carry the products of their country. In relation to this, governments consider the foreign exchange appreciation since it hurts exporters. They have to consider imports as well. The country's trade openness is very crucial in an economy and the world is now evolving into a more advanced system where markets merge as one.
Though countries have their own boundaries, international economics plays an important role in its development. This is where globalization enters, because without the interaction and transactions with foreign markets, states will lose its way towards globalization. What I am saying here is that markets are designed to be interactive, and the more this occurs, the more globalized our world becomes, which is a great thing. Globalization involves the advancement of anything and everything. Hence, economics is taking its course towards this modernization that will benefit each and everyone of us living in earth.
Source:
Peterson, V. (2009). How is the world organized economically. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How can we end poverty?
Poverty has been a part of the Philippines since I was born. Most of the time when I look at the news, headlines about the economy talks about poverty and its effects. Poverty is the living condition of not having enough means to afford the basic needs of an individual. This means that the people living in poverty do not have access to clean water, a safe home, nutrition, enough food and clothing. These people experiencing poverty has limited funds, sometimes they only have one meal a day.
Most of the time, poverty reduction increases economic growth because this means that the standard of living and capacity of a group of people increases. This happens when people living below the poverty line begins to rise up and earn more, making them more well-off, or enough to get them by the day. I’m sure all of us knows the state of living of those below the poverty line. We see the squatters area, we see beggars sleeping on the streets every night. We notice how young kids with poor family backgrounds beg for money, ask for food and engage into different types of activities just to be able to buy bread. Poverty has affected the lives of many people and has made the Philippines a hard country to develop.
Now, if you think about it- why is there poverty? What are the root causes of poverty? The Philippines is a third world country and I must say that it has already improved in terms of economic growth, foreign exchange, employment, etc, as compared to the past few years, making us a developing country. Poverty as mentioned exists when people do not have access to needs that are essential to live normally. They have unstable houses and most of the time, the policemen ask them to vacate their wooden houses located at the side of a bridge. These people do not have a sturdy roof where they could stay in during rainy days. They are unfortunate people who are unemployed, do not have any resource and yet, these same people get pregnant and increase the population of the economy.
As discussed in class, almost all of us believe that poverty is caused by three main reasons: corruption, lack of educational attainment and overpopulation. First of all, corruption in the Philippines is rampant. This can be widely seen based on the increase of poor people, the increase in taxes and yet nothing is happening to our country. The tax rate being collected from employees of corporations is quite high, it reached 32% at one point and yet no infrastructure or development is being constructed. It takes more than 10 years to finish an establishment and we still remain a developing country. Though it is easier said than done, I’m pretty sure almost everyone living in the Philippines notice how corrupt the country is. Officials reap the benefits and nothing is being distributed to the mass. This is exactly why I think Gibo Teodoro has potential in leading the country- because he stated facts and ideal goals in a span of ten years. He mentioned that the effect of the anticipated economic growth must trickle down to the lowest class, which is what I think the Philippines needs. Poverty elimination will not disappear over a day and it requires a lot of systematic planning before the Philippines could develop and have progress in terms of poverty. Secondly, the lack of education of the Filipinos widely contributes to the poverty rate in the country. If a person is not educated, then he has a lower opportunity to get hired. If he does not get hired, he won’t have money to get him by the day. If he gets used to this then he will beg for money or just gamble money if he gets any. The lack of education limits the chances of a person to progress, grow and develop wasting his capabilities and capacity to be a good citizen of the Philippines, but being born poor is not his problem. It was just his luck that he was born poor and thus, having no resources to actually get proper education. Here comes that problem of overpopulation. Why? Well, poor people are the ones that give birth most due to their belief that their child could raise their standard of living. However, they fail to put to mind that they do not have money which means their child may not even reach primary education. What is the effect of this? More people living in poverty, more people in the economy, pulling the Philippines down. The country’s money would be put to good use if the government could build small educational institutions in remote areas where vocational training could be taught to those in those areas. This would help the poor to at least earn a little and raise their standard of living. Lastly, population control here in the Philippines is uncontrollable. Population increases because more and more Filipinos give birth and most of the people who does live below the poverty line. What is the effect of this? The infant could gain infections and sicknesses due to the unsanitary environment and lack of nutrition. Filipinos must understand sex education and should know the consequences of their actions. They get involved with someone because of emotions but love will not raise them from poverty. I think the issue here is the way of thinking of the Filipinos. Perhaps the country should do something about this issue like limit the number of children per family up to a certain point.
Poverty is not a joke and though the rich does not feel the actual impact of poverty, this will affect everyone in the long run. If poverty does not decrease, the economy will never develop. Hence, the Philippines will forever be a developing country that is corrupt and behind all other states in the world.
Most of the time, poverty reduction increases economic growth because this means that the standard of living and capacity of a group of people increases. This happens when people living below the poverty line begins to rise up and earn more, making them more well-off, or enough to get them by the day. I’m sure all of us knows the state of living of those below the poverty line. We see the squatters area, we see beggars sleeping on the streets every night. We notice how young kids with poor family backgrounds beg for money, ask for food and engage into different types of activities just to be able to buy bread. Poverty has affected the lives of many people and has made the Philippines a hard country to develop.
Now, if you think about it- why is there poverty? What are the root causes of poverty? The Philippines is a third world country and I must say that it has already improved in terms of economic growth, foreign exchange, employment, etc, as compared to the past few years, making us a developing country. Poverty as mentioned exists when people do not have access to needs that are essential to live normally. They have unstable houses and most of the time, the policemen ask them to vacate their wooden houses located at the side of a bridge. These people do not have a sturdy roof where they could stay in during rainy days. They are unfortunate people who are unemployed, do not have any resource and yet, these same people get pregnant and increase the population of the economy.
As discussed in class, almost all of us believe that poverty is caused by three main reasons: corruption, lack of educational attainment and overpopulation. First of all, corruption in the Philippines is rampant. This can be widely seen based on the increase of poor people, the increase in taxes and yet nothing is happening to our country. The tax rate being collected from employees of corporations is quite high, it reached 32% at one point and yet no infrastructure or development is being constructed. It takes more than 10 years to finish an establishment and we still remain a developing country. Though it is easier said than done, I’m pretty sure almost everyone living in the Philippines notice how corrupt the country is. Officials reap the benefits and nothing is being distributed to the mass. This is exactly why I think Gibo Teodoro has potential in leading the country- because he stated facts and ideal goals in a span of ten years. He mentioned that the effect of the anticipated economic growth must trickle down to the lowest class, which is what I think the Philippines needs. Poverty elimination will not disappear over a day and it requires a lot of systematic planning before the Philippines could develop and have progress in terms of poverty. Secondly, the lack of education of the Filipinos widely contributes to the poverty rate in the country. If a person is not educated, then he has a lower opportunity to get hired. If he does not get hired, he won’t have money to get him by the day. If he gets used to this then he will beg for money or just gamble money if he gets any. The lack of education limits the chances of a person to progress, grow and develop wasting his capabilities and capacity to be a good citizen of the Philippines, but being born poor is not his problem. It was just his luck that he was born poor and thus, having no resources to actually get proper education. Here comes that problem of overpopulation. Why? Well, poor people are the ones that give birth most due to their belief that their child could raise their standard of living. However, they fail to put to mind that they do not have money which means their child may not even reach primary education. What is the effect of this? More people living in poverty, more people in the economy, pulling the Philippines down. The country’s money would be put to good use if the government could build small educational institutions in remote areas where vocational training could be taught to those in those areas. This would help the poor to at least earn a little and raise their standard of living. Lastly, population control here in the Philippines is uncontrollable. Population increases because more and more Filipinos give birth and most of the people who does live below the poverty line. What is the effect of this? The infant could gain infections and sicknesses due to the unsanitary environment and lack of nutrition. Filipinos must understand sex education and should know the consequences of their actions. They get involved with someone because of emotions but love will not raise them from poverty. I think the issue here is the way of thinking of the Filipinos. Perhaps the country should do something about this issue like limit the number of children per family up to a certain point.
Poverty is not a joke and though the rich does not feel the actual impact of poverty, this will affect everyone in the long run. If poverty does not decrease, the economy will never develop. Hence, the Philippines will forever be a developing country that is corrupt and behind all other states in the world.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Why does politics turn to violence?
The nature of a human person is to be good. By being one, a person knows how he wants to be treated by his coworkers and how he wants to be respected. I believe that goodness is within a person and we are all born good, before we get exposed to the evil of society. Being infants, we know nothing but good. We don't hurt people, say mean things to people- we were and will always be good. However, as we grow up, things and society influences us to go farther from good. This leads us to do bad things. There are people who are evil (who does bad things) because society dictates them to. Instances like stealing, cheating, etc are done because of desperateness and not because that person wants to.
People think they can do good because they are born to be good. I believe that humans are kind loving creatures who are harmless. Most of them have the right reasoning in life to know what's right and wrong because they were also brought up by their parents who are born to be good. There is a saying that states "Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you" - I think humans revolve around this statement. People want to be treated with respect, which is why they do things that could go back to them in return. There is also what we call "Karma" which states that when you do something bad, you will get that share of bad luck one day. These beliefs make people do good, since they don't want something bad to happen to them and their loved ones.
What stops people from doing good is their desperateness for something. I think people resort to stealing, hold-ups, cheating, fraud, etc because they don't have a choice anymore. The poor, for instance, steals because they have to feed their families (which, when you think about is also good). In other words, those who steal for money thinks that they are doing good because they are feeding their families. Of course, this does not pertain to all since some people are just simply bad without reason. These people must have issues from birth, making them guiltless regardless of what kind of harm they cause people.
Humans have brains. These brains are used for discernment. This capacity of a human being separates good from evil, making them informed of which is which. People also have conscience, which makes a person realize if he did something bad. These "gifts" from God make a person pure of heart and good. Why then, do some people cause conflict and harm others?
Conflict is not justifiable even though there is a valid reason for this. I believe that the end DOES NOT justify the means. In line with this, world leaders cannot think that the end justify the means because the means is important. Doing something bad will not resolve anything. It definitely won't lead to something good.
World leaders are the models of each state and each representative must act properly for the betterment of the whole country. They represent the country and its people and in order to promote peace and what's right, they must act with goodness. An example is that they shouldn't be corrupt. They could fix the country slowly and prove to the people that their intentions are good. Even though I doubt that world leaders and officials will do good, I am hopeful that there will come a time that we can have a leader who can successfully be a role model and represent the country with pride and glory because of the good things that he'll do for the country.
Knowing the good from evil does not lead to a path that can end global conflict because there's a thin line between knowing and doing. Doing the right thing is so much harder than knowing it because knowing it does not entail actual action. Doing the good can possibly eliminate global conflict, especially if the ideas of global leaders are aligned. This is actually very important because it will not only benefit their respective states, but the whole world and international economy as well.
People think they can do good because they are born to be good. I believe that humans are kind loving creatures who are harmless. Most of them have the right reasoning in life to know what's right and wrong because they were also brought up by their parents who are born to be good. There is a saying that states "Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you" - I think humans revolve around this statement. People want to be treated with respect, which is why they do things that could go back to them in return. There is also what we call "Karma" which states that when you do something bad, you will get that share of bad luck one day. These beliefs make people do good, since they don't want something bad to happen to them and their loved ones.
