The world economy is in crisis. This crisis affects virtually all aspects of the human experience… Money makes the world go ‘round. This cliché little statement holds more truth than those of us with screaming moral consciousness would like to admit. The new truly global international market is an outstanding and exciting new endeavor. However, like any innovation be it technological or social it will bring change. There will be change that is expected, unexpected and change that is ignored. The ignored and the unexpected are the segments of the issues of interest to scholars and social activists alike. The ignored is where many peoples’ blood starts to boil human rights violations – ignored; workers rights – ignored. The living wage? Never heard of it. The environment? The following five articles serve as a capstone statement to this blog and hopefully will provide some information to you all and open avenues for further inquiry into these issues on your part and show that you as a consumer have the most powerful say in the issue of global economics by using what has now become the most instrumental tool of social movements, protests and initiating social change the choice on how and where to spend your dollar.
NETHERLANDS: Nigerians seek damages from Shell over pollution http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15037
The Nigerian arm of Shell Oil and her parent company Royal Dutch Shell PLC have come under fire by the Nigerians for oil spills and pipeline leaks. This is a scenario that pays out time and time again as less developed countries are enticed to produce by foreign investors who take advantage of the native countrymen.
Salmon Virus Indicts Chile’s Fishing Methods
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/americas/27salmon.html?_r=1&ref=americas&oref=slogin
Salmon. What do they have to do with globalization? They are delicious and here they serve as an example in this article of how the global food market affects what may wind up on your dinner plate. Chilean salmon destined for other counties are dying from what is called fish anemia. The Chilean fish industry solution is to medicate the fish with large amounts of antibiotics. This can lead to viral resistance among the fish and can affect you and your health a hemisphere away.
In Chinese Factories, Lost Fingers and Low Pay
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=e114cc7577dbf751&ex=1357448400&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Workers rights and the living wage are almost non-existent in this manufacturing section near Hong Kong. Long hours go hand in hand with low wages and terrible working conditions at these factories. Some of the workers interviewed stated that they are paid less than the 55 cents an hour which is the mandatory minimum wage in this part of China.
CHINA: China Grabs West’s Smoke-Spewing Factories
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Again in China, but for a different case this time. The Chinese have come upon a new industrial revolution, if you will. They are picking up where the western world left off in production and “dirty” industries. This article explains the shift of German steel production and how an actual plant moved to China. This shift has been dramatic for both countries and both have profited from it, one in a less carbon-laden forms than the other.
Three 'face jail' over Ikea deals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6980875.stm
Bribery is less common and more insidious effect of globalization but prevalent non-the-less. This article shows how bribes made in Britain have impacted a Swedish furniture company which is also very popular in the United States.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Opinion Based, #4
Naomi Klein in her book The Bono-ization of Activism describes many of the younger generation as the “Pro-Logo” generation. By this she means that this new generation has taken on a new form of protesting and activism. She states that we are more likely to buy a wristband than participate in an on-the-streets social protest. This is the effect of large-scale social efforts spearheaded by international celebrities (like Bono) who use their fame and help generate fortunes to fund their chosen forms directly influencing of social change.
Bono for example is leading a global anti-poverty campaign focused on creating and sustaining real change in a globally short amount of time. Economist Jeffery Sachs, who I have mentioned in previous entries, feels that it is a conceivable outcome. If, and this is a big if, the movement can gain support of the international community as a whole and significantly retool the WTO and the IMF to deal with different situations than they are used to. The overarching concept behind this whole approach is essentially anti-globaization and anti-corporatism and using money to help people who could really use it. Good luck Bono, you’re going to need it.
That last remark is said tongue-in-cheek. The movement has been effective to an extent. It has created awareness of global poverty; it has generated funds for ending international poverty… However, it has also created something that it is also attempting to fight, consumerism and branding.
These are tactics used by corporations to sell their products and make money whilst fostering a growing brand loyalty within chosen market demographic. The “Bono tactic” does essentially the same thing it finds its chosen demographic who as Klein describes as people in their late twenties. It creates a brand and a loyal following and is sold through clever marketing. That being the case, what would make one of Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong™” bracelets different than a pair of “Just Do It” Nike’s?
Profits, where they are spent and how they are they are spent is key to understanding these differences. Nike spends their profits on keeping their investor’s portfolios happy and perpetuating & expanding the company. That is exclusively a corporate business model, profits equal profits. Causes like Live Strong donate, at least a substantial majority amount of their profits to the cause they are fighting for. This is all well and good since money makes the world turn, correct?
Not according to Klein, she believes that this type of armchair quarterbacking of social action is not as affective as the more traditional approach of on street protest. Klein argues that the Bono-ization efforts are submitting to the status-quo power structure and attempting to initiate change by working with the system. This is a noble ideal, but Klein implies that traditional protesters were arguing for changes within the system thereby granting the social changes they desired. She goes on to state that Bono era protesters take a step back from the action they are supporting and sit safely behind their computer screens and use contemporary communication tools like blogging and by using paypal transactions to speak their mind. They are seemingly no longer willing to place life and limb on the street in support of what they believe like those students in Ohio during the Vietnam War protest. It is difficult to take these bloggers and paypal activists seriously when thinking in the framework provided by Klein.
These methods of protest may be new but that does not mean they are entirely ineffective. They do provide something that past movements had difficulty providing (especially to human rights causes), money. That money is great! It can buy whatever is needed to feed people, help pull them out of poverty or find a cure for cancer. Money is an important part of the execution and sustainability of social action organizations but it is not substitute for the price of the human spirit and human determination. It is all to easy for an individual to donate $200 to Live Aid and think that he has done his part and as a result wash his hands of the whole situation until another production for charity tugs his heart strings and opens his wallet. That is not the spirit of protest, nor is it effective and sustainable on the individual level, since it is usually only a one time contribution rather than a monthly donation or organizational dues. The dollar may be a powerful weapon, but it is not match for the spirit and drive for change demonstrated by global living wage protester as she and her cohorts’ march on Capitol Hill.
