The American and British economies delivered nine million copies of the sixth Harry Potter book…in one day. Over the past almost sixty years, the ‘West’ has spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid, yet (among a myriad of problems) it can’t quite manage to deliver twelve-cent anti-malarial meds to the children of the ‘rest’ of the world (Easterly 4). Imagine the chaos if millions of crazed Harry Potter fans had to wait sixty years to get their copies.
In Globalization, Manfred Steger outlines the cultural, political, and economic dimensions of globalization and illustrates how this phenomenon has unevenly benefited the ‘North’ at the expense of the ‘South’. According to data from the World Bank, the income gap between countries has become drastically more pronounced since the ‘onset’ of globalization in 1973 (Steger 104).
With $2.3 trillion allocated to international aid, and arguably more global awareness as a result of increased technology, why have previous aid initiatives proven unsuccessful (in terms of the economic gap between countries)? In general, I don’t think this failure reflects a lack of good intentions on the part of aid agencies or donors. Is this a valid excuse for ineptitude, though?
William Easterly, a development economist and former employee of the World Bank, criticizes the top-down approach to foreign aid in his book The White Man’s Burden. He separates people into two categories: Planners and Searchers. Planners, he says, are people who apply universal blueprints in an attempt to formulaically solve issues like poverty from a distance. Searchers, on the other hand, employ a bottom-up approach and tend to favor small-scale, homegrown projects in an attempt to solve particular problems. Easterly’s criticism of the Planner is summed up nicely in the following passage:
“Setting a prefixed (and grandiose) goal is irrational because there is no reason to assume that the goal is attainable and at a reasonable cost with the available means. It doesn’t make sense to have the goal that your cow will win the Kentucky Derby. No amount of expert training will create a Derby-winning race cow. It makes much more sense to ask, ‘What useful things can a cow do?’ A cow can nicely feed a family with a steady supply of milk, butter, cheese, and (unfortunately for the cow) beef” (Easterly 11).
Sixty years later, and aid agencies are still pouring money into that hope of a “Derby-winning race cow.”
According to Kant, the good will is the only thing that is absolutely, unconditionally good. It doesn’t matter if the action produced by the will is beneficial or not – as long as the intention behind it was good. The problem with such a mentality is that it takes away the sense of accountability when aid agencies need to be held more accountable for their results.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Cultural Differences
I never felt satisfied by our discussion in class concerning Steger's question in Chapter 5 of Globalization: "Does globalization make people around the world more alike or more different?" So I bring it up here.
I understand where Steger was coming from. Yes, McDonald's keeps appearing in random places (holy crap, CHINA!) and Hollywood is a major player in the homogenization of culture. Trends in fashion span the globe; music is echoed from one studio to another and there's probably some other poor guy that can't get MIA's "Paper Planes" out of his head halfway across the world. For my own experience, I see more Filipinos doing more American things (ahem...basketball? We are not supposed to be able to do that sort of thing...) and more Americans doing Filipino things (our cuisine is quite delicious, if you give it a chance). Our cultures seem to be merging, and while America is definitely dominating the world cultural market, there is a definitive middle ground.
However, that merging of cultures is also what breeds the separation of individuals. Really, when was the last time you met an MMA-fighting cannibalistic Filipino familiar with American contemporary, hip-hop, and swing dance? Similarly, it's always a pleasure to find an American that understands Tagalog or practices Kali/Eskrima/Anis or that I can share some balut with (and that last one is really rare). While the merging of cultures does seem to bring a measure of homogeneity to society, it is the combination of many cross-cultural experiences that makes an individual.
Of course, I am speaking from my own experience and that is not applicable to individuals who have little exposure to other cultures, directly (meeting people) or indirectly (TV, news, studies, etc.). On the whole, though, I feel that Steger tempers his statements by bringing up this new synthesis of cultures and how it has created "new symbolic expressions."
This is even apparent in smaller microcosms. I will use the MMA world as an example. We're all trained in various forms of striking and grappling and wrestling. Professional fighter Georges St.-Pierre is a prime example of the individuality present in our sport given through cross-cultural training. He is a traditionally a Kyokushfin karate fighter, yet he has been cross-trained in Muay Thai, boxing, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. While most of us are indeed cross-trained in multiple arts, we all have unique syntheses based on our natural abilities and the experiences we have had in cross-cultural martial arts.