What stops people from doing good is their desperateness for something. I think people resort to stealing, hold-ups, cheating, fraud, etc because they don't have a choice anymore. The poor, for instance, steals because they have to feed their families (which, when you think about is also good). In other words, those who steal for money thinks that they are doing good because they are feeding their families. Of course, this does not pertain to all since some people are just simply bad without reason. These people must have issues from birth, making them guiltless regardless of what kind of harm they cause people.
Humans have brains. These brains are used for discernment. This capacity of a human being separates good from evil, making them informed of which is which. People also have conscience, which makes a person realize if he did something bad. These "gifts" from God make a person pure of heart and good. Why then, do some people cause conflict and harm others?
Conflict is not justifiable even though there is a valid reason for this. I believe that the end DOES NOT justify the means. In line with this, world leaders cannot think that the end justify the means because the means is important. Doing something bad will not resolve anything. It definitely won't lead to something good.
World leaders are the models of each state and each representative must act properly for the betterment of the whole country. They represent the country and its people and in order to promote peace and what's right, they must act with goodness. An example is that they shouldn't be corrupt. They could fix the country slowly and prove to the people that their intentions are good. Even though I doubt that world leaders and officials will do good, I am hopeful that there will come a time that we can have a leader who can successfully be a role model and represent the country with pride and glory because of the good things that he'll do for the country.
Knowing the good from evil does not lead to a path that can end global conflict because there's a thin line between knowing and doing. Doing the right thing is so much harder than knowing it because knowing it does not entail actual action. Doing the good can possibly eliminate global conflict, especially if the ideas of global leaders are aligned. This is actually very important because it will not only benefit their respective states, but the whole world and international economy as well.
Do colonialism and slavery belong to the past?
Justice has several meanings and purposes for different people. For some, this is doing the right and eliminating the wrong. For others, this is punishing those who have done things against the law. Justice is basically being fair and promoting equality among the people. But is justice seen and present in our world today?
People all over the world engage into different activities everyday. People also do what they have to just to raise their standard of living. These people strive hard to attain their goals and dreams just bring food on their dining tables. However, are all these people given the chance to be the best that they can be?
I believe that in order to be successful, a person must be determined, motivated, driven and responsible. He must acquire all the values of a leader to achieve his dreams. However, I also believe that these traits may be put to waste if a person does not have the proper resources. Just like the story of Bill Gate's success- he wasn't a very smart guy, but he was very interested with computers and technology that he decided to start a business in line with his field of interest. In addition to his passion for this, he was also fortunate enough to have the funds and resources to be able to reach where he is at the moment. He is one of the best contributors in the world of technology and this was also because of his capacity to fund his own inventions. Similarly, an issue today is the job screening process of companies. They prefer students that graduated from the top three schools alone, leaving the others helpless. This benefits me because I'm from De La Salle University- Manila but this is quite unfair.
At times, when people do not get what they wish for in this country, they resort to other alternatives, such as work as OFWs or settle in low paying jobs with rude bosses. A result of this is maltreatment and complete abuse especially if you go to Dubai, etc. What's unfair in this situation is that those who are maltreated and abused do not get the justice that they deserve.
Justice can be divided into two main ideas: Justice based on morality and ethics, and Justice based on law. The former refers to being righteous and basing your judgment on your morality. The latter refers to equality brought by law. This is when citizens of a country comply with the regulations and policies on the government because these policies promote peace and harmony amongst the people in the state. While Justice based on law is self-explanatory, Justice based on morality is a little bit more complicated. People have different views and perceptions on things and it depends on their culture and belief whether a specific action is right or wrong. In the same sense, the value of a person is evaluated here. The importance and the humanity of a person is necessary in determining right from wrong. To treat a person like an animal is inhuman, which leads to immorality and thus, injustice.
People should all be treated the same because we are all humans, treated in the image and likeness of God. It is instilled in a person how to treat a person because he himself is human. How does forgetting the value of a person now lead to slavery and violence?
Slavery happens when people from the upper portion of the social class force or ask people from the lower class to do something for them (i.e work in a factory) and do not pay these workers enough. This also happens when owners do not feed their workers because they are "just workers" and maltreating them is just right. This is present in our world today especially because of the existence of Industrialization and Capitalism. In working and earning money, workers don't get what they deserve because they are treated as slaves by their bosses. Here, we see how the value of a person is neglected simply because that worker/person was born unfortunate and poor.
Forgetting the value of the person may also lead to violence. A perfect example of this is the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". The leading man's wife and daughter were treated like animals by Darby, the antagonist and he wasn't imprisoned because he testified against his other teammate. The protagonist now plots a ten year plan on how to teach that police (who let Darby go) a lesson. The police had a deal with Darby and that's what the protagonist is so mad about. The death of his family was not given justice. Hence, his revenge through violence. He destroyed and killed many cities and people because of injustice. We see how violating the rights of a person leads to violence from the film.
I think that as humans, we all have this "idea" of how we should be treated. It is within us to know, perhaps through our conscience, what is right and wrong. If this respect that we have for people is violated, then this leads to violence and slavery because it promotes injustice and equality. Why do people have to be neglected and isolated, or discriminated just because they were born unfortunate? (in terms of all aspects like physical appearance, abilities, wealth, etc) This is what we should think about. For me, justice should apply to all. We must give chances to everyone. We must treat all humans the same. We must treat them with respect and dignity.
Justice is very crucial because it is the dignity and integrity of a person at stake here. I think we should all make sure that opportunities and chances are given to everyone because as long as injustice is present in this country, we will never rise up and be a developed country.
People all over the world engage into different activities everyday. People also do what they have to just to raise their standard of living. These people strive hard to attain their goals and dreams just bring food on their dining tables. However, are all these people given the chance to be the best that they can be?
I believe that in order to be successful, a person must be determined, motivated, driven and responsible. He must acquire all the values of a leader to achieve his dreams. However, I also believe that these traits may be put to waste if a person does not have the proper resources. Just like the story of Bill Gate's success- he wasn't a very smart guy, but he was very interested with computers and technology that he decided to start a business in line with his field of interest. In addition to his passion for this, he was also fortunate enough to have the funds and resources to be able to reach where he is at the moment. He is one of the best contributors in the world of technology and this was also because of his capacity to fund his own inventions. Similarly, an issue today is the job screening process of companies. They prefer students that graduated from the top three schools alone, leaving the others helpless. This benefits me because I'm from De La Salle University- Manila but this is quite unfair.
At times, when people do not get what they wish for in this country, they resort to other alternatives, such as work as OFWs or settle in low paying jobs with rude bosses. A result of this is maltreatment and complete abuse especially if you go to Dubai, etc. What's unfair in this situation is that those who are maltreated and abused do not get the justice that they deserve.
Justice can be divided into two main ideas: Justice based on morality and ethics, and Justice based on law. The former refers to being righteous and basing your judgment on your morality. The latter refers to equality brought by law. This is when citizens of a country comply with the regulations and policies on the government because these policies promote peace and harmony amongst the people in the state. While Justice based on law is self-explanatory, Justice based on morality is a little bit more complicated. People have different views and perceptions on things and it depends on their culture and belief whether a specific action is right or wrong. In the same sense, the value of a person is evaluated here. The importance and the humanity of a person is necessary in determining right from wrong. To treat a person like an animal is inhuman, which leads to immorality and thus, injustice.
People should all be treated the same because we are all humans, treated in the image and likeness of God. It is instilled in a person how to treat a person because he himself is human. How does forgetting the value of a person now lead to slavery and violence?
Slavery happens when people from the upper portion of the social class force or ask people from the lower class to do something for them (i.e work in a factory) and do not pay these workers enough. This also happens when owners do not feed their workers because they are "just workers" and maltreating them is just right. This is present in our world today especially because of the existence of Industrialization and Capitalism. In working and earning money, workers don't get what they deserve because they are treated as slaves by their bosses. Here, we see how the value of a person is neglected simply because that worker/person was born unfortunate and poor.
Forgetting the value of the person may also lead to violence. A perfect example of this is the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". The leading man's wife and daughter were treated like animals by Darby, the antagonist and he wasn't imprisoned because he testified against his other teammate. The protagonist now plots a ten year plan on how to teach that police (who let Darby go) a lesson. The police had a deal with Darby and that's what the protagonist is so mad about. The death of his family was not given justice. Hence, his revenge through violence. He destroyed and killed many cities and people because of injustice. We see how violating the rights of a person leads to violence from the film.
I think that as humans, we all have this "idea" of how we should be treated. It is within us to know, perhaps through our conscience, what is right and wrong. If this respect that we have for people is violated, then this leads to violence and slavery because it promotes injustice and equality. Why do people have to be neglected and isolated, or discriminated just because they were born unfortunate? (in terms of all aspects like physical appearance, abilities, wealth, etc) This is what we should think about. For me, justice should apply to all. We must give chances to everyone. We must treat all humans the same. We must treat them with respect and dignity.
Justice is very crucial because it is the dignity and integrity of a person at stake here. I think we should all make sure that opportunities and chances are given to everyone because as long as injustice is present in this country, we will never rise up and be a developed country.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Technological Innovations, is too advanced good or bad?
The Internet has played a very crucial role in our lives today. More than its importance to businesses and other types of companies, the internet serves as a “library” and research database for students specifically in high school and college. The youth today widely depends on the internet for all types of information, entertainment, research data- all there is to look for. Long ago when the internet has not yet been invented, people went through everything the hard way. They had to look for information from the library and search for all types of archives. They went to places just to get information for school. They journeyed all the way to a faraway place to gather what they need. Life was hard. It used to be hard because everything had to be done the long cut way. Nowadays, with the emergence of the internet, people just get everything they need from this machine.
The news can be seen from the internet, stories can be seen in the internet, events can be derived from Youtube, even phone applications can be downloaded from the net. Basically everything under the sun can be found in the internet. We may not know it but our lives are actually evolving in the internet. Social networks are even created and people keep in touch through this.
The Internet may be a good and a bad thing. It depends on the person actually, because it is in the person to know his limitations when it comes to this. The Internet is dependable and it is a tool in learning more, gaining more and understanding more. It is good that people use this to search about current events or the news. However, if people do not know their limitations, they have the tendency to view illegal websites and engage into other activities that should not be done. Though the internet is a good thing, there may be times wherein the internet has negative effects to the people. Some become lazy because of too much dependence on the internet. Others rely too much on the internet even though the website has not yet been updated. This is where what I have mentioned a while ago applies- limitations. One must know the limitations in using the internet because they may come a point when computers might even be smarter than the human brain.
The Internet has made a huge impact in my life. My homework, thesis papers, etc depend on the internet because it entails research. The net gives me the opportunity to be able to download dissertations and other kinds of information that may help me complete my school requirements. When I talk to my parents, they tell me how easy life is right now. We’re given the right education, a good life and an easier access to knowledge. The internet has given me nothing but benefits because it gives me knowledge and new learning. Even trivia and entertainment news are broadcasted on the internet making everyone access what’s happening in the globe.