Bono for example is leading a global anti-poverty campaign focused on creating and sustaining real change in a globally short amount of time. Economist Jeffery Sachs, who I have mentioned in previous entries, feels that it is a conceivable outcome. If, and this is a big if, the movement can gain support of the international community as a whole and significantly retool the WTO and the IMF to deal with different situations than they are used to. The overarching concept behind this whole approach is essentially anti-globaization and anti-corporatism and using money to help people who could really use it. Good luck Bono, you’re going to need it.
That last remark is said tongue-in-cheek. The movement has been effective to an extent. It has created awareness of global poverty; it has generated funds for ending international poverty… However, it has also created something that it is also attempting to fight, consumerism and branding.
These are tactics used by corporations to sell their products and make money whilst fostering a growing brand loyalty within chosen market demographic. The “Bono tactic” does essentially the same thing it finds its chosen demographic who as Klein describes as people in their late twenties. It creates a brand and a loyal following and is sold through clever marketing. That being the case, what would make one of Lance Armstrong’s “Live Strong™” bracelets different than a pair of “Just Do It” Nike’s?
Profits, where they are spent and how they are they are spent is key to understanding these differences. Nike spends their profits on keeping their investor’s portfolios happy and perpetuating & expanding the company. That is exclusively a corporate business model, profits equal profits. Causes like Live Strong donate, at least a substantial majority amount of their profits to the cause they are fighting for. This is all well and good since money makes the world turn, correct?
Not according to Klein, she believes that this type of armchair quarterbacking of social action is not as affective as the more traditional approach of on street protest. Klein argues that the Bono-ization efforts are submitting to the status-quo power structure and attempting to initiate change by working with the system. This is a noble ideal, but Klein implies that traditional protesters were arguing for changes within the system thereby granting the social changes they desired. She goes on to state that Bono era protesters take a step back from the action they are supporting and sit safely behind their computer screens and use contemporary communication tools like blogging and by using paypal transactions to speak their mind. They are seemingly no longer willing to place life and limb on the street in support of what they believe like those students in Ohio during the Vietnam War protest. It is difficult to take these bloggers and paypal activists seriously when thinking in the framework provided by Klein.
These methods of protest may be new but that does not mean they are entirely ineffective. They do provide something that past movements had difficulty providing (especially to human rights causes), money. That money is great! It can buy whatever is needed to feed people, help pull them out of poverty or find a cure for cancer. Money is an important part of the execution and sustainability of social action organizations but it is not substitute for the price of the human spirit and human determination. It is all to easy for an individual to donate $200 to Live Aid and think that he has done his part and as a result wash his hands of the whole situation until another production for charity tugs his heart strings and opens his wallet. That is not the spirit of protest, nor is it effective and sustainable on the individual level, since it is usually only a one time contribution rather than a monthly donation or organizational dues. The dollar may be a powerful weapon, but it is not match for the spirit and drive for change demonstrated by global living wage protester as she and her cohorts’ march on Capitol Hill.
Text Based, #4
Todd Giltin describes in his essay “The Media in the Making of the New Left” that “the observer changed the position of the observed.” This is the quintessential model of contemporary media coverage theory and how it effects people’s perceptions about what is being portrayed. Since the implementation of modern network media social protests have been affected both positively and negatively, for example the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Modern network media as well as independent news sources, especially television have had significant impact on the execution and efforts of social movements. These media organizations are capable of bringing regional or national attention to virtually an issue by “informing” them of the facts. This is true of radio, newspapers, television and these days the internet; most networks like CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC (not to mention international news organizations like the Associated Press) have their hand in virtually all of these forms of information dissemination. With multi-millions of viewers, listeners and readers these media groups are able to carry massive influence through how they report facts and which facts they chose to report.
Gitlin explains in his essay that there are 6 specific ways in which media organizations can accomplish this. These include trivialization which is essentially down playing or making fun of a social movement situation. This serves as an effective way to downplay movement and make it seem as though it is unimportant and will not affect the general viewing public. For example in the civil rights movement we discussed the case of Claudette Colvin and her refusal to give up her seat on the Montgomery public bus. Her story was largely overshadowed by that later attempts of Rose Parks, she was also portrayed by the Kingsport Press out of Kingsport Tennessee as simply another Negro acting out, and this demonstrates pro-white bias and sheds a bit of light on the political motives behind that particular newspaper. The New York Times only mentioned the case after the fact when a court discussion was made several months later. The way these two separate newspapers portrayed the event are different in their execution but still serve to show the event as seemingly insignificant. This insignificance was adopted by the readers of these papers and thereby effectively killed the true meaning of this event. This could be one of the reasons why Colvin’s event is excluded from many formal civil rights discussions.
Another theme that Gitlin explains is polarization. This can be a difficult aspect to see through. In the context of the Civil Rights movement the definition of polarity must be understood to mean a marked dichotomy (I.e. whites vs. blacks.) During the Civil Rights Movement especially some of the public protest marches local and regional television (which is that the majority of TV was during this time) attempted to show exclusively blacks during filmed segments of the protest though there were also numbers of white folks who participated as well. By doing so the television network emphasized that marked division between the groups, perhaps unintentionally, as a way continue the divide between the two groups.
A third point that is instrumental in fully understanding the affect of media on the civil rights movement is disparagement of the movement’s effectiveness. Film media of the day (and that which is used in many formal discussions) is of non-violent peaceful protests like sit-ins and marches. Popular media and much of the American general public especially the political right scoffed at these types of protests, deemed them ineffective and therefore discounted the movement and the cause as a whole as a futile effort. Another facet of this disparagement in the media is showing footage of these demonstrations being broken up, sometimes in a violent manner on the part of the authorities. For example, the beating and spraying of peaceful protesters with high pressure fire hoses. This media footage was easily edited and spun like the police were doing the city a favor by cleaning up potential violence.