Staying with combat applications, but moving into larger microcosms, observe our police and military forces. Kali/Eskrima/Anis training has become mandatory from some, or simply absorbed and adapted into a regimen (such as MCMAP). The ever-increasing presence of Kali instructors has led to police forces around the nation employing their services to teach officers more effective ways to engage hostile individuals with a baton or in hand-to-hand combat. Our knife training has been implemented into all U.S. military forces and in many other militaries across the globe as well. While this training may be from the same art, we have to consider the other factors: the teacher (your friends that have Search clearly don't all have someone as awesome as Dr. J), the individual's physical capabilities, their mental preparedness, or that person's cross-cultural martial arts training. All these result in an individual synthesis that includes a new form of martial art (the antithesis) being combined with whatever knowledge, or lack thereof, they had possessed before (their original thesis).
Anyway, that's my spiel. Thoughts?
I understand where Steger was coming from. Yes, McDonald's keeps appearing in random places (holy crap, CHINA!) and Hollywood is a major player in the homogenization of culture. Trends in fashion span the globe; music is echoed from one studio to another and there's probably some other poor guy that can't get MIA's "Paper Planes" out of his head halfway across the world. For my own experience, I see more Filipinos doing more American things (ahem...basketball? We are not supposed to be able to do that sort of thing...) and more Americans doing Filipino things (our cuisine is quite delicious, if you give it a chance). Our cultures seem to be merging, and while America is definitely dominating the world cultural market, there is a definitive middle ground.
However, that merging of cultures is also what breeds the separation of individuals. Really, when was the last time you met an MMA-fighting cannibalistic Filipino familiar with American contemporary, hip-hop, and swing dance? Similarly, it's always a pleasure to find an American that understands Tagalog or practices Kali/Eskrima/Anis or that I can share some balut with (and that last one is really rare). While the merging of cultures does seem to bring a measure of homogeneity to society, it is the combination of many cross-cultural experiences that makes an individual.
Of course, I am speaking from my own experience and that is not applicable to individuals who have little exposure to other cultures, directly (meeting people) or indirectly (TV, news, studies, etc.). On the whole, though, I feel that Steger tempers his statements by bringing up this new synthesis of cultures and how it has created "new symbolic expressions."
This is even apparent in smaller microcosms. I will use the MMA world as an example. We're all trained in various forms of striking and grappling and wrestling. Professional fighter Georges St.-Pierre is a prime example of the individuality present in our sport given through cross-cultural training. He is a traditionally a Kyokushfin karate fighter, yet he has been cross-trained in Muay Thai, boxing, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. While most of us are indeed cross-trained in multiple arts, we all have unique syntheses based on our natural abilities and the experiences we have had in cross-cultural martial arts.
Staying with combat applications, but moving into larger microcosms, observe our police and military forces. Kali/Eskrima/Anis training has become mandatory from some, or simply absorbed and adapted into a regimen (such as MCMAP). The ever-increasing presence of Kali instructors has led to police forces around the nation employing their services to teach officers more effective ways to engage hostile individuals with a baton or in hand-to-hand combat. Our knife training has been implemented into all U.S. military forces and in many other militaries across the globe as well. While this training may be from the same art, we have to consider the other factors: the teacher (your friends that have Search clearly don't all have someone as awesome as Dr. J), the individual's physical capabilities, their mental preparedness, or that person's cross-cultural martial arts training. All these result in an individual synthesis that includes a new form of martial art (the antithesis) being combined with whatever knowledge, or lack thereof, they had possessed before (their original thesis).
Anyway, that's my spiel. Thoughts?
Big Mac or Big Whack?
Globalization, according to Steger, is the new "buzzword." This is concerned with the ever-growing interconnectedness of politics, economics, culture, and ideologies around the globe. However, with this growing interconnectedness comes a homogenizing of peoples, cultures, and languages. I believe that this homogenization is somewhat tragic. I mean, yes, most people will only concern themselves with the economic benefits they can in turn receive. This change from the World to "McWorld" is somewhat interesting. Is it truly moral for us to concern ourselves with wiping out other cultures to further spread this intense idea of consumerism? This sole concern for economic gain causes us to turn a blind eye to all the unethical actions taken. How is it in any way our place to have an influence in so much or to "modernize" everything we can get our hands onto? In some ways, globalization serves the greater good, but how can we ethically justify stepping on other countries/cultures and keeping them down to further promote ourselves in their own homeland?