The web may be harnessed for development by simply using it for more development. In other words, the internet shall be used correctly. This means that it will be used for gathering important information and data for one’s study and once the study is done, it would be of good use if that person also publishes his paper. It will help even just in a small way since he will contribute to the benefit of everyone in the world. I guess we can close the global divide through the net by simply being one through the use of the internet. By sharing knowledge and imparting wisdom to those who surf the internet.
Once thing that I can’t help but notice is the emergence of social networking in the world. There are several social networking programs such as friendster, multiply, plurk, twitter and facebook. Facebook nowadays are widely used and everyone I know has an account in facebook. It has both advantages and disadvantages actually. It gives old friends to reconnect and catch up on each other. It also is a form of entertainment for people since it has games and these games can be played by you and your friend. In my opinion, being able to reconnect with your old friend is a big thing. However, social networking has also disadvantages. Given that you have an account, everyone under the sun can view your profile and even stalk you if you’re not careful. Sometimes, strangers know things about you and this is quite freaky not to mention weird. Also, people get distracted with their work and homework because they keep opening their accounts.
For me, technological innovation is in general good. This gives us a chance to adapt with how society works and it assists us in keeping up with the fast paced world. These innovations like being able to watch films on the computer, being able to book a flight online, etc- makes life easier and better. Along with the progress of technology is the increase in knowledge in using the internet. It gives us more details and information regarding events around the globe. When put to good use, technology can achieve wonders but if used for illegal means, then this may be harmful. All in all, the internet is a good thing. Humans just have to know their limitations in order to maintain the fact that people are more dominant than machines.
The news can be seen from the internet, stories can be seen in the internet, events can be derived from Youtube, even phone applications can be downloaded from the net. Basically everything under the sun can be found in the internet. We may not know it but our lives are actually evolving in the internet. Social networks are even created and people keep in touch through this.
The Internet may be a good and a bad thing. It depends on the person actually, because it is in the person to know his limitations when it comes to this. The Internet is dependable and it is a tool in learning more, gaining more and understanding more. It is good that people use this to search about current events or the news. However, if people do not know their limitations, they have the tendency to view illegal websites and engage into other activities that should not be done. Though the internet is a good thing, there may be times wherein the internet has negative effects to the people. Some become lazy because of too much dependence on the internet. Others rely too much on the internet even though the website has not yet been updated. This is where what I have mentioned a while ago applies- limitations. One must know the limitations in using the internet because they may come a point when computers might even be smarter than the human brain.
The Internet has made a huge impact in my life. My homework, thesis papers, etc depend on the internet because it entails research. The net gives me the opportunity to be able to download dissertations and other kinds of information that may help me complete my school requirements. When I talk to my parents, they tell me how easy life is right now. We’re given the right education, a good life and an easier access to knowledge. The internet has given me nothing but benefits because it gives me knowledge and new learning. Even trivia and entertainment news are broadcasted on the internet making everyone access what’s happening in the globe.
The web may be harnessed for development by simply using it for more development. In other words, the internet shall be used correctly. This means that it will be used for gathering important information and data for one’s study and once the study is done, it would be of good use if that person also publishes his paper. It will help even just in a small way since he will contribute to the benefit of everyone in the world. I guess we can close the global divide through the net by simply being one through the use of the internet. By sharing knowledge and imparting wisdom to those who surf the internet.
Once thing that I can’t help but notice is the emergence of social networking in the world. There are several social networking programs such as friendster, multiply, plurk, twitter and facebook. Facebook nowadays are widely used and everyone I know has an account in facebook. It has both advantages and disadvantages actually. It gives old friends to reconnect and catch up on each other. It also is a form of entertainment for people since it has games and these games can be played by you and your friend. In my opinion, being able to reconnect with your old friend is a big thing. However, social networking has also disadvantages. Given that you have an account, everyone under the sun can view your profile and even stalk you if you’re not careful. Sometimes, strangers know things about you and this is quite freaky not to mention weird. Also, people get distracted with their work and homework because they keep opening their accounts.
For me, technological innovation is in general good. This gives us a chance to adapt with how society works and it assists us in keeping up with the fast paced world. These innovations like being able to watch films on the computer, being able to book a flight online, etc- makes life easier and better. Along with the progress of technology is the increase in knowledge in using the internet. It gives us more details and information regarding events around the globe. When put to good use, technology can achieve wonders but if used for illegal means, then this may be harmful. All in all, the internet is a good thing. Humans just have to know their limitations in order to maintain the fact that people are more dominant than machines.
Why is the world divided territorially?
What is the direct link between territory and sovereignty? Well, each territory may be called a state and a state has sovereignty as one of its elements. This means that sovereignty is a crucial role in one’s territory. What now is the issue? What the problem is, is the fact that territories are being invaded by those around the boundaries of the territory, which leads to disputes and conflict between territories.
Territorial integrity is an international law which indicates that nation-states must not start violent movements to other countries around them. It also states that nation-states must not promote changes in the borders of those around them. These are acts of aggression to sustain more power. When this happens, identities, cultures, traditions and practices of a certain territory will be violated which will lead to chaos and turmoil.
An example of this is the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine when both governments are claiming the other’s right to their respective lands. A result of this dispute is that Africans are deprived from their own place and boundary, which shouldn’t be the case because this is where they belong. These conflicts have brought chaos and instability in different countries and it widely affects the residents of that country. Territorial boundaries and integrity have rules and regulations and these shall be followed by the states to ensure peace and harmony amongst them. However, most of the time, these rules are violated and consequences are not imposed to those who are responsible.
You see, territorial goes a long way. Causing territorial disputes will not benefit anyone because this is a n act of selfishness and pride. Though this will bring power and glory to a state, it does not promote globalization, which is what the world is geared towards to nowadays. Globalization entails direct relations between and among states. This implies that nation-states must coordinate one another for them to develop as one and as a community. If territorial integrity is not present in these states, what will it bring to the world and the emergence of globalization?
Globalization involves trading between countries, forming relationships and strong ties with border countries in order to form healthy relations. This relationship will bring advantages to both states. Territorial integrity is the key towards this path because states must respect the boundaries of other states. I do not agree that just because a country is powerful, it has the right to conquer another country. It won’t benefit anyone but the invader itself. This does not help globalization at all.
I think the solution to end all conflicts among countries is the acknowledgement of territorial integrity. This value is very important especially today because it not only helps create peace among border countries but also promotes a healthy relationship between countries. States must think of what will benefit everyone because at the end of the way, it’s still these morals and values that will help each one, each state in times of trouble.
Territorial integrity is an international law which indicates that nation-states must not start violent movements to other countries around them. It also states that nation-states must not promote changes in the borders of those around them. These are acts of aggression to sustain more power. When this happens, identities, cultures, traditions and practices of a certain territory will be violated which will lead to chaos and turmoil.
An example of this is the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine when both governments are claiming the other’s right to their respective lands. A result of this dispute is that Africans are deprived from their own place and boundary, which shouldn’t be the case because this is where they belong. These conflicts have brought chaos and instability in different countries and it widely affects the residents of that country. Territorial boundaries and integrity have rules and regulations and these shall be followed by the states to ensure peace and harmony amongst them. However, most of the time, these rules are violated and consequences are not imposed to those who are responsible.
You see, territorial goes a long way. Causing territorial disputes will not benefit anyone because this is a n act of selfishness and pride. Though this will bring power and glory to a state, it does not promote globalization, which is what the world is geared towards to nowadays. Globalization entails direct relations between and among states. This implies that nation-states must coordinate one another for them to develop as one and as a community. If territorial integrity is not present in these states, what will it bring to the world and the emergence of globalization?
Globalization involves trading between countries, forming relationships and strong ties with border countries in order to form healthy relations. This relationship will bring advantages to both states. Territorial integrity is the key towards this path because states must respect the boundaries of other states. I do not agree that just because a country is powerful, it has the right to conquer another country. It won’t benefit anyone but the invader itself. This does not help globalization at all.
I think the solution to end all conflicts among countries is the acknowledgement of territorial integrity. This value is very important especially today because it not only helps create peace among border countries but also promotes a healthy relationship between countries. States must think of what will benefit everyone because at the end of the way, it’s still these morals and values that will help each one, each state in times of trouble.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Why are some people better off than others?
Did it ever occur to you why others are more fortunate or luckier than you? Have it ever occurred to you why they can do things or purchase things and you can't? In life, there are others who are really more fortunate than we are because of certain factors. Similarly, as there are individuals who are wealthier in terms of resources than others, there are also countries or states that are more developed than others.
There is what we call the Liberalism or Liberal Globalism which advocates a world of liberal ideas and democratic states. These states are integrated through the world believing that growth will benefit the poor. In this theory, integration is believed to be the determining factor which may alleviate the poor. It doesn't matter if the integration will make the rich even richer as long everyone in the state benefits from this development. Liberal globalists are not hostile to the state- this means that they do aspire for the state to meddle with their activities but they want a state support to back them up for the market.
Global Developmentalism shares the commitment of liberal globalists. They think that states must cooperate with one another in the global markets to develop and further increase growth of every state. However, this theory opposes the belief of liberal globalism that it doesn't matter if the rich becomes more wealthier. For them, the growth benefits that will be reaped from the development shall not be unequally distributed. They also reject the idea that the first requirement of development policy is to promote global liberalism. Global developmentalism focuses on the continuing relevance of developmental strategy rather than on the prioritization of the liberal.
On the other hand, the Historical Materialism states that development does not start in the market nor the developmental state but the social relations where the material production on which social life depends take place. This theory believes that capitalism plays an important role in a society and society is shaped by the struggle between classes. Here, they are focused on the profits that are derived from their activities.
These different theories all make perfect sense why others are more developed than other countries. For instance, here in the Philippines, poverty is present and wherever you go, you can see it anywhere. But why is it different for other states like Singapore or Europe? I think it starts with the government. It depends on how the government handles its country. This is reflected back to the government officials since they are the ones who handle the policies and regulations of the state. I agree with the Historical Materialism that most businessmen focus on their private businesses and growth will follow but I agree more with the Global Developmentalism in terms of what it said about the global markets. The reason why countries open their doors to trade is for them to have more opportunities, more exposure and more profit. Social relations is a must in the world and a country that chooses to isolate itself from the rest of the world will not gain any advantage. Interaction helps us grow more. Hence, participating in the global markets will improve the country's trade balance and openness. After all, Net exports is a function of GDP. Moreover, having more resources and external products and learnings will help the country gain more investments. This will lead the country to grow more. Moreover, I think that the Liberal Globalism is right when it mentioned that the benefits will be distributed unequally. A degree of inequality is unavoidable because economic activities depend on these capitalized businesses. Normally, the fortunate ones get more benefits than the less fortunate ones. It is how it works. Economic activities will be distributed unequally not to be unfair but because it is how its distributed. In general, I believe that economic activities, if sustained for around 15 years will definitely bring benefits to the Philippines. Who knows, maybe 15 years from now, we can be a first world country.