The aforementioned are some of the ways that the media generated a negative affect on the Civil Rights Movement. The media was also however instrumental in its success as well. Dr King’s speeches were televised, broadcast nationally and recorded. Through this he was allowed to further spread the powerful message of the movement. It was not him, but the networks which decided to air these speeches and by doing so they made a conscious decision as to which dace of the movement they wanted to present to the nation. As a whole, the media was instrumental in the ultimate success of the civil rights movement and is an essential piece of any social movement weather the movements organizers like to admit it or not.
Modern network media as well as independent news sources, especially television have had significant impact on the execution and efforts of social movements. These media organizations are capable of bringing regional or national attention to virtually an issue by “informing” them of the facts. This is true of radio, newspapers, television and these days the internet; most networks like CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC (not to mention international news organizations like the Associated Press) have their hand in virtually all of these forms of information dissemination. With multi-millions of viewers, listeners and readers these media groups are able to carry massive influence through how they report facts and which facts they chose to report.
Gitlin explains in his essay that there are 6 specific ways in which media organizations can accomplish this. These include trivialization which is essentially down playing or making fun of a social movement situation. This serves as an effective way to downplay movement and make it seem as though it is unimportant and will not affect the general viewing public. For example in the civil rights movement we discussed the case of Claudette Colvin and her refusal to give up her seat on the Montgomery public bus. Her story was largely overshadowed by that later attempts of Rose Parks, she was also portrayed by the Kingsport Press out of Kingsport Tennessee as simply another Negro acting out, and this demonstrates pro-white bias and sheds a bit of light on the political motives behind that particular newspaper. The New York Times only mentioned the case after the fact when a court discussion was made several months later. The way these two separate newspapers portrayed the event are different in their execution but still serve to show the event as seemingly insignificant. This insignificance was adopted by the readers of these papers and thereby effectively killed the true meaning of this event. This could be one of the reasons why Colvin’s event is excluded from many formal civil rights discussions.
Another theme that Gitlin explains is polarization. This can be a difficult aspect to see through. In the context of the Civil Rights movement the definition of polarity must be understood to mean a marked dichotomy (I.e. whites vs. blacks.) During the Civil Rights Movement especially some of the public protest marches local and regional television (which is that the majority of TV was during this time) attempted to show exclusively blacks during filmed segments of the protest though there were also numbers of white folks who participated as well. By doing so the television network emphasized that marked division between the groups, perhaps unintentionally, as a way continue the divide between the two groups.
A third point that is instrumental in fully understanding the affect of media on the civil rights movement is disparagement of the movement’s effectiveness. Film media of the day (and that which is used in many formal discussions) is of non-violent peaceful protests like sit-ins and marches. Popular media and much of the American general public especially the political right scoffed at these types of protests, deemed them ineffective and therefore discounted the movement and the cause as a whole as a futile effort. Another facet of this disparagement in the media is showing footage of these demonstrations being broken up, sometimes in a violent manner on the part of the authorities. For example, the beating and spraying of peaceful protesters with high pressure fire hoses. This media footage was easily edited and spun like the police were doing the city a favor by cleaning up potential violence.
The aforementioned are some of the ways that the media generated a negative affect on the Civil Rights Movement. The media was also however instrumental in its success as well. Dr King’s speeches were televised, broadcast nationally and recorded. Through this he was allowed to further spread the powerful message of the movement. It was not him, but the networks which decided to air these speeches and by doing so they made a conscious decision as to which dace of the movement they wanted to present to the nation. As a whole, the media was instrumental in the ultimate success of the civil rights movement and is an essential piece of any social movement weather the movements organizers like to admit it or not.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Assignment 3, Opinion Based
Social movements take on varied forms or action and protest. Dr. Martin Luther King founded his Civil Right campaign on organized civil disobedience whereas Malcolm X adopted the mantra of “by any means necessary.” This dichotomy of radical versus “passive” tactics has long been the convention by which social protests and movements are classified. In the United States social protests and movements have evolved to where violent protests are largely frowned upon and considered ineffective in the long run. As I stated in my previous post, those radical approaches are marks of sensationalism and extremists.
Today, more peaceful approaches have become the norm and are the “industry standard” if you will for initiating social change. I can hypothesis that especially in this day and age (again post-9/11) that any bit of violence on behalf of an organization will result in it being disbanded by the federal government and therefore effectively killing that section of the social movement.
Being a college student and facing exposure to varying forms of social protest on a daily basis on ASU’s main campus I can safely say that I have yet to see any violent actions regarding social movements. In my little corner of the social movement world most of the protests I have seen have been peaceful, most akin to actions like the Clothesline Project. These types of protests are interesting, they attempt to be “in your face and revolutionary” when in reality they seem to be a small group of individuals standing in front of some cool pieces of concept art shouting trough microphones. While I read the piece concerning the Clothesline Project I immediately pictured a feminist group whose name escapes me protesting on Hayden lawn in the spring of last year.
On occasion these protests garner what I would deem as significant immediate support since they attract a sizable crowd and likely recruit a few members each time they have an event. This method, in my opinion is much more effective than a single violent outburst which would likely end in injuries both physical and those inflicted on the movement.
The pro-life sidewalk movement is in a bit of a different class. These demonstrators actively engage a captive audience in a heavy attempt to influence their decisions about aborting a pregnancy. This is a much more in-your-face approach to protest. It is also more likely to piss people off. However the people who support this campaign are not likely to support a violent means to support their cause since they are Christian based and “pro-life”
However, all that being said violence still is prevalent in social protest movements. The act of executing a social movement is just like the politics of foreign policy. There is a procedural chain of events that must be followed starting with diplomacy, escalating to sanctions and embargos (boycotts and the like) and finally as a last resort war (violent protests). In social movements a voice may start as a whisper and increase in loudness until it becomes a scream. However if that scream falls on deaf ears then it means nothing. That is where violence becomes the only viable option. Especially if the situation is so dire that lives innocent lives may be at risk and no one takes notice. This has long been the case in sub-Sahara Africa with all the atrocities over there including acts of genocide and brutality. This movement never turned truly violent in the United States but the scream of injustice was unanswered by the United States and the United Nations who failed to officially recognize those actions as genocide and crimes against humanity. The language was worded less harshly as to not incite mandatory political and military action on the part of the developed world. Atrocious.