"Abraham Lincoln once said, 'If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North'" ~Michael Scott
One thing that has continually bothered me since we brought it up in class is the dilemma of the white supervisor versus the dilemma of the black supervisor. I don't remember how exactly it came up in class, but the example itself goes something like this:
Is it racist for a black supervisor to reject a white applicant for a job in an otherwise all-black office on the basis of possible interruption in office efficency?
Is it also racist for a white supervisor to reject a black applicant for a job in an otherwise all-white office on that same basis?
The argument presented in class was one of historical background. It was racist for the white supervisor, but not for the black supervisor.
My argument goes a step further to say that they are both racist. They are so simply because they are dealing with issues that are not directly concerned with the applicant's qualifications. This has some interesting ramifications for affirmative action, but I think that can be argued away as a necessary plan in order to facilitate change. As it stands now, I think the affirmative action does more harm than good (perhaps a bit of bias here as asians are discriminated against by affirmative action even more than white people) Yes, I understand that we cannot erase history. Yes, I understand that the white man is historically an oppressor. As cliche as this phrase is, you're "preaching to the choir." But I've been reviewing MLK Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, and this stood out:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
My point is, as MLK Jr more eloquently stated, is that history is history. What we have the potential to change is the future. A heavy-handed end to my post, perhaps, but in light of recent events (Obama's election), perhaps heavy-handedness is the key.
Is it racist for a black supervisor to reject a white applicant for a job in an otherwise all-black office on the basis of possible interruption in office efficency?
Is it also racist for a white supervisor to reject a black applicant for a job in an otherwise all-white office on that same basis?
The argument presented in class was one of historical background. It was racist for the white supervisor, but not for the black supervisor.
My argument goes a step further to say that they are both racist. They are so simply because they are dealing with issues that are not directly concerned with the applicant's qualifications. This has some interesting ramifications for affirmative action, but I think that can be argued away as a necessary plan in order to facilitate change. As it stands now, I think the affirmative action does more harm than good (perhaps a bit of bias here as asians are discriminated against by affirmative action even more than white people) Yes, I understand that we cannot erase history. Yes, I understand that the white man is historically an oppressor. As cliche as this phrase is, you're "preaching to the choir." But I've been reviewing MLK Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, and this stood out:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
My point is, as MLK Jr more eloquently stated, is that history is history. What we have the potential to change is the future. A heavy-handed end to my post, perhaps, but in light of recent events (Obama's election), perhaps heavy-handedness is the key.
Monday, December 8, 2008
All I want for Christmas...
Yum, right?
What if your drinking water came out of the sink this way? I'm sure each and every one of us would be typing up a work order on the computer right away. What if you actually had to drink it? In class, we talked about basic human rights. We discussed, or at least began discussing what exactly human rights are. Some classify human rights as simply being life in itself. Others classify it as a certain type of freedom. Although we never came to a conclusion in the class discussion, we did discuss certain other aspects that are concerned with human rights such as food, water, and shelter.
I recently just saw a video the other day that was actually quite shocking. We all know that there are violations of human rights everyday. Millions are dying every day from hunger and lack of clean water. We all know this. We've all seen the infomercials. However, when presented with actual numbers and figures, the focus changes.
As the figures stand today, it would only take $10 billion to provide everyone in the world with clean water. This figure may seem high, but not when we compare it to how much money we are spending in Iraq. The figure seems even smaller when we just compare it to an American Christmas. Americans spend over $450 billion EVERY YEAR for Christmas.
Now, that is an aspect concerning human rights that could use some readjustment. If we just put 1/45 of the money we spend just on Christmas, millions of people could be saved. It's not just the fact that these people are dying. In essence, we could even call it torture. The so called "water" that millions of people are subjected to drink each day leaves them with cholera or diarrhea- an unpleasant way to leave this world.
So what do we do? We saw from Globalization, how America can bring its Nike shoes, Chicago Bulls jerseys, and McDonalds to just about any country in the world. But we can't bring clean water or food. Globalization is mainly concerned with economics, however where do we draw the line? When does the economic focus end and the ethical focus begin?