There is what we call the Liberalism or Liberal Globalism which advocates a world of liberal ideas and democratic states. These states are integrated through the world believing that growth will benefit the poor. In this theory, integration is believed to be the determining factor which may alleviate the poor. It doesn't matter if the integration will make the rich even richer as long everyone in the state benefits from this development. Liberal globalists are not hostile to the state- this means that they do aspire for the state to meddle with their activities but they want a state support to back them up for the market.
Global Developmentalism shares the commitment of liberal globalists. They think that states must cooperate with one another in the global markets to develop and further increase growth of every state. However, this theory opposes the belief of liberal globalism that it doesn't matter if the rich becomes more wealthier. For them, the growth benefits that will be reaped from the development shall not be unequally distributed. They also reject the idea that the first requirement of development policy is to promote global liberalism. Global developmentalism focuses on the continuing relevance of developmental strategy rather than on the prioritization of the liberal.
On the other hand, the Historical Materialism states that development does not start in the market nor the developmental state but the social relations where the material production on which social life depends take place. This theory believes that capitalism plays an important role in a society and society is shaped by the struggle between classes. Here, they are focused on the profits that are derived from their activities.
These different theories all make perfect sense why others are more developed than other countries. For instance, here in the Philippines, poverty is present and wherever you go, you can see it anywhere. But why is it different for other states like Singapore or Europe? I think it starts with the government. It depends on how the government handles its country. This is reflected back to the government officials since they are the ones who handle the policies and regulations of the state. I agree with the Historical Materialism that most businessmen focus on their private businesses and growth will follow but I agree more with the Global Developmentalism in terms of what it said about the global markets. The reason why countries open their doors to trade is for them to have more opportunities, more exposure and more profit. Social relations is a must in the world and a country that chooses to isolate itself from the rest of the world will not gain any advantage. Interaction helps us grow more. Hence, participating in the global markets will improve the country's trade balance and openness. After all, Net exports is a function of GDP. Moreover, having more resources and external products and learnings will help the country gain more investments. This will lead the country to grow more. Moreover, I think that the Liberal Globalism is right when it mentioned that the benefits will be distributed unequally. A degree of inequality is unavoidable because economic activities depend on these capitalized businesses. Normally, the fortunate ones get more benefits than the less fortunate ones. It is how it works. Economic activities will be distributed unequally not to be unfair but because it is how its distributed. In general, I believe that economic activities, if sustained for around 15 years will definitely bring benefits to the Philippines. Who knows, maybe 15 years from now, we can be a first world country.
Friday, February 19, 2010
How does the nation-state work?
It has been known that a nation-state is similar with one another. There are times when these two terms are mixed up and used interchangeably. But what is their difference and most importantly, how does this term affect the development of a particular country and globalization?
A State is a political and legal concept. It is a group of people residing as one community and permanently occupying a portion of territory. It has sovereignty as one of its elements, along with population, territory and government. Again, a state comprises of a group of people residing in a specific territory. They have a government which governs them as one society in order for them to be orderly and peaceful. It has a political association with effective internal and external dominion over a geographic area which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.
A Nation on the other hand is not a political-legal concept but rather a cultural concept. It is a group of people who is also a community who are together because of their similarities or common bonds such as religion, tradition, culture, etc.
These two concepts are not the same, the other is different from the other. While a nation can survive without a government, a state cannot survive without a governing power that has authority over its people. A nation refers to a group of people who are deemed to share common origins and history wile a state refers to a community with a set of governing institutions that have the power over a definite territory and their people.
Shapiro (2009) named three examples of structures of feeling and identity commitments that are in tension with national allegiance. The three writers: Michelle Cliff, Sherman Alexie and Toni Morrison, “constitutes modes of thought generated from outside the spaces authorized by the conventional nation-building narrative within which every individual is an undifferentiated sovereign citizen-subject and the social order is merely an ahistorical class structure.” Michelle Cliff, a diasporic Jamaican, published a book entitled No Telephone To Heaven wherein she focused on transnational lives that produce imaginaries opposed to the conventional national subjects. She sees the nation-state as an ontological and territorial actor and sees its governance as symbolic and territorial. Her primary linguistic imaginary is silence, emphasizing a form of resistance to the colonizing forces within language. Sherman Alexie gives a similar perspective as Cliff as he also embodied the split consciousness of a person existing in two worlds. His novel The Toughest Indian in the World featured Indian presence in the Unites States. Toni Morrison also had the same thought process. She made her political struggles into literary culture by referring to the paradox inherent in her participation as a novelist.
Traditional theorists focused on two issues: first is the problem of allegiance and second is the treatment of the process by which citizens extract rights. The problem of allegiance refers to how nationalism affects how citizens become identified with their nation-state. Theorists resolved this issue by resorting to media. The latter issue refers to how citizenship is treated as a result of enactments, a form of transactional citizenship where national affiliation is the outcome of processes of claim making between the actors and state itself (Shapiro, 2009).
A state has sovereignty as one of its elements and it exercises its sovereign right to sign a treaty. Whenever a state does this, it is also limiting its right by the act of undertaking international legal obligations. States follow a specific set of rules such as customary international law. These limitations lead sovereignty to rise even in the age of globalization. This is manifested in activities such as coining of money, gathering of taxes, promulgation of domestic law, conduct of foreign policy, etc. States interests are favored within a broader system of rules that are binding that without a system. Rules define rights and these obligation and rights depend on factors such as political, economical, cultural and technological. In our world today, globalization has a significant effect upon rules, affecting the norms that govern world commerce and the like. A nation on the other hand, serves as a backbone of political power of the administrative state and it has rallied behind great causes including reforms in social, economic and environmental policies. Up until now from historical events, the nation has been linked with the age of total war and nationalism. Hans Morgenthau said that nowadays, the nation-state is becoming obsolete as a principle of political organization for the nation-state is not able to perform what its core function is: to protect the lives of its members and their way of living. The modern innovations in transportation and communications have now left the function of the nation destroyed (Dhanapala, 2001).
Globalization is the process of commercialization involving rapid increase in trade and exchange of goods, capital and services across national frontiers. When there are profits, jobs, efficiencies of scale, lowered unit costs, and increased the variety of goods available for everyone to buy, globalization is taking place. Dhanapala (2001) posits that the main challenge right now is not to achieve the end of the nation-state but to recuperate the ends of the nation-state. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in his Millennium Report that in order to make a success of this great upheaval, “we must learn how to govern better and above all how to govern better together. We need to make our States stronger and more effective at the national level. And we need to get them working together on global issues, all pulling their weight and having their say.” The core essence of good governance is popular participation, transparency, and public accountability (Dhanapala, 2001).
So what is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization? I think the concept of the nation-state must be expanded or “modernized” in a way that it suits the age of innovation today. Globalization cannot be avoided and if the nation sticks to the old traditional way, states and countries may not be able to develop and improve their ways. Our world today involves several mixed cultures and countries that are filled with diverse people. It is important that the nation-state can adapt with the fast paced society in order to develop and grow. Hence, in the age of globalization, the nature-state must adapt and practice what is necessary (modernize) in order to further build up augmentation. Otherwise, it might just get left behind.
Sources:
Dhanapala, J. (2001). Globalization and the Nation State. The Global Forum Policy. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/29952.html
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routle
A State is a political and legal concept. It is a group of people residing as one community and permanently occupying a portion of territory. It has sovereignty as one of its elements, along with population, territory and government. Again, a state comprises of a group of people residing in a specific territory. They have a government which governs them as one society in order for them to be orderly and peaceful. It has a political association with effective internal and external dominion over a geographic area which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.
A Nation on the other hand is not a political-legal concept but rather a cultural concept. It is a group of people who is also a community who are together because of their similarities or common bonds such as religion, tradition, culture, etc.
These two concepts are not the same, the other is different from the other. While a nation can survive without a government, a state cannot survive without a governing power that has authority over its people. A nation refers to a group of people who are deemed to share common origins and history wile a state refers to a community with a set of governing institutions that have the power over a definite territory and their people.
Shapiro (2009) named three examples of structures of feeling and identity commitments that are in tension with national allegiance. The three writers: Michelle Cliff, Sherman Alexie and Toni Morrison, “constitutes modes of thought generated from outside the spaces authorized by the conventional nation-building narrative within which every individual is an undifferentiated sovereign citizen-subject and the social order is merely an ahistorical class structure.” Michelle Cliff, a diasporic Jamaican, published a book entitled No Telephone To Heaven wherein she focused on transnational lives that produce imaginaries opposed to the conventional national subjects. She sees the nation-state as an ontological and territorial actor and sees its governance as symbolic and territorial. Her primary linguistic imaginary is silence, emphasizing a form of resistance to the colonizing forces within language. Sherman Alexie gives a similar perspective as Cliff as he also embodied the split consciousness of a person existing in two worlds. His novel The Toughest Indian in the World featured Indian presence in the Unites States. Toni Morrison also had the same thought process. She made her political struggles into literary culture by referring to the paradox inherent in her participation as a novelist.
Traditional theorists focused on two issues: first is the problem of allegiance and second is the treatment of the process by which citizens extract rights. The problem of allegiance refers to how nationalism affects how citizens become identified with their nation-state. Theorists resolved this issue by resorting to media. The latter issue refers to how citizenship is treated as a result of enactments, a form of transactional citizenship where national affiliation is the outcome of processes of claim making between the actors and state itself (Shapiro, 2009).
A state has sovereignty as one of its elements and it exercises its sovereign right to sign a treaty. Whenever a state does this, it is also limiting its right by the act of undertaking international legal obligations. States follow a specific set of rules such as customary international law. These limitations lead sovereignty to rise even in the age of globalization. This is manifested in activities such as coining of money, gathering of taxes, promulgation of domestic law, conduct of foreign policy, etc. States interests are favored within a broader system of rules that are binding that without a system. Rules define rights and these obligation and rights depend on factors such as political, economical, cultural and technological. In our world today, globalization has a significant effect upon rules, affecting the norms that govern world commerce and the like. A nation on the other hand, serves as a backbone of political power of the administrative state and it has rallied behind great causes including reforms in social, economic and environmental policies. Up until now from historical events, the nation has been linked with the age of total war and nationalism. Hans Morgenthau said that nowadays, the nation-state is becoming obsolete as a principle of political organization for the nation-state is not able to perform what its core function is: to protect the lives of its members and their way of living. The modern innovations in transportation and communications have now left the function of the nation destroyed (Dhanapala, 2001).
Globalization is the process of commercialization involving rapid increase in trade and exchange of goods, capital and services across national frontiers. When there are profits, jobs, efficiencies of scale, lowered unit costs, and increased the variety of goods available for everyone to buy, globalization is taking place. Dhanapala (2001) posits that the main challenge right now is not to achieve the end of the nation-state but to recuperate the ends of the nation-state. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in his Millennium Report that in order to make a success of this great upheaval, “we must learn how to govern better and above all how to govern better together. We need to make our States stronger and more effective at the national level. And we need to get them working together on global issues, all pulling their weight and having their say.” The core essence of good governance is popular participation, transparency, and public accountability (Dhanapala, 2001).