Malcolm X likely felt that his screams were unheard and of course unanswered therefore he felt that violence was a means to an end and a way to create real social change. In his case it somewhat worked, judging from historical texts King’s peaceful protests beat him out in high school textbooks.
In a sense this supports my convention that violence does not have a place in popular social protests and movements. It no longer works, and it highly unlikely that any violent movement will take shape under the watchful eye of the government. The negative publicity generated by such an act will deeply hurt the campaign. The course of action must be followed in order for a successful social protest and movement to take place.
Today, more peaceful approaches have become the norm and are the “industry standard” if you will for initiating social change. I can hypothesis that especially in this day and age (again post-9/11) that any bit of violence on behalf of an organization will result in it being disbanded by the federal government and therefore effectively killing that section of the social movement.
Being a college student and facing exposure to varying forms of social protest on a daily basis on ASU’s main campus I can safely say that I have yet to see any violent actions regarding social movements. In my little corner of the social movement world most of the protests I have seen have been peaceful, most akin to actions like the Clothesline Project. These types of protests are interesting, they attempt to be “in your face and revolutionary” when in reality they seem to be a small group of individuals standing in front of some cool pieces of concept art shouting trough microphones. While I read the piece concerning the Clothesline Project I immediately pictured a feminist group whose name escapes me protesting on Hayden lawn in the spring of last year.
On occasion these protests garner what I would deem as significant immediate support since they attract a sizable crowd and likely recruit a few members each time they have an event. This method, in my opinion is much more effective than a single violent outburst which would likely end in injuries both physical and those inflicted on the movement.
The pro-life sidewalk movement is in a bit of a different class. These demonstrators actively engage a captive audience in a heavy attempt to influence their decisions about aborting a pregnancy. This is a much more in-your-face approach to protest. It is also more likely to piss people off. However the people who support this campaign are not likely to support a violent means to support their cause since they are Christian based and “pro-life”
However, all that being said violence still is prevalent in social protest movements. The act of executing a social movement is just like the politics of foreign policy. There is a procedural chain of events that must be followed starting with diplomacy, escalating to sanctions and embargos (boycotts and the like) and finally as a last resort war (violent protests). In social movements a voice may start as a whisper and increase in loudness until it becomes a scream. However if that scream falls on deaf ears then it means nothing. That is where violence becomes the only viable option. Especially if the situation is so dire that lives innocent lives may be at risk and no one takes notice. This has long been the case in sub-Sahara Africa with all the atrocities over there including acts of genocide and brutality. This movement never turned truly violent in the United States but the scream of injustice was unanswered by the United States and the United Nations who failed to officially recognize those actions as genocide and crimes against humanity. The language was worded less harshly as to not incite mandatory political and military action on the part of the developed world. Atrocious.
Malcolm X likely felt that his screams were unheard and of course unanswered therefore he felt that violence was a means to an end and a way to create real social change. In his case it somewhat worked, judging from historical texts King’s peaceful protests beat him out in high school textbooks.
In a sense this supports my convention that violence does not have a place in popular social protests and movements. It no longer works, and it highly unlikely that any violent movement will take shape under the watchful eye of the government. The negative publicity generated by such an act will deeply hurt the campaign. The course of action must be followed in order for a successful social protest and movement to take place.
Assignment 3, Text Based
Emotions are a key feature of social life. Emotions are a human element that affects personal feelings as well as interactions on an interpersonal societal level. Social Movement Organizations are part of a societal process… and hopefully run by humans so emotions are a critical part of SMOs and also critical to their functionality. In the context of Globalization SMO organizers seek to capitalize on emotions that are beneficial to the organization and downplay those that would be considered bad, as explained by Jasper in “Emotions of Protest.” Jasper classifies emotions into two separate categories one called “primary affective” meaning these are the ones that are in line with the basic ideals of the SMO. There are also the “primary reactive” emotions which are brought on by outside influences.
Basic human rights are a key point of contention in the Globalization debate. Interestingly enough human rights are a basic foundation of the movement and they also serve as a means to excite reactive emotions as well on a case by case basis. As jobs and investment are moved overseas to lesser developed countries working conditions (largely) become worse and workers are compensated far less than workers who would have produced the same product domestically. This creates outrage among many activists who are fighting against the global economic machine. Going hand-in-hand with the outrage is compassion for the workers who are negatively affected by globalization. The basic ideal is that all workers should be guaranteed a basic set of human rights. However when a case of extreme rights violation is brought to international attention by watchdog groups reactive emotions take control and likely spur swift and immediate action.
Nationalism and patriotism also factor into the overall anti-globalization movement. Given a choice most people want their money to stay in their home country and help the domestic economy. They feel a deep loyalty to their nation and feel that it is part of their civic duty to help preserve that solidarity. These ideals are almost exclusively primary affective emotions. They are relatively unaffected and unchanged by events, with the exception of something as catastrophic as 9/11. After 9/11 the Unites States as a whole saw a great resurgence of patriotism but like most reactive aspects of emotions that sentiment faded.
Using these emotions to an organization’s advantage is key to executing and sustaining an effective movement. Globalization emotions are quite public as whole, referring once again to publications like Ad Busters and internet resources. With the exception of some extremists groups like Greenpeace and other organizations who participate in forms of Eco/economic terrorism and sabotage most anti-globalization SMOs do not rely on sensationalism but rather on information and education. For example in visiting CorpWatch’s website today all of the key cover stories are written in informed articles which serve to call attention to the issue rather than sensationalism it as “evil.” This face of informed and educated is used as a tool to recruit people into the SMO give a means of perpetuating the movement and its ideals.