Believing in your Value System
If you trust Socrates, then you believe that the wisest man knows he knows nothing at all. Additionally when we look at all of the great philosophers throughout time with such polar opposite views, what gives us such confidence in our search for values? I do not think I am smarter than Socrates and I have no reason to believe that I am any smarter than the other members of this class. I have developed a bad habit throughout this year of finding flaws in the arguments of others without producing arguments of my own.
This stems from the fact that while I obviously have a moral code of my own, I do not have enough faith in its validity or concreteness to assume that it is worth preaching. This is a habit I need to break, but I still can't ignore this question: where do you (dear classmates of mine) find the confidence to put forth your beliefs as facts? Do you have such faith in them that you believe they are more correct than the beliefs of the other members of the class? Or, do you put them forth in an effort to subject them to the critiques of your peers? I am asking an earnest question and really do not mean to suggest that our class is full of arrogance; I am simply curious and would like to find a good reason to put my own views forth.
Maybe I should have asked this question earlier than the last week of the last semester of Search...
This stems from the fact that while I obviously have a moral code of my own, I do not have enough faith in its validity or concreteness to assume that it is worth preaching. This is a habit I need to break, but I still can't ignore this question: where do you (dear classmates of mine) find the confidence to put forth your beliefs as facts? Do you have such faith in them that you believe they are more correct than the beliefs of the other members of the class? Or, do you put them forth in an effort to subject them to the critiques of your peers? I am asking an earnest question and really do not mean to suggest that our class is full of arrogance; I am simply curious and would like to find a good reason to put my own views forth.
Maybe I should have asked this question earlier than the last week of the last semester of Search...
Morally Guided Laws?
I know that this is not a small topic to breach, and that we have partially discussed it before, but I would like to hear some thoughts on what the class believes when it comes to making laws based on moral laws. This is a topic I have struggled with for sometime. I think there are certain things that the government needs to mandate out of self-preservation. Making murder, any other kind of severe physical abuse and treason illegal would fall under this category in my mind. The thing that catches me is whether our government should really base laws or build social programs based on moral laws or what is "fair".
Extreme examples, in my mind, would be things like gay marriage, abortion, the welfare system and the tax policy that is being put in place in a few months. (a side-note: we don't have time to discuss these specific examples and I do not think permanently publishing the class' views on abortion or gay marriage would be a great idea, I am just using them as examples.) When I look at laws based on the question of whether something is fair or not, I see a lot of failed programs which might not have been have been based in logic to begin with. Taking the upcoming tax policies as an example, the laffer curve (as well as the last Great Depression) shows us that raising taxes both stunts the economy and lowers the national tax revenue. Is further damaging an already broken economy while further bankrupting our nation, worth aiding people who do not 'contribute'* to the economy? The problem with this is that many people don't believe this is a 'fair' practice anyways, ignoring the likely consequences. Seeing as there is no solid definition for something being 'fair', there is no solid defense for these policies.
This can then be applied to other social policies. How can you prove that something is moral? Ethics have been heatedly debated for thousands of years, and now we force people to adhere to the 'moral codes' of Washington? Do you trust the morals of Washington? I don't.
*When I say 'contribute' I mean that they pay taxes. I am referring to President Elect Obama's plan to give tax refunds to members of our society who do not pay taxes to begin with.
Extreme examples, in my mind, would be things like gay marriage, abortion, the welfare system and the tax policy that is being put in place in a few months. (a side-note: we don't have time to discuss these specific examples and I do not think permanently publishing the class' views on abortion or gay marriage would be a great idea, I am just using them as examples.) When I look at laws based on the question of whether something is fair or not, I see a lot of failed programs which might not have been have been based in logic to begin with. Taking the upcoming tax policies as an example, the laffer curve (as well as the last Great Depression) shows us that raising taxes both stunts the economy and lowers the national tax revenue. Is further damaging an already broken economy while further bankrupting our nation, worth aiding people who do not 'contribute'* to the economy? The problem with this is that many people don't believe this is a 'fair' practice anyways, ignoring the likely consequences. Seeing as there is no solid definition for something being 'fair', there is no solid defense for these policies.
This can then be applied to other social policies. How can you prove that something is moral? Ethics have been heatedly debated for thousands of years, and now we force people to adhere to the 'moral codes' of Washington? Do you trust the morals of Washington? I don't.
*When I say 'contribute' I mean that they pay taxes. I am referring to President Elect Obama's plan to give tax refunds to members of our society who do not pay taxes to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