So what is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization? I think the concept of the nation-state must be expanded or “modernized” in a way that it suits the age of innovation today. Globalization cannot be avoided and if the nation sticks to the old traditional way, states and countries may not be able to develop and improve their ways. Our world today involves several mixed cultures and countries that are filled with diverse people. It is important that the nation-state can adapt with the fast paced society in order to develop and grow. Hence, in the age of globalization, the nature-state must adapt and practice what is necessary (modernize) in order to further build up augmentation. Otherwise, it might just get left behind.
Sources:
Dhanapala, J. (2001). Globalization and the Nation State. The Global Forum Policy. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/29952.html
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routle
Friday, February 12, 2010
Why do we obey?
It is human nature to simply obey because it is part of life to interact and follow what we know is right. When we were born, we knew nothing. We didn’t know any words, any phrase or any meaningful statement. The ones responsible in molding us are our parents, who have been there since our birth. What do we notice in a child’s life? Well, I think that our families are the ones responsible for teaching us the basic things in life. They tell us which is right and which is wrong. They teach us the basic words and concepts. Hence, it is human nature to adapt with society. This means that ever since we breathed in for the first time, that is what we know- that we owe our lives to our parents.
In the process of growing up, we obey our parents because it has come to our understanding that they know better. We ask things and they have the answers to it which is why we assumed that they know everything. As a result, we follow them because they have authority over us, and they are always right. As we grow up, we engage into different activities, get exposed into the world and sometimes we even intentionally disobey them. A simple example like when we go home late. When we go home at the middle of the night, we enter the door and there they are, standing mad waiting for us. Even though we act against them and obey them, in the end, we still lose because they have the power over us. Yes we are adults and we know the consequences of our actions. We have our reasons like we just want to spend time with our friends, but if we try to go against our parents (because we aren’t really doing anything), they have the power to confiscate our things such as no allowance or they ground us for a couple of weeks. Even though we hate to be grounded and everything they say is against us, we still follow them. Why? Why do we obey? My perception is that because they have the power.
Power is basically the authority over someone. It is linked with politics most of the time because power is associated with those on top of the structure like government officials. Similar with what I have just mentioned above, our parents are like the government officials. We follow the government because they have authority. You see, that’s because they have power and we all know that power goes a long way. We know that the government is corrupt. Taxes, funds and other fees collected from us are said to be “for our economy”. Do you actually see infrastructures being built? Or do we see places being built for foreigners? We know and we are aware that our money just goes to the officials but we don’t do anything about it, perhaps because this would not only be inconvenient but because they have power. People who go against them just lose at the end. It would be a lot better if officials are corrupt but there’s some progress in the economy but in the Philippines, that’s not the case.
Stanley Milgram said that people are willing to cause injuries to others if told to do so by someone who possesses authority (Edkins, 2009). This is because those who are told to do so are just obeying those who are in authority. Perhaps they are not afraid because the primary power is not in them but the person telling them to do so. Edkins (2009) gave some examples like the revolutions in 1989.
Two thinkers had their respective theories on why we obey sources of social and political authority: Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Analysis by Weber’s works states that the power of authority is possessed by a specific institution or individual and society and they are obeyed because their power is legitimate. Durkheim on the other hand said that we obey rules not because of any superior force but because of the moral authority that society commands from us. According to Durkheim, we acknowledge society’s orders because it is the object of genuine respect (Edkins, 2009).
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century political philosopher, believes that when individuals combine and enter into an agreement, their powers are combined into one. This forms into a greater power bigger than the people combined. He calls this the Leviathan, symbolized by a giant man that is made up of small individual men. A French political thinker Michel Foucault also raised the idea that those who have the power repress others. He believed that there is power relations between and amongst people . For him, power is nothing unless there is resistance (Edkins, 2009).
I find all these ideas and reasons valid but I agree most with Foucault. Well, because I find it very reasonable and practical. I also believe that those who have the power use this power to repress things that are against them or they don’t agree with. This now is related with the government given that the government has this kind of power over its people. We obey our government because we have to. It has been part of our daily lives to obey our government because it is assumed that by voting for them, we are giving them power. Hence, we are forced to obey even a bad government due to the power it possesses. Although, a bad government also has its fears since once the people decide to start a revolution, the government will show that what they are doing are good. I think that as long as the people are fine and they think that the authority of the government is still acceptable, then people remain indifferent. Good governments on the other hand are very hard to find. These governments deserve our obedience since they are just doing their job without any malice of hidden agenda. It is right for people to obey the government because in theory, they are the ones who put these officials into power (assuming that we are talking about the Philippines only: a democratic government). It is and has been part of social norms to obey the government- pay taxes, etc and because this has been a huge part of the peoples’ lives, it just is how it is. To put it simply, governments are the leaders and representatives of each country and they need the power so the whole world will be orderly. Hence, this authority also deserves some respect from its people because their power is valid. Although some things are not allowed by them (repression), they still hold power.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routle
In the process of growing up, we obey our parents because it has come to our understanding that they know better. We ask things and they have the answers to it which is why we assumed that they know everything. As a result, we follow them because they have authority over us, and they are always right. As we grow up, we engage into different activities, get exposed into the world and sometimes we even intentionally disobey them. A simple example like when we go home late. When we go home at the middle of the night, we enter the door and there they are, standing mad waiting for us. Even though we act against them and obey them, in the end, we still lose because they have the power over us. Yes we are adults and we know the consequences of our actions. We have our reasons like we just want to spend time with our friends, but if we try to go against our parents (because we aren’t really doing anything), they have the power to confiscate our things such as no allowance or they ground us for a couple of weeks. Even though we hate to be grounded and everything they say is against us, we still follow them. Why? Why do we obey? My perception is that because they have the power.
Power is basically the authority over someone. It is linked with politics most of the time because power is associated with those on top of the structure like government officials. Similar with what I have just mentioned above, our parents are like the government officials. We follow the government because they have authority. You see, that’s because they have power and we all know that power goes a long way. We know that the government is corrupt. Taxes, funds and other fees collected from us are said to be “for our economy”. Do you actually see infrastructures being built? Or do we see places being built for foreigners? We know and we are aware that our money just goes to the officials but we don’t do anything about it, perhaps because this would not only be inconvenient but because they have power. People who go against them just lose at the end. It would be a lot better if officials are corrupt but there’s some progress in the economy but in the Philippines, that’s not the case.
Stanley Milgram said that people are willing to cause injuries to others if told to do so by someone who possesses authority (Edkins, 2009). This is because those who are told to do so are just obeying those who are in authority. Perhaps they are not afraid because the primary power is not in them but the person telling them to do so. Edkins (2009) gave some examples like the revolutions in 1989.
Two thinkers had their respective theories on why we obey sources of social and political authority: Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Analysis by Weber’s works states that the power of authority is possessed by a specific institution or individual and society and they are obeyed because their power is legitimate. Durkheim on the other hand said that we obey rules not because of any superior force but because of the moral authority that society commands from us. According to Durkheim, we acknowledge society’s orders because it is the object of genuine respect (Edkins, 2009).
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century political philosopher, believes that when individuals combine and enter into an agreement, their powers are combined into one. This forms into a greater power bigger than the people combined. He calls this the Leviathan, symbolized by a giant man that is made up of small individual men. A French political thinker Michel Foucault also raised the idea that those who have the power repress others. He believed that there is power relations between and amongst people . For him, power is nothing unless there is resistance (Edkins, 2009).
I find all these ideas and reasons valid but I agree most with Foucault. Well, because I find it very reasonable and practical. I also believe that those who have the power use this power to repress things that are against them or they don’t agree with. This now is related with the government given that the government has this kind of power over its people. We obey our government because we have to. It has been part of our daily lives to obey our government because it is assumed that by voting for them, we are giving them power. Hence, we are forced to obey even a bad government due to the power it possesses. Although, a bad government also has its fears since once the people decide to start a revolution, the government will show that what they are doing are good. I think that as long as the people are fine and they think that the authority of the government is still acceptable, then people remain indifferent. Good governments on the other hand are very hard to find. These governments deserve our obedience since they are just doing their job without any malice of hidden agenda. It is right for people to obey the government because in theory, they are the ones who put these officials into power (assuming that we are talking about the Philippines only: a democratic government). It is and has been part of social norms to obey the government- pay taxes, etc and because this has been a huge part of the peoples’ lives, it just is how it is. To put it simply, governments are the leaders and representatives of each country and they need the power so the whole world will be orderly. Hence, this authority also deserves some respect from its people because their power is valid. Although some things are not allowed by them (repression), they still hold power.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routle
Friday, February 5, 2010
How do we find out what’s going on in the world?
How do people get information about the world? How are events and happenings received by us people who aren’t directly involved with the issue? I’m sure every single one of us in our generation would say that information comes to us through media. This is indeed true because in our daily lives, media is present, and it never ceases to update us with whatever is happening with the world. In fact, in modern times today, not only events are conveyed to the viewers but also those entertainment talk shows about celebrities like ETC and SNN.
Media is very important because without it, people would be clueless and unaware of current events. Not knowing the news is actually quite hard since people would want to be updated regarding their environments. However, is media clearly what it seems to be? Or media is tapped or biased in favour of those involved? Lisle (2009) states that all media representations come from somewhere to express a particular agenda- these are unclear biased information that is constructed and shaped in a way that communicates a dominant picture of the world that benefits some and excludes the others. This means that it is highly doubtful for any journalist to represent the world without any unbiased reactions. Bias and media go hand in hand. Thus, cannot be separated from each other.
In countries such as the UK, US, Philippines, etc, the state always pressures media to stay on their side. This benefits the government since what the media relays to the public are screened. They make certain that media has nothing bad to say about them because this destroys their reputation as political entities in the country. The governments actually transform the role of media from being a watchdog to being a mouthpiece that only talks about the good side of the state.
Media has had moments wherein it sided with the representations of war. During the Vietnam War back in the 1960’s to the 1970’s, the government seek to control the role of media during times of war. This war is significant due to how media evolved during the time. Journalists, photographers and cameramen had access to the battlefields. They started out as watchdogs, who only informed that public what’s happening in the world. Through time, they transformed into mouthpieces, where they aligned their stories and pictures with the military. A similar thing happened during the Gulf War in the 1960’s as the Department of Defense News Media Pool was created to control and manage media’s access to the battlefield. Media was also aligned with the government during the Iraq War in 2003 (Lisle, 2009).
There are two main traditions with respect to media and foreign policy- the Pluralist tradition and the Marxist tradition. The Pluralist tradition views media as a watchdog, keeping a keen eye on the government. This is opposed by the Marxist tradition which views media as a mouthpiece that only states what the government want them to express. The Pluralist perspective believes in liberal-democratic societies which thinks that media is an extension of the public sphere. For them, information is given to them and it serves as a watchdog or a reported on those in power. Pluralists’ principle is that of consumer choice and they emphasize media products available to every single consumer (Lisle, 2009). The Marxist perspective believes in a hierarchical society where power is possessed by the rich and the powerful. It is always assumed here that media will always protect the ruling class. Here, any information that is not aligned with the ruling class are suppressed and cannot be known to the public.