As stated previously there seems to be no insidious hidden emotional agenda behind these SMOs, they are quite matter-of-fact in their operation and execution. On a tactical level Ad Busters uses tools like their shoe campaign which I have mentioned in earlier posts to call attention to an issue in that matter-of-fact manner. They outline all expenses and practices employed in manufacturing these shoes in order to show what a true living wage is. Actions like these are able to bring out primary reactive emotions like shame and indignation, even amongst seasoned activists at the decisions they have made on how and where to spend their dollar.
This type of “emotional marketing” works in the sense of the anti-globalization movement since the demographic that is largely trying to be reached are the “educated majority” which as I stated in previous posts are sadly a homogenous group of college educated white folks. These are usually the type of people who do not easily buy into sensationalism and marketing of that sort. They would likely tend to discount that sensationalism as absurdity and fail to recognize the SMO or perhaps even the ideal behind it as legitimate. They are much more apt to information digestion, followed by synthesis of that information and then making informed decisions based on their conclusions.
So essentially, the anti-globalization movement is composed of a strong primary affective ideal base and feeds off of emotions generated by primary reactive sentiments to sustain its efforts by providing non-sensational informed threads which feed public and organizational knowledge.
Basic human rights are a key point of contention in the Globalization debate. Interestingly enough human rights are a basic foundation of the movement and they also serve as a means to excite reactive emotions as well on a case by case basis. As jobs and investment are moved overseas to lesser developed countries working conditions (largely) become worse and workers are compensated far less than workers who would have produced the same product domestically. This creates outrage among many activists who are fighting against the global economic machine. Going hand-in-hand with the outrage is compassion for the workers who are negatively affected by globalization. The basic ideal is that all workers should be guaranteed a basic set of human rights. However when a case of extreme rights violation is brought to international attention by watchdog groups reactive emotions take control and likely spur swift and immediate action.
Nationalism and patriotism also factor into the overall anti-globalization movement. Given a choice most people want their money to stay in their home country and help the domestic economy. They feel a deep loyalty to their nation and feel that it is part of their civic duty to help preserve that solidarity. These ideals are almost exclusively primary affective emotions. They are relatively unaffected and unchanged by events, with the exception of something as catastrophic as 9/11. After 9/11 the Unites States as a whole saw a great resurgence of patriotism but like most reactive aspects of emotions that sentiment faded.
Using these emotions to an organization’s advantage is key to executing and sustaining an effective movement. Globalization emotions are quite public as whole, referring once again to publications like Ad Busters and internet resources. With the exception of some extremists groups like Greenpeace and other organizations who participate in forms of Eco/economic terrorism and sabotage most anti-globalization SMOs do not rely on sensationalism but rather on information and education. For example in visiting CorpWatch’s website today all of the key cover stories are written in informed articles which serve to call attention to the issue rather than sensationalism it as “evil.” This face of informed and educated is used as a tool to recruit people into the SMO give a means of perpetuating the movement and its ideals.
As stated previously there seems to be no insidious hidden emotional agenda behind these SMOs, they are quite matter-of-fact in their operation and execution. On a tactical level Ad Busters uses tools like their shoe campaign which I have mentioned in earlier posts to call attention to an issue in that matter-of-fact manner. They outline all expenses and practices employed in manufacturing these shoes in order to show what a true living wage is. Actions like these are able to bring out primary reactive emotions like shame and indignation, even amongst seasoned activists at the decisions they have made on how and where to spend their dollar.
This type of “emotional marketing” works in the sense of the anti-globalization movement since the demographic that is largely trying to be reached are the “educated majority” which as I stated in previous posts are sadly a homogenous group of college educated white folks. These are usually the type of people who do not easily buy into sensationalism and marketing of that sort. They would likely tend to discount that sensationalism as absurdity and fail to recognize the SMO or perhaps even the ideal behind it as legitimate. They are much more apt to information digestion, followed by synthesis of that information and then making informed decisions based on their conclusions.
So essentially, the anti-globalization movement is composed of a strong primary affective ideal base and feeds off of emotions generated by primary reactive sentiments to sustain its efforts by providing non-sensational informed threads which feed public and organizational knowledge.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Opinion Posting 2
In this day and age the role of women is fast evolving. In less than 100 years women have gained the right to vote, spearheaded feminist initiatives redefined gender roles and parenting practices and almost a constitutional amendment passed to expressly guarantee certain rights. Women’s rights are at a new threshold and there someone strong is needed to take the reins and create a positive force for change.
The focus today needs to shift from feminism to creating a more equal playing field amongst men and women especially in the corporate world. Affirmative action is outdated and could use a little retooling. In the past women’s movements such as the feminism described by Nancy Whitter demonstrated a tendency towards separation tactics. Women would congregate and discuss things that were pertinent to them and evoke strong feelings of “girl-power” amongst themselves and left the men wholly out of the process sitting on their thumbs at home. In more recent years as the seperationist mentality has dissipated and adopted by lesbians simple women’s rights has taken a backseat to other social justice issues. What is needed is collaboration and openness between men and women and demonstration of the obvious fact that both genders are equal.
As much as I may not agree with her politics or her personality I believe that Hillary Clinton would be an outstanding choice for a women’s rights initiative simply because she was able to rally members of her gender and drum up impressive support for her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, there is still speculation that she may be Obama’s vice-presidential nominee. The fact that she was able to make it so far in a presidential race is, in my opinion, undeniable proof that woman is equal to man; that proof is something she could use to her and her gender’s advantage.
Hillary is representative of the majority of women in America as far as age and demographics are concerned. Touching on Crenshaw’s intersectionality for a moment I believe that Clinton would be able to rally minority female populations as well simply because she is a woman and gives them something to identify on a gender level. What do old white guys know about issues unique to women? Not much. However, what does Hillary know about issues concerning minority women? I am not sure, but that could also be one of her great pitfalls. She has had a relatively privileged life and some of the women who fight for women’s rights or need to be informed of them are often not as privileged and may feel some resentment.
