Ecology

Seeing that this is the last assignment, I just want to tie everything up in a neat little bundle and conclude with my personal views about our Earth and its problems because I do care.

Previously, I have attributed a lot of problems to capitalism. It is the venom that pervades our society with unintended consequences. Consumerism is an addiction because incessant advertising has us chasing clothes and cars, working jobs we hate so we buy things we do not need. (Palahniuk, 1996) I strongly believe that the obsession with accumulation of wealth and social upward mobility has clouded the vision of those partaking in the rat race. It amazes me that people can be so blind sometimes, to what is truly important for humanity.

Having said that, it is a capitalist world that we live in after all. As much as I would like to reject it, it has infiltrated into my life and become part of how I go about daily. But capitalism does have its merits. Which is why, while there have been more and more efforts to bring down the WTO and GAFT, it is so hard to get rid of. If not for capitalism, there would not be many inventions and means crucial to making the world A-OK. The other problem, really, is the social structure in which we are all embedded.

It is tempting to attribute ecology as a global problem to capitalism. I shall attempt to challenge that notion, seeing that in this case, the problem lies in our social structure.

When Al Gore’s award(s)-winning documentary came out, his message was clear: The Earth is very sick. Critics stood by their arguments, that it was all an exaggeration with serious factual errors. Some even said that it had political agendas attached, that it was his effort to jump in on the Presidentials bandwagon this year. Evidently, it did not come true. There are people who genuinely care for the environment in which we all live in.

Perhaps going green is now the new black. Popular international events like Live Earth strive to raise awareness about the pressing issue of global warming. This is done by holding benefit concerts in various parts of the world, using much more energy and resources in the process than Singapore would spend on its national day. So long as the ends justify the means, I guess. The presence of famous artistes no doubt helped cemented the mass consumption of the image of going green.

Events and documentaries as such are aimed at the modern people of today. But really, who is ultimately to blame when it comes down to abusing the air that we breathe and share?

“Blame the capitalists,” they say, “for consumerism is the untamed force that propels the economy with evil marketing strategies.” Perhaps, but not all the time. Increasingly, private enterprises are becoming more conscious about the impact of their organizations on the environment. We see Gap making an effort by launching organic cotton T-shirts. We see Nike removing greenhouse gas from its sneakers. There is also the trend now of private enterprises choosing to invest in countries with environmental laws. Be it for profits or out of genuine goodwill, it is a step forward. Furthermore, research have proven that the more open and wealthy the society, the more market-oriented and competitive its economy is, the more likely it is to take care of its natural environment. (Balko, X) This is because when a society has reached a certain level of comfort, when survival becomes taken for granted, people can afford to direct their attention to the environment. Capitalism generates wealth that allows its people to fret in a luxurious sort of worry. Hence, consumerism does drive the environment to despair but we cannot point and blame the capitalists and consumers because it is not entirely their fault; there are greater forces at work.

“Blame the people,” they say, “for not doing their part in practicing the 3Rs.” Sure, I get mad when I see people using plastic bags unnecessarily, especially in Singapore where the plastic bag acts as the informal receipt of purchase. I strongly believe that each of the people have a responsibility to do their part in conserving Earth’s limited resources. But the people are called “the people” in such a generalized way for a reason. We, the people, do not hold The Power. Individually, there is only so much that we can achieve for the greater good. (And many do not even come close to fulfilling their parts) For effective change to occur, The Powerful has to come into the picture somehow.

So I say, blame the social structure. If when capitalism creates wealth, which enables new industries to employ more modern, more environmentally friendly technology, and when the people rise from poverty to the middle class, becoming less concerned about their survival and more concerned about their surroundings, if when this happens but the state, for some reason or another, refuses to change, then it is their fault. When the people’s income level reaches a certain level, and they start to demand better environmental standards, and if the state is unable to give it to them, then it is the state’s fault. No matter how much effort each individual puts into saving the environment, no matter how capitalist enterprises pressure the state, if the state refuses to solve environmental issues, there is not much one can do since only the state has The Power to legitimize environmental laws and implement nationwide policies. And in my opinion, a strong reason the state does not want to solve these problems (and many other problems, for that matter) is not because they are unable to but because they do not want to. For, if these problems are gone, their power to control will erode away as well.

Having said that, it does not mean that change is impossible or that the people are helpless. Collectively, their demands will shape supply and eventually, the global market. As such, they should make wise choices about their purchases, choosing from shops that promise eco-friendliness or even fair trade. In like manner, the people, where they can, should act as a collective whole and pressure oppressive governments into considering their views. The biggest obstacle to improving environmental conditions right now is perhaps the social structure in which we are all embedded. To effectively affect change, together (state, people, private enterprises) we need to take positive action and see that as individuals, we each have power to do so.

