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
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)