I believe that age plays a significant factor in women’s rights leadership and any social movement for that matter. The Civil Rights Movement was not exception. When Claudette Colvin was forcibly removed from the bus in Montgomery she went kicking and screaming. She was young; Rosa Parks was not so young. It is easy to manhandle an “insubordinate” high school kid of the bus, but what are you going to do with an old lady? Rosa made a point by simply being old, as ludicrous as that sounds. She carried the facade of a tired old lady who didn’t want to stand on the bus. She also carried the fire of want for social change and she did so by using her age and experience to her advantage to initiate the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Colvin and Parks were working towards a common goal but age and immaturity was working against Colvin. Rosa was able to conduct herself in a mature, cool and collected manner,
If Colvin was chosen to lead the bus boycott it would never have happened. It would have likely ended as soon as the steel of those handcuffs touched her wrists. She would likely have been viewed as a young “punk” simply causing a harangue with no good cause. She may have perhaps even been regarded so within the black community.
Hillary has age and experience on her side as well, yet I believe that she is still young enough to reach the youth of the nation much like Rosa mentored Claudette. If her residual campaign energy is channeled in the correct manner womankind, and mankind as well may be able to see some progressive initiatives and fresh ideas along with perhaps the revival of the ERA and maybe even its ratification. As I have introduced contemporary women’s right is not an issue to be dealt with strictly by women, it should be the duty of man to take a vested interest in the thoughts and ideas of the other half of the species whom he shares the planet with.
The focus today needs to shift from feminism to creating a more equal playing field amongst men and women especially in the corporate world. Affirmative action is outdated and could use a little retooling. In the past women’s movements such as the feminism described by Nancy Whitter demonstrated a tendency towards separation tactics. Women would congregate and discuss things that were pertinent to them and evoke strong feelings of “girl-power” amongst themselves and left the men wholly out of the process sitting on their thumbs at home. In more recent years as the seperationist mentality has dissipated and adopted by lesbians simple women’s rights has taken a backseat to other social justice issues. What is needed is collaboration and openness between men and women and demonstration of the obvious fact that both genders are equal.
As much as I may not agree with her politics or her personality I believe that Hillary Clinton would be an outstanding choice for a women’s rights initiative simply because she was able to rally members of her gender and drum up impressive support for her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, there is still speculation that she may be Obama’s vice-presidential nominee. The fact that she was able to make it so far in a presidential race is, in my opinion, undeniable proof that woman is equal to man; that proof is something she could use to her and her gender’s advantage.
Hillary is representative of the majority of women in America as far as age and demographics are concerned. Touching on Crenshaw’s intersectionality for a moment I believe that Clinton would be able to rally minority female populations as well simply because she is a woman and gives them something to identify on a gender level. What do old white guys know about issues unique to women? Not much. However, what does Hillary know about issues concerning minority women? I am not sure, but that could also be one of her great pitfalls. She has had a relatively privileged life and some of the women who fight for women’s rights or need to be informed of them are often not as privileged and may feel some resentment.
I believe that age plays a significant factor in women’s rights leadership and any social movement for that matter. The Civil Rights Movement was not exception. When Claudette Colvin was forcibly removed from the bus in Montgomery she went kicking and screaming. She was young; Rosa Parks was not so young. It is easy to manhandle an “insubordinate” high school kid of the bus, but what are you going to do with an old lady? Rosa made a point by simply being old, as ludicrous as that sounds. She carried the facade of a tired old lady who didn’t want to stand on the bus. She also carried the fire of want for social change and she did so by using her age and experience to her advantage to initiate the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Colvin and Parks were working towards a common goal but age and immaturity was working against Colvin. Rosa was able to conduct herself in a mature, cool and collected manner,
If Colvin was chosen to lead the bus boycott it would never have happened. It would have likely ended as soon as the steel of those handcuffs touched her wrists. She would likely have been viewed as a young “punk” simply causing a harangue with no good cause. She may have perhaps even been regarded so within the black community.
Hillary has age and experience on her side as well, yet I believe that she is still young enough to reach the youth of the nation much like Rosa mentored Claudette. If her residual campaign energy is channeled in the correct manner womankind, and mankind as well may be able to see some progressive initiatives and fresh ideas along with perhaps the revival of the ERA and maybe even its ratification. As I have introduced contemporary women’s right is not an issue to be dealt with strictly by women, it should be the duty of man to take a vested interest in the thoughts and ideas of the other half of the species whom he shares the planet with.
Text Based Assignment 2
The most essential element to any social movement is people, and not just any people. They need to be people who support understand and realize the implications of the problem at hand and the change they are initiating. In order for a movement to be successful it needs to be a concerted and sustained force towards a common goal. The development of the global economy and the fight against its pending injustices is no different.
This topic is a difficult one to place into a “frame” or collectivity as described by Goodwin and Jasper in their introduction to “Who Joins or Supports Social Movements.” Global economic issues are multifaceted arguably to an almost extreme degree. Issues such as job security, transportation and shipping practices as well as human rights are in question. These are merely some broad examples but the list goes still goes on. However for my purposes I will say that the general frame of this movement is centered on consumerism and the mighty (or nor so mighty at present) dollar and when and where that dollar is spent. Therefore the simplified collective identity would be the consumer.
A consumer being anyone who has the power and will purchase means that the globalization/corporatization phenomena effects everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, socio-political affiliation or class (perhaps with the exception of the super-elite). With the increasing price of commodities more and more people are beginning to take notice of the issues at hand. Even though more people are taking notice it is unlikely that many will formally join a formal organization. As explained by Goodwin and Jasper this is one of the core problems with recruitment in these type of social change organizations. People have the knowledge about a topic, they have a reason to be upset about it yet they still do not join.
Why is that?