Stuart Hall, a prominent theorist, states that media may contain a number of possible interpretations. According to him, the meaning of the media text by the producers will not be read by the consumers correctly. In short, media’s message will always be relative to those who view them. This is true since every single human being thinks differently from any other human being. Imagine that you are taking an exam. There is only one essay question and everyone will answer it differently. This means that people don’t think the same way. Each one has his own insight, knowledge and realization. As such, watching a video for instance or watching media will never be the same for everyone. Hence, negative or positive thoughts will never be avoided.
Media codes will not be read similarly by all individuals because again, people live their lives differently. Each one of us has different experiences, views and morals which affect our way of thinking. Once again, our values and culture shape who we are- our identity and this influences our way of thinking. That’s why I strongly agree with Hall because media can never bring out a single message to everyone. A single commercial may never be interpreted similarly by a group of 10 people. People’s imaginations also must be considered here. Media is something creative and creativity brings out imagination to everyone.
Regarding the government and the media, I think I speak for everyone when I say that the state is always supported by the media. At least here in the Philippines. For a corrupt country like ours, it is impossible for media and the government to work together. Observe, and you will notice that media only delivers good things about the government- it’s accomplishments and projects. Everything they’ve done wrong is not really expressed to the public because this would bring them shame. Now, this makes me think whether media is helpful or not. Though it is helpful since it informs us and makes us aware of our society, is it worth it to only see one side? Is it worth it to not see the big picture and the truth?
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Media is very important because without it, people would be clueless and unaware of current events. Not knowing the news is actually quite hard since people would want to be updated regarding their environments. However, is media clearly what it seems to be? Or media is tapped or biased in favour of those involved? Lisle (2009) states that all media representations come from somewhere to express a particular agenda- these are unclear biased information that is constructed and shaped in a way that communicates a dominant picture of the world that benefits some and excludes the others. This means that it is highly doubtful for any journalist to represent the world without any unbiased reactions. Bias and media go hand in hand. Thus, cannot be separated from each other.
In countries such as the UK, US, Philippines, etc, the state always pressures media to stay on their side. This benefits the government since what the media relays to the public are screened. They make certain that media has nothing bad to say about them because this destroys their reputation as political entities in the country. The governments actually transform the role of media from being a watchdog to being a mouthpiece that only talks about the good side of the state.
Media has had moments wherein it sided with the representations of war. During the Vietnam War back in the 1960’s to the 1970’s, the government seek to control the role of media during times of war. This war is significant due to how media evolved during the time. Journalists, photographers and cameramen had access to the battlefields. They started out as watchdogs, who only informed that public what’s happening in the world. Through time, they transformed into mouthpieces, where they aligned their stories and pictures with the military. A similar thing happened during the Gulf War in the 1960’s as the Department of Defense News Media Pool was created to control and manage media’s access to the battlefield. Media was also aligned with the government during the Iraq War in 2003 (Lisle, 2009).
There are two main traditions with respect to media and foreign policy- the Pluralist tradition and the Marxist tradition. The Pluralist tradition views media as a watchdog, keeping a keen eye on the government. This is opposed by the Marxist tradition which views media as a mouthpiece that only states what the government want them to express. The Pluralist perspective believes in liberal-democratic societies which thinks that media is an extension of the public sphere. For them, information is given to them and it serves as a watchdog or a reported on those in power. Pluralists’ principle is that of consumer choice and they emphasize media products available to every single consumer (Lisle, 2009). The Marxist perspective believes in a hierarchical society where power is possessed by the rich and the powerful. It is always assumed here that media will always protect the ruling class. Here, any information that is not aligned with the ruling class are suppressed and cannot be known to the public.
Stuart Hall, a prominent theorist, states that media may contain a number of possible interpretations. According to him, the meaning of the media text by the producers will not be read by the consumers correctly. In short, media’s message will always be relative to those who view them. This is true since every single human being thinks differently from any other human being. Imagine that you are taking an exam. There is only one essay question and everyone will answer it differently. This means that people don’t think the same way. Each one has his own insight, knowledge and realization. As such, watching a video for instance or watching media will never be the same for everyone. Hence, negative or positive thoughts will never be avoided.
Media codes will not be read similarly by all individuals because again, people live their lives differently. Each one of us has different experiences, views and morals which affect our way of thinking. Once again, our values and culture shape who we are- our identity and this influences our way of thinking. That’s why I strongly agree with Hall because media can never bring out a single message to everyone. A single commercial may never be interpreted similarly by a group of 10 people. People’s imaginations also must be considered here. Media is something creative and creativity brings out imagination to everyone.
Regarding the government and the media, I think I speak for everyone when I say that the state is always supported by the media. At least here in the Philippines. For a corrupt country like ours, it is impossible for media and the government to work together. Observe, and you will notice that media only delivers good things about the government- it’s accomplishments and projects. Everything they’ve done wrong is not really expressed to the public because this would bring them shame. Now, this makes me think whether media is helpful or not. Though it is helpful since it informs us and makes us aware of our society, is it worth it to only see one side? Is it worth it to not see the big picture and the truth?
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Who do we think we are?
How is one’s identity related with politics? How does identity give birth to the issue of politics in our world today? According to Wibben (2009), in order to know one’s identity, we first have to begin to see how we are subject to identity politics then we must examine what our identity implies with a certain group in global politics. He also said that identity politics is inspired by the common interests, attitude and perceptions of a particular group.
Common issues long ago are actually related to this. Before the modern era, men and women are viewed as two different entities or identities. For most people, women should do household chores- cook, prepare for her husband and be the one who’ll stay home and wait for their husbands. Men are the ones who are strong, brave and must always take charge. As such, women become vulnerable and helpless in the eyes of other people. Women shouldn’t even be educated long ago. Nowadays, women are as intelligent and as independent as men are. They get to do what they want in terms of career and life. What do we see here? Gender politics has been present long ago. Women are viewed as inferior to men and receive discriminating attitudes from the people around them.
An example of this identity politics is the US Feminist Movement. The Feminist identity politics relies on the idea that some groups are oppressed because they are viewed in a certain way as women. Women have this common feeling regarding the issue, which led them to have a shared experience and start a feminist movement. Women thought of ways to voice out their experiences, ways of thinking and culture. This is known as feminist consciousness-raising. When they gathered and talked about their personal problems, they realized that these were political problems they had in common. This feminist political issue intensified when second-wave feminism emerged. Here, the black, Chicana and lesbian women voice out that there is a division within feminism. For them, they are discriminated, prejudiced and separated from white middle-class women (Wibben, 2009). Eventually, the focus from identity of a particular group turned to identity itself- one’s color, race, culture.
Wibben (2009) posits that there are two approaches to identity: The static and the dynamic. The static perspective presumes the existence of an individual and raises questions about his past identity. The dynamic perspective on the other hand, does not assume subjectivity. The former perspective was criticized since it is only based on observations. For instance, men and women. A book called Men are from Mars- Women are from Venus can clarify how men and women behave as to observations. The author understands human behavior, yes. But this doesn’t mean that what he wrote is absolute, in a way that it’s how all men or women behave at all times. It may be possible that it’s just what he noticed based on experience. The latter perspective states the opposite. This theory believes that subjectivity is always a product of factors such as ethics, race, etc. Here, one’s identity is relative to its society and environment. “Identification takes place on the process of articulating the relationships between the subjects and discourses.” (Wibben, 2009) This means that who we are is not based on what we are but rather who have we become considering every experience we have felt.
I agree with the dynamic perspective although in our daily lives, people act accordingly with the norms of a society which is why the static perspective cannot be avoided. An example of this is gender politics. Men act this way because they think like this. Often times we think that men think the same and we generalize because according to society, it is true. However I think there are some that are different in a way that they do not let norms dictate who they are as a person.
Moreover, my stand is one’s identity depends on how he/she was brought up, what he/she has experienced and who he/she hangs out with. There is a saying that says “You are who your friends are”- I believe in this saying because again, we cannot separate society from one’s identity. It is human nature to adapt in order to live and be happy. As such, one’s identity is always influenced by his/her surroundings. I think who we think we are will constantly change through time and who we think we are today will still alter in the future when we learn more, experience more and know more.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Common issues long ago are actually related to this. Before the modern era, men and women are viewed as two different entities or identities. For most people, women should do household chores- cook, prepare for her husband and be the one who’ll stay home and wait for their husbands. Men are the ones who are strong, brave and must always take charge. As such, women become vulnerable and helpless in the eyes of other people. Women shouldn’t even be educated long ago. Nowadays, women are as intelligent and as independent as men are. They get to do what they want in terms of career and life. What do we see here? Gender politics has been present long ago. Women are viewed as inferior to men and receive discriminating attitudes from the people around them.
An example of this identity politics is the US Feminist Movement. The Feminist identity politics relies on the idea that some groups are oppressed because they are viewed in a certain way as women. Women have this common feeling regarding the issue, which led them to have a shared experience and start a feminist movement. Women thought of ways to voice out their experiences, ways of thinking and culture. This is known as feminist consciousness-raising. When they gathered and talked about their personal problems, they realized that these were political problems they had in common. This feminist political issue intensified when second-wave feminism emerged. Here, the black, Chicana and lesbian women voice out that there is a division within feminism. For them, they are discriminated, prejudiced and separated from white middle-class women (Wibben, 2009). Eventually, the focus from identity of a particular group turned to identity itself- one’s color, race, culture.
Wibben (2009) posits that there are two approaches to identity: The static and the dynamic. The static perspective presumes the existence of an individual and raises questions about his past identity. The dynamic perspective on the other hand, does not assume subjectivity. The former perspective was criticized since it is only based on observations. For instance, men and women. A book called Men are from Mars- Women are from Venus can clarify how men and women behave as to observations. The author understands human behavior, yes. But this doesn’t mean that what he wrote is absolute, in a way that it’s how all men or women behave at all times. It may be possible that it’s just what he noticed based on experience. The latter perspective states the opposite. This theory believes that subjectivity is always a product of factors such as ethics, race, etc. Here, one’s identity is relative to its society and environment. “Identification takes place on the process of articulating the relationships between the subjects and discourses.” (Wibben, 2009) This means that who we are is not based on what we are but rather who have we become considering every experience we have felt.
I agree with the dynamic perspective although in our daily lives, people act accordingly with the norms of a society which is why the static perspective cannot be avoided. An example of this is gender politics. Men act this way because they think like this. Often times we think that men think the same and we generalize because according to society, it is true. However I think there are some that are different in a way that they do not let norms dictate who they are as a person.
Moreover, my stand is one’s identity depends on how he/she was brought up, what he/she has experienced and who he/she hangs out with. There is a saying that says “You are who your friends are”- I believe in this saying because again, we cannot separate society from one’s identity. It is human nature to adapt in order to live and be happy. As such, one’s identity is always influenced by his/her surroundings. I think who we think we are will constantly change through time and who we think we are today will still alter in the future when we learn more, experience more and know more.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
How do religious beliefs affect politics?
Religion is a huge part of a person’s life. We see people who plan their lives based on their religions. We follow specific rituals and traditions because it has been passed on from generation to generation, just because these have been part of our religion. Almost everyone has his own religion. They have their own gods who they worship and adore. But what is Religion really? Well, it is a belief that a person follows. It is based on faith that there is one higher being who know everything. He’s the one who plans out every event that shall occur and he is the only one who knows your fate. For Christians, this is God. For Buddhists, this is Buddha. They are several religions around the world but what’s common is that we all believe that there is one higher being who oversees us.