I end most of my assignments with a glimmer of hope, seeing how depressing this module we’re taking is. Personally, I feel that the world is just starting to stir, and that we are all going to be witnesses to some great change. (On hindsight, this may be just me and that fact that Obama is now the president of les etas-unis. He is a symbol for change, more important than the policies he is standing for, I feel.) As individuals, we propel the change we want to see. If everyone is passive, then as a whole we would all be dormant. So click here:

everyday!

References:
Radley Balko. Free Trade and the Environment.
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/558.htm

srsly,

Technology and Energy

Technology, as we all know by now, is a double-edged sword. As much it delivers promises that supposedly improve our lives, it bears with itself perils that are sometimes not very obvious. This conflicting view we have on technology will be an ongoing debate in which a conclusion cannot be arrived at anytime in the near future. The controversies surrounding technology came into limelight only as recently as, at most, 2 decades ago. It is going to take a while before we can start to see any actual effective change take place.

I personally believe that we have lost wisdom in the convenience of technology, becoming ethical infants, moral pygmies and slaves to it. Every advancement in technology influences and eventually changes society. So the needs of society change, creating more needs, and, eventually, creating more technology. (McGinn 1991)

But technology is ultimately a tool to solve problems. The tool itself is not good or bad by nature. Who uses the tool in what way, and for whose benefits, determines the nature of technology. Hence, it is important that technology is not abused by those who are too selfish to see the need for working toward a common greater good.

This then begs the question of who decides what exactly is the greater good? As technology decentralizes power by empowering individuals, surely this increased interaction between individuals from all over the world will bring about the abrasion between numerous conflicting ideas and values. The next step would be to welcome anybody who cares to affect change to a democratic platform where they are truly free to speak their minds, engage in debate and through conflict, settle on the greater good and effect positive change. Already, we can see such democratic platforms surfacing on the Internet. YouTube is the epitome of such a democratic platform. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently invited YouTubers to pose questions about government policies, and other related issues, to him directly on YouTube. Such question-and-answer sessions, previously limited to the Parliament, were now open to the public.

“I am here to answer your questions. Politicians get the chance in Prime Minister’s Questions. I think it is time the public had a chance,” said PM Brown of his attempt to engage the masses and I guess, primarily, the youth. Response was overwhelming and the online QnA sessions became regular.

While a global democratic platform is essential to limit the misuse of technology, sometimes, the world may be so caught up in their superficial material pursuit, in the capitalistic world that we all live in, that they are blinded to the more important issues at hand- the greater good. We know that there are unfair sufferings in the world; we know that inequality is generated because those in power have made sure it is so, and we know that poverty exist because we have to gain off of it. Yet, social development issues are not improving at the pace at which it should, given our current level of technology. I blame the large corporations, governments and a general lack of social awareness. According to Castells, “we have the technical know how, the technology to do it, and the economic and institutional strategies to implement it. The obstacles are political.” Those in power are simply not ready for change. They believe in the current system, which got them to where they are, a sure road to success for everyone else. Profit-driven and obsessed with capital accumulation, MNCs largely fail to recognize their faults when it comes to the perpetuation of inequality.

Nevertheless, the world is still learning to cope with this sudden personal control of technology. Technology may have been misused, intentionally or unintentionally, when we consider the use of it to facilitate post-industrialism, information age, capitalism and ultimately inequality. Perhaps it is time to use technology to create great social awareness. To tell people that the everyday choices they make in their lives do make a difference in the world. That together, it is possible to pressure corporations and governments into making more ethical decisions and eventually to close up the inequality gap. And I strongly believe that all these are best achieved through a global democratic platform.

References:
M. Castells. 1999. Information Technology, Globalisation and Social Development. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 114

AFP: Brown takes PMQs to the public.. via YouTube. May 19, 2008. London. <http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkWcN6sAP8WtlRBHmbOVms1HDaHQ>

Population and Health

There are basically two camps when we talk about the population-resource relationship. On one hand, we have the hedonist; on the other, the conservationalist. Both camps have opposing views with regards to their approaches on the sustainability of resource use.

Hedonists are optimistic pleasure seekers, with regards to the use of resources. They consume at their own pleasure until the issue of shortage crops up, before they see the need to conserve resources. They believe that there will always be alternative ways to provide resources.