They may be afraid to. Like the women in Young’s article about the Equal Rights Amendment they could fear retribution in some way, shape or form. That retribution may come from their employers, their spouses or as the pro-ERA Mormon women from their religious organization. However, since the global economy issue universally affects most people equally it is difficult to discern where exactly that retribution may come from. It may also be a fear of being labeled as an extremists grouped along with groups from other social conflicts like eco-terrorists or perhaps the fear of being called a liberal.
Organizations dedicated to the anti-globalization campaign keep their activists interest through publicized research and news. Since this field is so dynamic there are new points of interest that are constantly emerging that allow activists to explore a variety of sub-topics and therefore stay engaged in the movement. Ad Busters is one of the publications that consistently disseminates new and trendy causes and way to support them.
Regardless of labels and liberalism the people who support and stay actively engaged in the fight against global corporatization are seemingly genuinely concerned citizens who care about where their money goes and the negative effects it has both at home and abroad. Interestingly enough this movement is supported at the moment by a group that is has not been largely discussed in our background literature. Anit-globalization organizations are supported largely by educated, non-minority men and women and people who know who Bono is. These people are mostly liberally politically minded some to the extreme left. Most of the cause supporters are those who are not heavily invested in companies who participate in off-shore economics like overseas investment and employment out-sourcing. It is likely people of that sort would be making money off of those aspects therefore would want nothing to do with the movement. The “evil face” that activists are pitted against would be the face of corporate greed and organizations like the WTO and the IMF.
The face representing the anti-globalization movement is difficult to pinpoint. There are several good candidates for the job. First, economist Jeffery Sachs; Sachs has seen the devastation of American investment in developing countries and issues an eye opening report on such in his book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. In his work he outlines his plan for global economic success and does so, as the title suggests, in a manner which is entirely possible to accomplish in the future. He is highly critical of the role that the WTO and the IMF play on the global stage. Keep in mind since this movement is so varied and diverse there are likely hundreds of individuals who could fill this position. Given the circumstances if I had the right to chose someone to lead the movement and create positive change within my lifetime Jeffery Sachs would be an obvious choice.
Intersectionaltites as explained by Crenshaw in her speech before the senate have a presence in this movement as well as any other. As aforementioned this movement is composed of largely educated white folks. Crenshaw describes intersectionality as people belonging to more than one group. In her case they were women, a minority group and non-white, also a minority. The definition of intersectionality in this context does not apply to the globalization since they are fairly monogamous as far as race is concerned. The intersectionalities that I see of this group differ from how Crenshaw defines the term. The “anti-globalization” intersectionalities are actually beneficial in the sense that people in this group come from varied upper-middle class backgrounds and various educational specialties. This allows people to find a specific interest within the movement and therefore keep their interest.
At this point in its evolution the anti-globalization movement is racially lopsided. This is a weakness in the structure of the movement since it may be perceived as elitist and exclusionary towards ethnic minorities. However, through public awareness and due time it is possible to have a more ethnically diverse group of people come on-board. As mentioned previously the unique point in this movement is that it affects almost everyone, not only in the United States, but across globe.
This topic is a difficult one to place into a “frame” or collectivity as described by Goodwin and Jasper in their introduction to “Who Joins or Supports Social Movements.” Global economic issues are multifaceted arguably to an almost extreme degree. Issues such as job security, transportation and shipping practices as well as human rights are in question. These are merely some broad examples but the list goes still goes on. However for my purposes I will say that the general frame of this movement is centered on consumerism and the mighty (or nor so mighty at present) dollar and when and where that dollar is spent. Therefore the simplified collective identity would be the consumer.
A consumer being anyone who has the power and will purchase means that the globalization/corporatization phenomena effects everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, socio-political affiliation or class (perhaps with the exception of the super-elite). With the increasing price of commodities more and more people are beginning to take notice of the issues at hand. Even though more people are taking notice it is unlikely that many will formally join a formal organization. As explained by Goodwin and Jasper this is one of the core problems with recruitment in these type of social change organizations. People have the knowledge about a topic, they have a reason to be upset about it yet they still do not join.
Why is that?
They may be afraid to. Like the women in Young’s article about the Equal Rights Amendment they could fear retribution in some way, shape or form. That retribution may come from their employers, their spouses or as the pro-ERA Mormon women from their religious organization. However, since the global economy issue universally affects most people equally it is difficult to discern where exactly that retribution may come from. It may also be a fear of being labeled as an extremists grouped along with groups from other social conflicts like eco-terrorists or perhaps the fear of being called a liberal.
Organizations dedicated to the anti-globalization campaign keep their activists interest through publicized research and news. Since this field is so dynamic there are new points of interest that are constantly emerging that allow activists to explore a variety of sub-topics and therefore stay engaged in the movement. Ad Busters is one of the publications that consistently disseminates new and trendy causes and way to support them.
Regardless of labels and liberalism the people who support and stay actively engaged in the fight against global corporatization are seemingly genuinely concerned citizens who care about where their money goes and the negative effects it has both at home and abroad. Interestingly enough this movement is supported at the moment by a group that is has not been largely discussed in our background literature. Anit-globalization organizations are supported largely by educated, non-minority men and women and people who know who Bono is. These people are mostly liberally politically minded some to the extreme left. Most of the cause supporters are those who are not heavily invested in companies who participate in off-shore economics like overseas investment and employment out-sourcing. It is likely people of that sort would be making money off of those aspects therefore would want nothing to do with the movement. The “evil face” that activists are pitted against would be the face of corporate greed and organizations like the WTO and the IMF.
The face representing the anti-globalization movement is difficult to pinpoint. There are several good candidates for the job. First, economist Jeffery Sachs; Sachs has seen the devastation of American investment in developing countries and issues an eye opening report on such in his book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. In his work he outlines his plan for global economic success and does so, as the title suggests, in a manner which is entirely possible to accomplish in the future. He is highly critical of the role that the WTO and the IMF play on the global stage. Keep in mind since this movement is so varied and diverse there are likely hundreds of individuals who could fill this position. Given the circumstances if I had the right to chose someone to lead the movement and create positive change within my lifetime Jeffery Sachs would be an obvious choice.