These religions have their own guidelines. For Christians, they have the 10 commandments and for other religions, of course they have their own set of rules to follow. These rules are not the same per religion which means that a Christian or a Catholic has a different set of rules to follow as compared to a Muslim or a Buddhist. This difference is precisely what the problem is when it comes to politics. Just imagine, one country such as the Unites States (U.S) that has so many people in it and a mixture of religious beliefs in it. How could one president or a ruler guide the whole country?
An example given by Mandaville (2009) is the Islamic States and Movements. He said that the most important Muslim power in the early modern period was the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the first Muslims who had interaction with the European powers. The Pan-Islamists followed the Ottomans and argues that Muslims should promote political unity so they would not face the imperial bondage experienced by the Ottomans. A political ideology called Islamism was formed back during the postcolonial period. The supporters of this ideology- the Islamists- found a way to be modern without going Western (Mandaville, 2009). In 1928, Hassan al-Banna created the Muslim Brotherhood to ensure a continued role for religion in society. A popular group today known as the Al-Qaeda was established in Afghanistan by Arab-Afghan soldiers right after the Soviet Union withdrew their troops after an unsuccessful occupation effort. The group wanted to shift away from the worldview of previous radical Islamists. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda decided to focus on attacking what they understood to be the source of global imperialism or the U.S. This can be very much related with the September 11 attack.
We understand from the example given above that it is challenging to rule a place where there are several religions. Especially the U.S since various religious beliefs exists there. The real question is whether religion and politics mix? Can they be separated?
Politics is having social relationships with those in authority. In other words, it is when different people make decisions considering every factor. It is often associated with the government but it also exists everywhere, like within families, friends and corporations and firms. Mixing politics and religion is complicated not to mention unavoidable because of several factors. Secularism led to the idea of mixing both which is believed to be problematic and potentially dangerous (Mandaville, 2009). Secularism is basically the separation of institutions such as the church and the state. In fact, this is the best example of religion vs politics. Secularism has two main developments: The Enlightenment and the birth of modern political sovereignty. The former states that people now shift away from religious beliefs to provide rational explanations. For them, things may now be explained by social science or any rational definition. The latter states the same thing- that societies have undergone modernization and has now shifted away from fully depending on religion. A wider issue was raised by several scholars. According to them, culture must also be considered because culture is a huge part of one’s personality and individuality. For them, it is one’s identity formation and making (Mandaville, 2009).
Religion affects politics for several reasons. As mentioned, religion entails beliefs, different gods and goddesses, various traditions and lifestyles. Politics is being rational, ruling and how to handle situations with others. In this case, religion is emotional since associated with it are values, morals and the core beliefs of a person. In making a decision for instance, a single individual would put his thoughts and emotions first. He will only consider what he thinks is best based on his religion. Now, when he does this, do you think everyone else around him will agree with him? I think not. For other religions, other values exist and here arises conflict and misunderstandings. See, decisions are relative and in every situation, solutions are not the same for everyone. We go back to my first topic- How do we begin to think about the world?
An example is when the leader of a country is Catholic, all his decisions are now Catholic decisions and will be questioned by other people. Citizens of that country will clash and will lead to wars. I also take into account that culture is a vital factor. Religion and culture goes hand in hand because religion pertains to ones belief, culture pertains to his surroundings and traditions. These two makes a man’s identity and cannot be extracted from him in decision making. Thus, I don’t think that religion and politics can be separated because although we try to draw a line between the two, religion will always affect politics.
Source:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
These religions have their own guidelines. For Christians, they have the 10 commandments and for other religions, of course they have their own set of rules to follow. These rules are not the same per religion which means that a Christian or a Catholic has a different set of rules to follow as compared to a Muslim or a Buddhist. This difference is precisely what the problem is when it comes to politics. Just imagine, one country such as the Unites States (U.S) that has so many people in it and a mixture of religious beliefs in it. How could one president or a ruler guide the whole country?
An example given by Mandaville (2009) is the Islamic States and Movements. He said that the most important Muslim power in the early modern period was the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the first Muslims who had interaction with the European powers. The Pan-Islamists followed the Ottomans and argues that Muslims should promote political unity so they would not face the imperial bondage experienced by the Ottomans. A political ideology called Islamism was formed back during the postcolonial period. The supporters of this ideology- the Islamists- found a way to be modern without going Western (Mandaville, 2009). In 1928, Hassan al-Banna created the Muslim Brotherhood to ensure a continued role for religion in society. A popular group today known as the Al-Qaeda was established in Afghanistan by Arab-Afghan soldiers right after the Soviet Union withdrew their troops after an unsuccessful occupation effort. The group wanted to shift away from the worldview of previous radical Islamists. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda decided to focus on attacking what they understood to be the source of global imperialism or the U.S. This can be very much related with the September 11 attack.
We understand from the example given above that it is challenging to rule a place where there are several religions. Especially the U.S since various religious beliefs exists there. The real question is whether religion and politics mix? Can they be separated?
Politics is having social relationships with those in authority. In other words, it is when different people make decisions considering every factor. It is often associated with the government but it also exists everywhere, like within families, friends and corporations and firms. Mixing politics and religion is complicated not to mention unavoidable because of several factors. Secularism led to the idea of mixing both which is believed to be problematic and potentially dangerous (Mandaville, 2009). Secularism is basically the separation of institutions such as the church and the state. In fact, this is the best example of religion vs politics. Secularism has two main developments: The Enlightenment and the birth of modern political sovereignty. The former states that people now shift away from religious beliefs to provide rational explanations. For them, things may now be explained by social science or any rational definition. The latter states the same thing- that societies have undergone modernization and has now shifted away from fully depending on religion. A wider issue was raised by several scholars. According to them, culture must also be considered because culture is a huge part of one’s personality and individuality. For them, it is one’s identity formation and making (Mandaville, 2009).
Religion affects politics for several reasons. As mentioned, religion entails beliefs, different gods and goddesses, various traditions and lifestyles. Politics is being rational, ruling and how to handle situations with others. In this case, religion is emotional since associated with it are values, morals and the core beliefs of a person. In making a decision for instance, a single individual would put his thoughts and emotions first. He will only consider what he thinks is best based on his religion. Now, when he does this, do you think everyone else around him will agree with him? I think not. For other religions, other values exist and here arises conflict and misunderstandings. See, decisions are relative and in every situation, solutions are not the same for everyone. We go back to my first topic- How do we begin to think about the world?
An example is when the leader of a country is Catholic, all his decisions are now Catholic decisions and will be questioned by other people. Citizens of that country will clash and will lead to wars. I also take into account that culture is a vital factor. Religion and culture goes hand in hand because religion pertains to ones belief, culture pertains to his surroundings and traditions. These two makes a man’s identity and cannot be extracted from him in decision making. Thus, I don’t think that religion and politics can be separated because although we try to draw a line between the two, religion will always affect politics.
Source:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
What if we don’t think in human terms?
The environment has been a huge part of a man’s life. Leave a man in a forest and eventually, he will have everything he will need after a few days. What does this tell us? Well, this means that nature and the environment is God’s gift. It is something “natural” and cannot be created by man. The air, the sun, the whole world cannot be created by humans. Nature is something enjoyed- the sceneries, sunset, sunrise, the cold air. People from the urban community take their vacations in these resorts and places. They want to relax after a long hard day filled with pollution and stinky smells because nature is fresh and beautiful. But when I think of it, it is also the people who are responsible for destroying nature. The pollution, oils spills, chemical contaminations, etc come from the population’s actions. Why is this?
People are too preoccupied with their everyday lives that they tend to forget where everything started. Long ago, when there were fewer people, fewer businesses and fewer learning, life was simple. People appreciated nature because they weren’t too busy doing their jobs. Little did they know that these small instances that nature is harmed are now turning into something huge that affects the whole world. Climate change is a main problem nowadays and this is because people introduced carbon dioxide emissions that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. By burning coal to produce electricity, driving a car, etc, people unintentionally alter the elements of the atmosphere (Dalby, 2009).
Change in the atmosphere started during the Industrial revolution where machines were used and engines were put in motion. The substitution of fossil fuels changed the British structure and led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the Industrial revolution, capitalism also emerged and carbon dioxide emission was caused by capitalism. That time, petroleum was refined, gasses were used for heating and eventually, was used for engines of cars. Carbon fuels did not just come from cars. Power generating stations using coal, electricity used for computers, typewriters, etc were also responsible. Everyday life items such as plastic and petroleum contribute to carbon emission as well (Dalby, 2009). These things lead to climate change, which lead to global warming. More and more carbon dioxide are released to the air and plants and oceans can’t absorb this. Why is this a problem? Because climate change leads to typhoons, disasters, droughts and hardship for those planting crops. It increases the severity of storms and if people don’t start acting, mankind will suffer.
What I think is the issue here is how we combat carboniferous capitalism. I honestly think there won’t be any solution to this because people have factories, own engines and machines that are vital in earning money in order to survive. Long ago, life was simple, but now things are very much more complicated. There’s what we call the urban and the rural area. Modern living, machines, factories and the more advanced standard of living belongs to the urban area and the rural areas are usually what we call the provinces where life are less advanced. Their means of transportation there are cows and pigs. Now, those who live in the urban area are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions because of their way of living. These factories they work at, the cars they use, the burning of coal- everything gives out a small percentage of the total excess carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. However, these people do not feel the disadvantage of their actions because those who live in the rural area are the ones that get affected. Their crops fail to grow, the typhoons and droughts affect their houses and income generating businesses. The oceans and seas raise the water level and floods rural areas but those people who don’t experience it remain indifferent of the issue. This dramatic shift of climate change may not be as dangerous as it seems now but in the near future, it will be and by then, we won’t be able to stop it. The lesson actually made me remember the movies the day after tomorrow and 2012. When that day comes, we can do nothing but regret.
I think that we should do something now before it’s too late like recycling, using other resources to limit the carbon dioxide being released in the atmosphere. If possible, we can carpool daily to lessen the use of cars. It doesn’t have to be one sudden huge act (because that’s impossible) but merely, small actions that when accumulated could make a significant effect. The effect won’t be felt of course, it would probably take a year or more, but it’s better to make it a habit to be aware of this issue so in the end, there are no regrets.
What now is its relation with global politics? It is simple- we should be more responsible of our actions because the consequences are now being felt by those around us. Everything in this world is interconnected. This means that for every action there is a reaction and this reaction may harm the society we live in. Hence, it is important to know our own carbon footprint so we can be aware of the degree of influence we are contributing in this phenomenon. Awareness brings knowledge, knowledge raises questions and we now search for answers to these questions. Once we know more, we learn more and we do more to avoid the unavoidable.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
People are too preoccupied with their everyday lives that they tend to forget where everything started. Long ago, when there were fewer people, fewer businesses and fewer learning, life was simple. People appreciated nature because they weren’t too busy doing their jobs. Little did they know that these small instances that nature is harmed are now turning into something huge that affects the whole world. Climate change is a main problem nowadays and this is because people introduced carbon dioxide emissions that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. By burning coal to produce electricity, driving a car, etc, people unintentionally alter the elements of the atmosphere (Dalby, 2009).