Esther Boserup was a Danish economist who wrote the Technological Hope Argument (1965). As a hedonist, she presented an optimistic view of population-resource relationship. She insisted that as population densities increase, human populations are forced to adopt more intensive methods of food production and supply, ranging from extensive shifting cultivation in the tropical rainforests to more intensive multiple cropping in South-East Asia. These often involve using technological innovations like irrigation, mechanization, chemical fertilizers, and so on. This will then increase the carrying capacity of the region. Boserup therefore believes that population growth is a major force determining the nature of agriculture developments. Basically, she believed that necessity is the mother of invention.

On the other hand, there are the conservationalists. They are pessimists who are very cautions of their usage of resources, believing that it comes in limited supplies.

Thomas Malthus (1834) established a theory, believing in the need to cub population growth in order to conserve resources. He wrote an essay on “The Principle of Population’ (1798) at the turn of the Industry Revolution, stating that there was a finite population size in relation to food supply and that an increase in population beyond that point would lead to war, famine and disease. Hence he believes in a ceiling to population growth at any given area.

However, would simply instilling a population ceiling help solve the problems of perceived scarcity? Taking the side of the conservatives, and supposing that the problem of scarcity is real, would that be the best way out?

Let us look for a moment at China’s anti-natalist policies. Under the rule of Chairman Mao, it was believed that a large population is the formation of a great nation. He went on to increase the population of China to a size so large, no one was ready for it. After his death, the government of China had to implement anti-natalist policies to curb population growth. The reasons for this are many, including the fact that resources in the country were simply inadequate to sustain the population if it was let free to grow exponentially.

One such policy is the Wang-Xi-Shao policy, which was unsuccessful because of the population momentum. The number of people in the fertile age group was so large that even if one couple was to give birth to only 2 children, population size would still grow exponentially.

Then came the infamous one-child policy. It was very effective in that it brought brith rates down from 5.7% since its implementation in 1989 to only 0.9% in 2002. Despite its seemingly success, there are more serious latent social consequences.

The Chinese is a patriarchal society. They hold a traditional view that boys are preferred over girls. Boys are perceived to be better able to look after their parents in old age. Due to such a prejudice, many couples partake in female infanticide (or abandonment, if the child was not earlier aborted). Also, since it was illegal to bear a second child, females were forced to abort their second pregnancy and coerced sterilizations. This has incurred the wrath of many human rights groups and China is seen in a very negative light.

As China becomes ever more increasingly urbanized, the urban dwellers’ focus on money and education and comfort of their children predominates. This has led to the emergence of ‘Little Emperors’ or ‘Little Empresses’. China now has 65million only-children, who are spoilt, pampered and selfish. Since the 1980s, the government has to run parenting classes to teach adults not to spoil their children and over pressurize them to perform well at school. This triviality is actually very serious because it means that the new leaders of China would stem from a generation of selfish, self-centered, uncompromising youths.

Therefore, it is apparent that although the one-child policy was very effective in curbing population growth, there were still repercussions and innate social problems that could not be foreseen. It is very important that Malthusian governments need to be careful about the population checks they implement.

Supposing scarcity is a real problem, population ceilings are perhaps not the best way to deal with it. While Malthus was wrong in 1798, he seems to be increasingly right in present day context. The natural world is now undergoing great change. We have converted woodlands and grasslands into farmland virtually all over the globe. Population and overfishing are rapidly destroying our rivers, lakes and oceans. Our broad variety of species of plants and animals are becoming increasingly narrow. Countries are suffering from famine and growing suffering. Global warming, growing desertification, depletion of the ozone layer, wars and AIDS may be signs of an impeding Malthusian crisis.

Before we drive ourselves to biological extinction, I think it is best that the world, especially the wealthy countries, learn to see us all, the habitants of Gaia, as a single entity. That a distribution of wealth to end world hunger, to save the poor, is for the sake of the greater good, before it is too late.

References
-Dr Virginia Deane Abernethy: To 2005 Edition The Conditions of Agricultural Growth by Ester Boserup
http://www.virginiaabernethy.com/publishdetail.php?publishid=13

-Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)-
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

-Worldbank.org- What future for West Africa’s family farms in a world market economy?
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRSUMESSD/Resources/1729402-1150389437293/Berlieres_N_113_eng.pdf

-CNNMoney.com- Little Emperors-
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/10/04/8186784/index.htm

Urbanization

Cities are dynamic in nature. They experience continual change, influenced by many factors that are often economical and political. We have seen how the decentralization of the inner city leads to inner city decay, where the inner city areas deteriorate economically and environmentally. Jobs are lost as businesses follow the movement of people out to the suburbs or peripheries of the city. Crime and pollution that plague the inner cities are huge push factors driving (literally) people to decentralize.

Large-scale decentralization began in the 19th century but accentuated after WWII. However, most cities in more economically developed countries now show evidence of a process that contradicts this pattern. This process is known as gentrification. It refers to the movement of high income middle-class or professional households into inner city neighborhoods. Sometimes, reurbanization is used to refer to this same process. The slight difference between the two, though, is that while gentrification is preoccupied with the affluent, reurbanization can involve the movement of any socio-economic group into the inner city or city centre.

The regeneration of cities has brought about failures and successes. While the rejuvenation of the inner city structure and economy is usually impressive, the social problems that persist in these inner cities are hard to ignore.

The London Docklands is located at the east of London, UK. It was once one of the world’s busiest ports. All of London’s docks were closed between 1960 and 1980. This was due to the fact that the London’s docks’ inability to accommodate larger container ships that began to be prevalent then. This created 21km2 of derelict land in East London. Unemployment soared, the back to back terraced housing fell into disrepair and there was a lack of transport and leisure facilities.

In 1981, the London’s Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was set up to improve the economic, social and environmental problems that had developed in the area. The LDDC was a statutory board appointed and funded by central government with wide powers to acquire and dispose of land in the Docklands. It also served as the development planning authority for the area. The London Docklands became the most important experiment with the largest budget in using market forces and private businesses to drive inner city regeneration.

With the changing economic base and decline of the city centre, there has been a need for city decision-makers to reimagine the city and thus attract investments in industries which prefer inner city locations. Measures to rejuvenate it include setting of the area as an enterprise zone, encouraging more diversified users, improving infrastructure and encouraging tourism through capitalizing on the maritime heritage of the Docklands. Such developments serve to act as an economic magnet to attract people, spending and jobs.

Now, politicians and policy-makers have often equated regeneration with economic or physical regeneration, measured by an increase in wealth or jobs in an area. However, I think that this is a very narrow definition of regeneration. The objectives of regeneration should be to redistribute income within the city through the ‘trickle-down’ effect where the pockets of the most disadvantaged are benefitted through job creation, like servicing incoming visitors, as well as to increase consumer spending that will spur growth in other related and non-related industries.

Does regeneration then, successfully fulfills its objectives? And is regeneration really the answer to decentralization and inner city decline?

Looking at the London Docklands, urban generation did indeed bring about economic benefits. It attracted huge investments and number of business increased from 1000 to 2350 between 1981 and 1995. This is due to increased income from tourism and businesses, which increased local tax income, leading to greater provision of social amenities. Employment went up from 27,000 to 66,000. Increased land prices led to increased value of assets, resulting in renovation and revitalization of old buildings into new ones.

However, the area experienced a property slump in the early 1990s which halted all development in Docklands for several years since the project has been largely spurned by private investments. Developers found themselves saddled with property which they were unable to sell or let. The parties who gained most from this are local authorities in terms of the tax income, businessmen and the highly skilled labour. The original inner city residents, whom the government wanted to help originally, do not gain much from this.

Jobs created were unsuitable for the relatively unskilled inner city population. The majority of the jobs in the new hi-tech industries are unsuitable to unemployed docker workers. They do not have the skills needed for jobs in these industries. Hence, not only are the needs of the people often not addressed, they have been marginalized further as they have been driven away with the increase in poverty prices and are may still unable to find employment. Their skills and educational level have not been improved, as well as access to social amenities. In fact, the income disparity between the highly skilled labour and original residents has become wider.

Projects have caused a stunning transformation of the London Docklands with the reclamation of 7km2 of derelict land and refurbishment of 7700 council houses. Even in terms of the physical landscape, developments in the inner city are usually shaped for aesthetic areas and often surrounded by large areas of severe social and economic deprivation.

On the social side, population increased from 39,000 to 68,000 between 1981 and 1995. There was improved access to area with the construction of new roads, the Docklands Lights Railway and the London City Airport. 19,000 new homes were erected and more social amenities were provided. For example, at the south of the river, warehouses have been converted into top quality restaurants such as the four Terence Conran restaurants, art galleries, designer shops and other places of interest such as the Design Museum.

Unfortunately, there are more shortcomings than there have been successes. Few amenities are built for locals in the early years of the LDDC. Public funds were diverted away from provision of social needs like health, housing and education. There were also insufficient services for people living in the area such as the care for the elderly.