Change in the atmosphere started during the Industrial revolution where machines were used and engines were put in motion. The substitution of fossil fuels changed the British structure and led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the Industrial revolution, capitalism also emerged and carbon dioxide emission was caused by capitalism. That time, petroleum was refined, gasses were used for heating and eventually, was used for engines of cars. Carbon fuels did not just come from cars. Power generating stations using coal, electricity used for computers, typewriters, etc were also responsible. Everyday life items such as plastic and petroleum contribute to carbon emission as well (Dalby, 2009). These things lead to climate change, which lead to global warming. More and more carbon dioxide are released to the air and plants and oceans can’t absorb this. Why is this a problem? Because climate change leads to typhoons, disasters, droughts and hardship for those planting crops. It increases the severity of storms and if people don’t start acting, mankind will suffer.
What I think is the issue here is how we combat carboniferous capitalism. I honestly think there won’t be any solution to this because people have factories, own engines and machines that are vital in earning money in order to survive. Long ago, life was simple, but now things are very much more complicated. There’s what we call the urban and the rural area. Modern living, machines, factories and the more advanced standard of living belongs to the urban area and the rural areas are usually what we call the provinces where life are less advanced. Their means of transportation there are cows and pigs. Now, those who live in the urban area are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions because of their way of living. These factories they work at, the cars they use, the burning of coal- everything gives out a small percentage of the total excess carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. However, these people do not feel the disadvantage of their actions because those who live in the rural area are the ones that get affected. Their crops fail to grow, the typhoons and droughts affect their houses and income generating businesses. The oceans and seas raise the water level and floods rural areas but those people who don’t experience it remain indifferent of the issue. This dramatic shift of climate change may not be as dangerous as it seems now but in the near future, it will be and by then, we won’t be able to stop it. The lesson actually made me remember the movies the day after tomorrow and 2012. When that day comes, we can do nothing but regret.
I think that we should do something now before it’s too late like recycling, using other resources to limit the carbon dioxide being released in the atmosphere. If possible, we can carpool daily to lessen the use of cars. It doesn’t have to be one sudden huge act (because that’s impossible) but merely, small actions that when accumulated could make a significant effect. The effect won’t be felt of course, it would probably take a year or more, but it’s better to make it a habit to be aware of this issue so in the end, there are no regrets.
What now is its relation with global politics? It is simple- we should be more responsible of our actions because the consequences are now being felt by those around us. Everything in this world is interconnected. This means that for every action there is a reaction and this reaction may harm the society we live in. Hence, it is important to know our own carbon footprint so we can be aware of the degree of influence we are contributing in this phenomenon. Awareness brings knowledge, knowledge raises questions and we now search for answers to these questions. Once we know more, we learn more and we do more to avoid the unavoidable.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
How do we begin to think about the world?
The question made me realize that I am not fully aware of how the world works. I have never thought of these things in a deep manner. For me, life goes on and thinking about how the world functions will not change how it actually works. When I think about it, does thinking about the world affect my everyday life? Well, I guess not. But it just makes me understand it more in relation to the community and those around me. Here comes ethics and politics. Ethics is how we treat the people around us and Politics is the kind of life we have because of the ways of thinking about who we are. In other words, Politics is somewhat linked with the structure of the country such as the government and laws that govern us.
Living a just life and treating others with respect may most of the time contradict each other. An example is the ticking bomb scenario where there is one person who planted a bomb in a place. Once the bomb explodes, several thousands of people will die and will end up killing many innocent people. Thinking of it as an abstraction, it is easy to give a solution to this problem. The man shall be tortured until he spills out where the bomb is. Thinking of it in a practical way ain’t as easy. In real life, things may and will go wrong. Without a doubt, things don’t turn out the way it normally does. When we think of these situations in our heads, it is almost perfect in such as way that there are no complications. In reality and practice, other factors influence our decision making. In the case of the ticking bomb scenario, we now capture a group of people because it’s possible that these people know where the bomb is located. The Convention Against Torture believes that torture must not be done unless circumstances allow torture to take place because it is just, like the ticking bomb scenario (Pin-fat, 2009).
Two responses were formulated and analyzed by Charles Beitz and Michael Walzer. Beitz believed in a cosmopolitan way of answers, stating that individuals are rational, free and equal to be the moral subject of global politics. According to him, principles of justice must be chosen to create an ideal world. This means that biases must be put aside- a picture of reason. He also offered a picture of ethico-political space, comparing both domestic and international politics. Aside from this, he emphasizes that it is a person’s responsibility to be ethical when it comes to the people around them. He said that the picture of subject is the individual, not the state. Walzer on the other hand, believed in a communitarian set of answers. Here, the state is the center or the moral subject in global politics. The ethico-political space lies in the community. According to Walzer, being human means creating meaning, purpose and cultures and that reason is linked with social, historical and cultural aspects. As opposed to Beitz, he thinks that reason can never eliminate bias and that treating others with utmost respect is only extended to those within states (Pin-fat, 2009). As for what I think, I agree with both of them. Reason does in fact rise above biases but not all the time. For others, there are times that emotions surpass rationality. So you see, it depends on several circumstances. It varies per individual, per situation and for every factor. I think that the subject is the individuals that when gathered, consist of the state and that ethico-political space must be absolute. Meaning, to everyone.
How we think about the world is subjective. We shall always consider those around us and our ethico-political relations with others, which is exactly why thinking about the world lies on the different circumstances that may occur. Just like the ticking bomb scenario, every action must be thought of, in relation to those that are affected. What I mean is one factor may change our decision because of our morals, ethics and behavior towards the society. It is impossible to be able to decide a situation at the moment because when that event occurs, it is different. In other words, what we think is abstract but what actually happens is not. Hence, how we think about the world is guided by our morals but also depends on the situation itself. Values such as justice, prejudice, care, etc will be challenged and it will all be different per individual. What I’m trying to say is each person has a different perceptive of the world and this is based on their inner values.
In many ways, the history of the world is different from the history of globalization but the process is the same. The history of the world is simply how the world evolved, how it became what it is right now. Similarly, globalization is obtained because of the several events like capitalism, the industrial revolution. All these main events led to globalization today. Poor countries before have transformed into rich countries now due to hard work, innovation and globalization. It is possible for us to think that globalization is the new word for innovation, modernization or capitalism, except globalization is the bigger word. This means that globalization covers the whole globe, the whole world while the other words may just refer to a country or an era.
I think that globalization is good but it can be bad if too much innovation tale place. It may be dangerous if the world is too advanced because people tend to depend on machines to make life easier. Well, that is good but for me, when things reach that level of convenience, people lose their values and the things that matter. Like for instance, long ago, our parents lived a hard life and they grew up because they worked hard to live. They use their resources to life themselves from a not so good standard of living. But globalization can let us forget that there are things in life that must be worked hard for and I believe that sometimes, people just have to experience life in a hard way for them to be better persons in the future. However, I still think that globalization in a broad sense is good because it lifts up the standard of living of people and countries progress and develop due to this. The opening of trade and more international investments improve countries and once each country in the world reach a high level of standard of living, then the world would be a better place. Education, connections, innovation and developments- all these things are capable of making the world a bigger and better place.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Living a just life and treating others with respect may most of the time contradict each other. An example is the ticking bomb scenario where there is one person who planted a bomb in a place. Once the bomb explodes, several thousands of people will die and will end up killing many innocent people. Thinking of it as an abstraction, it is easy to give a solution to this problem. The man shall be tortured until he spills out where the bomb is. Thinking of it in a practical way ain’t as easy. In real life, things may and will go wrong. Without a doubt, things don’t turn out the way it normally does. When we think of these situations in our heads, it is almost perfect in such as way that there are no complications. In reality and practice, other factors influence our decision making. In the case of the ticking bomb scenario, we now capture a group of people because it’s possible that these people know where the bomb is located. The Convention Against Torture believes that torture must not be done unless circumstances allow torture to take place because it is just, like the ticking bomb scenario (Pin-fat, 2009).
Two responses were formulated and analyzed by Charles Beitz and Michael Walzer. Beitz believed in a cosmopolitan way of answers, stating that individuals are rational, free and equal to be the moral subject of global politics. According to him, principles of justice must be chosen to create an ideal world. This means that biases must be put aside- a picture of reason. He also offered a picture of ethico-political space, comparing both domestic and international politics. Aside from this, he emphasizes that it is a person’s responsibility to be ethical when it comes to the people around them. He said that the picture of subject is the individual, not the state. Walzer on the other hand, believed in a communitarian set of answers. Here, the state is the center or the moral subject in global politics. The ethico-political space lies in the community. According to Walzer, being human means creating meaning, purpose and cultures and that reason is linked with social, historical and cultural aspects. As opposed to Beitz, he thinks that reason can never eliminate bias and that treating others with utmost respect is only extended to those within states (Pin-fat, 2009). As for what I think, I agree with both of them. Reason does in fact rise above biases but not all the time. For others, there are times that emotions surpass rationality. So you see, it depends on several circumstances. It varies per individual, per situation and for every factor. I think that the subject is the individuals that when gathered, consist of the state and that ethico-political space must be absolute. Meaning, to everyone.
How we think about the world is subjective. We shall always consider those around us and our ethico-political relations with others, which is exactly why thinking about the world lies on the different circumstances that may occur. Just like the ticking bomb scenario, every action must be thought of, in relation to those that are affected. What I mean is one factor may change our decision because of our morals, ethics and behavior towards the society. It is impossible to be able to decide a situation at the moment because when that event occurs, it is different. In other words, what we think is abstract but what actually happens is not. Hence, how we think about the world is guided by our morals but also depends on the situation itself. Values such as justice, prejudice, care, etc will be challenged and it will all be different per individual. What I’m trying to say is each person has a different perceptive of the world and this is based on their inner values.
In many ways, the history of the world is different from the history of globalization but the process is the same. The history of the world is simply how the world evolved, how it became what it is right now. Similarly, globalization is obtained because of the several events like capitalism, the industrial revolution. All these main events led to globalization today. Poor countries before have transformed into rich countries now due to hard work, innovation and globalization. It is possible for us to think that globalization is the new word for innovation, modernization or capitalism, except globalization is the bigger word. This means that globalization covers the whole globe, the whole world while the other words may just refer to a country or an era.
I think that globalization is good but it can be bad if too much innovation tale place. It may be dangerous if the world is too advanced because people tend to depend on machines to make life easier. Well, that is good but for me, when things reach that level of convenience, people lose their values and the things that matter. Like for instance, long ago, our parents lived a hard life and they grew up because they worked hard to live. They use their resources to life themselves from a not so good standard of living. But globalization can let us forget that there are things in life that must be worked hard for and I believe that sometimes, people just have to experience life in a hard way for them to be better persons in the future. However, I still think that globalization in a broad sense is good because it lifts up the standard of living of people and countries progress and develop due to this. The opening of trade and more international investments improve countries and once each country in the world reach a high level of standard of living, then the world would be a better place. Education, connections, innovation and developments- all these things are capable of making the world a bigger and better place.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)