LDDC was accused of favoring elitist luxury developments rather than affordable housing. Traditional close-knitted ‘Eastenders’ community was destroyed as some of the original inner city residents have been driven out of the area. There was also poor access to the area in the early years due to the LDDC’s reliance on the private sector to build the underground railway lines especially with the economic downturn. In the end, this caused greater social polarization as the inner city areas now have a social division of very rich people with poor people. The subsequent delay in its delivery has shown the continued importance of the government in the provision of social goods.

Drawing from the example of the London Docklands, we can see that cities experienced changes due to changes in economic base and the competition for global capital. Urban regeneration projects, however, often do not cater to the needs of the original residents and in some cases, worsen their situation. In order for them to be successful, besides partnership between the public and private sectors, there is also a need to involve the local community in decision-making.

Ethnicity and Religion

Religion is loosely defined as the belief or worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. It encompasses the moral codes. Values, practices and rituals associated with that belief. In the past, religion was often viewed as an important part of society, due to its role in supplying moral and spiritual sustenance. However, in modern society, religion can be said to suffer from secularization due to increased focus on work and leisure. Changing traditional values and the inability of religion to measure up to attractive mass media has also caused it to play a less influential role in most societies.

Whenever we talk about the different races of human beings, and start to use these racial boundaries to explain how we do things, we are practicing, at best, ethnocentrism and, at worst, racism. Racism has manifested in different forms throughout history. With globalization, the mesh of different races and cultures through the media, tourism, and even immigration, has served to increase the tensions existing between people based on race. These tensions have further escalated due to religious tensions and political problems facing the world today. In 2002, Amnesty International highlighted an increased number of racist attacks against Arabs and Jews in Europe due to increasing hostilities with the Middle East.

The problem of racism is also linked to economic inequality. The difference between the rich and the poor nations have caused relations to be strained. Some of the richer countries have already been accused of being xenophobic, due to the implementation of strict immigration laws that counter the mass immigration of people from developing nations in search of a better life. With globalization and an increase in mass migration, more and more countries are forced to put up barriers in the form of immigration policies to protect the country’s citizens. Some people argue that such laws are racist in nature, preventing people from developing nations from pursuing economic growth in richer nations. The income disparity between the two groups also creates the argument that he superior race mentality still exists in the world. Indeed, in France, Muslim immigrants are forced to assimilate into the French culture by learning its language before they are allowed to be citizens. The donning of the Muslim women’s traditional veil, symbolic of their modesty, is disallowed by the state, which argues that all citizens should behave ‘equally’. Some country like Singapore, however, are more welcoming than others towards migrants, although the conditions for acceptance are usually to the country’s own gains. In Singapore, we see how the state is very selective of the migrants it wants to keep as citizens (usually workforce the state classify as foreign talent), and the migrants it accepts only on the very minimal short-term basis (labour the state uses to fill jobs that locals shun away from; regulated by contracts with private companies).

With religion, sensitivity to political policies has resulted in religion becoming downplayed in a bid to preserve religious harmony in multicultural societies. This has resulted in a loss of religious practices and observances, as people feel less obliged to follow them. The issue of religion in politics also became greatly debated since the appearance of fundamentalist and extremist terrorists groups using religion as an excuse for attacks. Additional events such as the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons also showed how politics could be deeply affected by religious beliefs. Not too long ago, great attention has also been paid to rhetoric used by President George Bush, due to the evangelical Christian nature of his speeches. Some worry that too much dependence on Christian beliefs signals a segregation between Christians and non-Christians in the country, as well as the partner countries that USA works with.

Perhaps Samuel Huntington was right about the clash of civilisations. While it was thought that the end of the Cold War signals the end of the progressions of human history, he argues that new conflicts will arise not out of political ideologies, but out of a clash of cultures and religions. Many of the serious conflicts in the world today, like the situations in Middle East and Al Qaeda, are cultural and religious in nature. The ethnocentric nature of believing that one’s race or religion is central to the universe has to be removed, and the world needs to start seeing that there can actually be races and religions that are ‘central’ at the same time.

Democracy and Human Rights

Crawford Brough Macpherson is a political scientist famous for his work, “The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: From Hobbes to Locke (1962)”. Thomas Hobbes imagined that liberal political authority is ideal and can only function where people feel some additional motivation apart from pure self-interest. John Locke argued that in the original, pre-political state of nature, people find that they need to join together in order to protect their natural rights.

Macpherson drew from these two ideas and claimed that there should be a form of ‘developmental egalitarianism democracy’, something of an overlap between civic republicanism and participatory democracy, which aims at providing equal opportunities for individuals to develop what he calls their “uniquely human capacities”. These “uniquely human capacities” include rational understanding, moral judgment and aesthetic creation. They move away from capitalistic behavior like possessive individualism and consumerist accumulation. Macpherson strongly believed that beyond provision of essential social services and personal assurances of a comfortable life, development and employment of the human capacities does not require unlimited wealth. Macpherson also believed that people are possessive individualistic by default and not by nature. When the capitalist market presented itself, people turned to self-centered consumerism and competition, seeing it to be the new meaning to life. They lost the resources to fully develop their uniquely human potentials.

Personally, I feel that Macpherson is a little bit of an idealist. While the grand themes of humanity (moral action, friendship, love, etc.) may sound magnificent and even romantic, it is difficult to see it manifest in this day, this age that we live in. Granted, it is idealistic and maybe even, perfect but it would surely take, at the very least, a couple of decades to see Macpherson’s version of democracy materialize.

We live in a capitalistic world today and this capitalistic world is only growing bigger. Countries like China who wanted no part of this world have opened up their economies and slowly but surely, they are getting sucked into the conundrum that only entraps its own participants. Rising affluence comes at the cost of the disadvantaged, exploited and poor. Being poor have taken on a new meaning- the cruel and unfair struggle for bare survival. The poor has no choice but to submit to the powerful in hope of a better life while the rich becomes obsessed with the accumulation of even more capital. Nobody is ready to give up possessive individualism. Thus, similar to what Marxists believe, the world is not ready for egalitarianism or socialism.

Macpherson also critiqued liberal democracy. He claimed that it is not rightfully legitimate and moral for it disregards global inequalities. “Nothing less than massive aid, which will enable the poor nations to lift themselves to recognizable human equality, will conserve the moral stature and the power of the liberal democracies.” Indeed, this is hard to come by. Hobbes’ rule of law states that unless acted upon and governed by the rules of social living, the natural state of man is one of war and strife. Only laws kept by the rule of the sword can keep man from falling back into his natural state. Without such laws, society would disintegrate and it would be a war of every man, against every man. Today, such laws against violence are in place but this does not mean that men do not fight men on economic grounds. According to Hobbes, men are competitive by nature. Individuals make the collective people and given the choice, liberal democracies would rather pursue possessive individualism than egalitarianism. I do not see the day where the workings of a global economic market will redress global inequalities and therefore, I believe that realizing Macpherson’s vision can only be possible if it is approached in an anti-possessive-individualistic, cooperative spirit. And this does not seem possible, at least to me, in a hundred years.

Perhaps then, a move toward participatory democracy from neo-liberal democracy today would be a good start. Macpherson drew upon the key thesis of participationists that engaging in local democratic projects, even very modest ones at first, develops people’s aptitude for and appreciation of democracy in an anti-possessive-individualist direction. Many people are starting to recognize that abandoning lives dedicated to competition and material accumulation is not a matter of sacrifice, but holds out the possibility of a more intrinsically rewarding lifestyle. ‘Developmental egalitarianism democracy’ may seem like a far way ahead but we can always take baby steps. Through participatory democracy, there is hope for a fairer world where the distribution of human rights would also be more equal.

References:
Thomas Hobbes- Moral and Political Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (2006) http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm

Peter J. 2004. “One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World’s Greatest Thinkers”. Barron’s Educational Books.

Cunningham, Frank. “Democracy and Globalization”.

War

As we know, war is a legitimate form of violence, where the state is the monopoly of that legitimate use of violence. Terrorism, however, involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience. It usually carries a political agenda and are characterized as “indiscriminate”, “targeting of civilians”, or executed “with disregard for human life.”

As sociologists, it is necessary to look at issues from an objective viewpoint. As such, we understand that these views towards particular acts of violence committed in terrorism are often subjective.  Some people argue that it is unsatisfactory to think of violence as merely confrontational. Violence occurs not only when a physical blow is delivered, but also can be more concealed in structures for the oppression of particular groups. For example, a group in poverty can claim itself as a victim of the structural violence of capitalism.

This then justifies the contradictory notion that violence could, and should, be used to bring about peace. What this means is that terrorist groups can claim that ‘terrorism merely opposes violence in the name of freedom from violence.’ Another saying goes, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. In other words, one man’s terrorism is another man’s heroism.

From the September 11 terrorist attacks to the various bombings in London, Mumbai and Bali in the recent years, it is evident that terrorism has been globalised. Globalization, in this context, refers to the increased connectivity between people and nations that has added a new dimension to terrorism and security in the 21st century. However, terrorism is not a recent phenomenon. It has been part of history of virtually every country in the world, and its causes have varies widely over time and place.

Take for example, the Munich Massacre on 5 September 1972. It was committed by the Pro-Palestinian Black September organization, a terrorist group within Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organization. At 04:30 on that eventful day, as the athletes slept, eight members of Black September carrying duffel bags loaded with guns and grenades scaled a two-metre chain-link fence with the assistance of unsuspecting U.S. athletes who were also sneaking into the Olympic Village compound. They demanded the release and safe passage to Egypt of 234 Palestinians and non-Arabs jailed in Israel, along with two German prisoners, Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, who were members of the Red Army Faction. They eventually murdered 11 Israeli athletes, 9 of them during a botched German rescue attempt, and one German police officer. Police also killed five of the eight kidnappers during the rescue attempt, with the three captured surviving hostage-takers later being released by Germany following the hijacking of a Lufthansa airliner.

Hence, we can see that the main reason for motivation of Black September is political. They feel oppressed in their situation and see this terrorizing act as their only recourse until the German government is willing to agree to their terms. From the point of view of the prisoners jailed in Israel, these terrorists were fighting for their freedom and their act of terrorizing remained their last hope.

Terrorism has cultivated a culture of fear and due to its complex bipolar nature; it does not seem to be going away anytime soon. Some argue that terrorism can be defeated using coercion and assassination while others argue that in countering terrorism, violence should not be used. Personally, I feel that violence begets more violence and so, should never be a means to an end.

References:
1995 Countering terrorism: The Israeli response to the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre and the Development of Independent Covert Action Teams, Alexander B. Calahan <http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm>

Crime

We all know that Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Being born and bred Singaporeans, we often forget how dangerous a place the world has become. Confined in the safety net bestowed upon us as privileged Singaporeans, we hear of violent crimes around the world but are inclined to regard them as though they are fiction. The dangers we read about do not seem real and immediate. Obviously, not living in close proximity to dangerous and violent crimes does not mean that these crimes do not exist in our society.

We have learnt that crime is a product of society. It is socially conditioned, economically motivated, politically arranged and culturally maintained. According to Dutch criminologist Bonger (1876- 1950), crime is a mass phenomenon produced by inequalities in social and economic orders and values in an acquisitive society that stresses wealth and instant gratification, which encourages aggression and discourages altruism. According to French social theorist Durkheim (1858- 1917), anomie or loss of social cohesion resulting in a feeling of isolation from values and norms sanctioned by the entire community is a basic cause of crime.

Taking Bonger’s view into the Singaporean context, I would say that marginalized youths are the most likely perpetuators of crime. Singapore is definitely an acquisitive (perhaps even to the extent of materialistic) society with heavy emphasis on wealth as a measure of one’s success in life (something I personally strongly disbelieve in).  “Meritocracy” is the spine of Singapore’s education system, and it naturally breeds aggressiveness- a.k.a. kiasu-ism. Inequality may not be obvious in Singapore- we do not usually see the homeless in our city streets like in New York. Nevertheless, inequality exists and I believe it is perpetuated by our “meritocratic” education system. Students are streamed according to their merits from as young as ten years old. The disadvantaged students, who are simply not as advanced as their peers, get left behind. The “better” students in higher streams are exposed to more opportunities, giving them a competitive edge over their peers in the lower streams, when it comes to their economic future. As a result, vivid inequalities in economic and social orders and values are produced, leading to crimes committed by marginalized youths.

Taking Durkheim’s view into the Singaporean context, however, I would be compelled to say that foreigner workers are the most likely perpetuators of crime. Foreign workers arrive in Singapore on a contract basis, taking on jobs that Singaporeans think they are above. To maintain the status quo, Singaporeans do not mingle with these foreign workers and tend to differentiate themselves from them. Sometimes, these foreign workers are even discriminated against. Language and cultural barriers do not help in social cohesion. Instead, it makes it easy for these foreign workers to be exploited. Consequently, they feel isolated from values and norms sanctioned by the local society and are alienated. Their dislocation causes them to commit crimes as an outlet for venting their frustration.

The Singapore Police Force reported that youths accounted for 22% of the total persons arrested for crime in 2006 while foreign workers accounted for about 14%. The percentage of youths arrested is higher than the proportion of youths in Singapore and the three most common offences for which youths were arrested continued to be shop theft (1,260 persons), other theft (591 persons) and rioting (500 persons).  This corresponds with Bonger’s theory that economic and social inequalities in an acquisitive society that stresses wealth and instant gratification creates a breeding ground for crime. Crimes such as theft and rioting prove that the marginalized youths were unhappy about their state of poverty in the midst of glitzy wealth. Hence, Bonger’s theory is more relevant to crime in Singapore.

Crime in Singapore is hardly linked to urban design. Limited space in our island has called for effective urban planning which cannot afford to waste much space. There are hardly any crammed quarters and ghettos slums here that allow for huge criminal organizations. A stable government ensures no need for political violence and strict laws act as a strong deterrence to crimes such as drug trade. Singapore is a safe haven compared to the horrible crimes that our neighbouring countries have to suffer. We do not have to look far to see that the dangers of violence are indeed real. These dangers can be immediate to Singaporeans if we do not continue to stay vigilant and participate as a community in crime prevention.

References
“Statistics.” Singapore Police Force: Crime Situation 2006. 2006.
11 Sep, 2008 <http://www.spf.gov.sg/stats/stats2006_overview.htm>

Women And The Family

Due to the changing profiles and functions of families, many problems have arisen and societies, corporations as well as governments need to adjust or react to these challenges accordingly. It is noteworthy that many of these impacts not only affect the developed or Western countries with more educated populations, but also the developing and more conservative ones which are increasingly experiencing modernization and liberalization in various aspects.

In the lecture on Women And The Family, we have seen some educational, political, and socio-economic factors accruing to the collapse of family institutions. I shall further explore some other factors leading to problems that threaten the modern family.

Science & Technology
Science and technology have helped in reducing time and effort spent on household chores. This, together with the availability of domestic help, may help free women from the kitchen or house duties, but also reduces the need for women to spend more time at home with the family. The tremendous advancements in transport and communication technology make it easier to keep in touch with family members without actually being physically present. Such improvements may seem convenient, but may result in decrease in family face-to-face communications. People are just a phone call, fax, e-mail, or text message away. Even if physical presence is required or desired, people are just a plane, train, or car-ride away. The advent of and proliferation of central heating, television and personal computers have resulted in a decrease in family interaction. Previously, there was opportunity to share each other’s day during family meals and games. Now, adults’ and children’s attention alike are increasingly focused on the Google Box and computer screen.

Religion
While religion upholds the importance of the traditional family, attitudes towards sex and marriage no longer follow religious teachings in modern’s modern society. The religious institution is losing its role as a source of moral guidance, for example, its stand on pre-marital sex, cohabitation and gay relationships or marriages.  The advance in science and technology has also helped erode people’s belief in god or gods and to believe in man’s power to solve and explain all things. A form of human arrogance is perpetuated.

Morals
The modern world has more temptations than before. Standards of morality have declined. For example, prostitution is commonplace and married people are no longer off-limits. During the Cultural Revolution, love and sex were denounced as bourgeois decadence in China. Now, according to Pan Suiming, a sexologist at People’s University who conducted a nationwide survey on Chinese sexual behaviour, it is found that half of the urban males in their thirties say they have had more than sexual partner. There is also little support from traditional family support structures. The rise of the nuclear family and the fall of the extended family has resulted in the loss of an important influence on children- the grandparents. This in turn causes a loss of inter-generational links and values, creating a generation gap. The ritual of the family meal and other opportunities for interaction has also declined. Such decline has serious repercussions. By spending time with their children, parents build the bonds that are necessary for the transmission of human capital (Coleman, 1998). Children are better off in terms of academic and emotional well-being from time spent with parents, and from parenting characterized by warmth, as well as rule setting. (Barber & Erickson, 2001) Finally, a life-course perspective would suggest that family routines and rituals experienced in childhood help set the course for how one will organize their own family life in adulthood (Elder, 1999).

Mass Media
The mass media often portray lifestyles as attractive and desirable, such as the idea of cohabitation, separation, etc. Even premarital sex and non –marital relationships are often depicted as the norms for adults. This conflicts with and undermines traditional values, which is related to the liberal beliefs and personalities of the people in the media industry. The easy availability of information via the mass media to everyone, including children, erodes the family’s role in educating the children. The decrease in respect to the elders results, as adults no longer have an exclusive hold on knowledge or wisdom.  In other words, the mass media socializes us by telling us what is acceptable or not in the society. The mass media is interdependent with reality as they influence each other.

As seen, there are many different factors that lead to the collapse of the family institution and it is a structural problem that we should not ignore. The structure of the economy owns our positions in it. Most of the time, families are swept along by the winds of change, which they have no choice but to abide to for survival in the exceedingly capitalistic world that we live in today.