Intersectionaltites as explained by Crenshaw in her speech before the senate have a presence in this movement as well as any other. As aforementioned this movement is composed of largely educated white folks. Crenshaw describes intersectionality as people belonging to more than one group. In her case they were women, a minority group and non-white, also a minority. The definition of intersectionality in this context does not apply to the globalization since they are fairly monogamous as far as race is concerned. The intersectionalities that I see of this group differ from how Crenshaw defines the term. The “anti-globalization” intersectionalities are actually beneficial in the sense that people in this group come from varied upper-middle class backgrounds and various educational specialties. This allows people to find a specific interest within the movement and therefore keep their interest.
At this point in its evolution the anti-globalization movement is racially lopsided. This is a weakness in the structure of the movement since it may be perceived as elitist and exclusionary towards ethnic minorities. However, through public awareness and due time it is possible to have a more ethnically diverse group of people come on-board. As mentioned previously the unique point in this movement is that it affects almost everyone, not only in the United States, but across globe.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Assignment 1, Opinion Posting
Protests can take on any different forms from the Civil Rights movement of the emerged two exceptional leaders. Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both of these men were instrumental in the proliferation of the African American cause in the United States. However these leaders had very different styles to with which to reach similar overarching goals, meaning the advancement of minority populations be they religious or ethnic.
Malcolm X became dissatisfied with the lack of poignancy of the social movement and turned to a more violent stance. He was a member of Nation of Islam which is a peaceful religion against violence, especially violence in the context of social protests. The Nation of Islam was not happy with his stance on violence and ironically he was assassinated by members of the sect while giving a speech.
Dr. King on the other hand was not an advocate of violence rather of peaceful protests such as rallies and sit-ins. He believed that justice will come through peace in eventuality.
These struggles between peaceful and violent approaches come into question in virtually every social movement. Sometimes not so much by choice but rather a peaceful approach may escalate into violence on the part of the protestors or on the part of the for lack of a better phrase the “oppressing agency.” For sure, violence is definitely one way to get people’s attention. People are attracted to things of disgust like a bloodstained pavement. They see what it is yet they cannot look away, they are fascinated. Joseph Conrad put it best in The Heart of Darkness by saying it within the nature of man to be fascinated by the abomination, though he may not understand it. The public is the same way. They may see a blood-soaked section of asphalt a police car damaged by a renegade cinder block but they may not know why that blood is there or whether that block was thrown by a drag queen in 1969 Greenwich Village.
Peace and hope. These are two traits that were largely instrumental during the Civil Rights movement. Malcolm X may argue that these notions are silly and ineffective, but on a large scale concerted effort they payoff in the end with less bloodshed but not less pain. Peace is not the easier route of the two, but no one said that changing the mentality of an entire nation was easy anyways.
While attempting view these two positions with an objective eye it may be easy to see that peace should prevail and in my opinion yes it does. By no means should that concession construed to mean that violence is ineffective. It is savage but sometimes it is necessary. After all avenues are exhausted it any be the only way out. Back a frightened dog into a corner and see what he does, someone just may have to make a trip to the emergency room for a point to get across.
The Black Panther Party believed that all other forms for protest where exhausted and ineffective hence their militant presence on the extreme where they started as an organization to make sure inner-city kids had a good breakfast. The explanation is simple. Sometimes circumstances warrant violence. This group got its start there, in the inner-city community and was very much a grassroots organization built from the ground up and manifested into what was perceived as an extreme militant exterior. Dr. King and his cohorts came in to the scene with a different approach. He swooped in from the side and wowed his crowds with brilliant speeches. He was a preacher after all. These approaches to initiating change differed in the aspect of how they were executed by which groups they target.;
The other avenues as a matter of course which I hinted at can consist of mass rallies, heavy political lobbying, petitioning, etc. These are all forms which would likely be considered peaceful. These methods are cumbersome and slow which is akin to most of the peaceful methods that are in used in forms of social protesting.
In short, I believe that peace is the way to initiate social change and create a lasting effort that is perpetuated even after the goal is accomplished. Through this the organization that chooses peace is able to sway larger sections of the population and allows for a greater sense of community.
Malcolm X became dissatisfied with the lack of poignancy of the social movement and turned to a more violent stance. He was a member of Nation of Islam which is a peaceful religion against violence, especially violence in the context of social protests. The Nation of Islam was not happy with his stance on violence and ironically he was assassinated by members of the sect while giving a speech.
Dr. King on the other hand was not an advocate of violence rather of peaceful protests such as rallies and sit-ins. He believed that justice will come through peace in eventuality.
These struggles between peaceful and violent approaches come into question in virtually every social movement. Sometimes not so much by choice but rather a peaceful approach may escalate into violence on the part of the protestors or on the part of the for lack of a better phrase the “oppressing agency.” For sure, violence is definitely one way to get people’s attention. People are attracted to things of disgust like a bloodstained pavement. They see what it is yet they cannot look away, they are fascinated. Joseph Conrad put it best in The Heart of Darkness by saying it within the nature of man to be fascinated by the abomination, though he may not understand it. The public is the same way. They may see a blood-soaked section of asphalt a police car damaged by a renegade cinder block but they may not know why that blood is there or whether that block was thrown by a drag queen in 1969 Greenwich Village.
Peace and hope. These are two traits that were largely instrumental during the Civil Rights movement. Malcolm X may argue that these notions are silly and ineffective, but on a large scale concerted effort they payoff in the end with less bloodshed but not less pain. Peace is not the easier route of the two, but no one said that changing the mentality of an entire nation was easy anyways.
While attempting view these two positions with an objective eye it may be easy to see that peace should prevail and in my opinion yes it does. By no means should that concession construed to mean that violence is ineffective. It is savage but sometimes it is necessary. After all avenues are exhausted it any be the only way out. Back a frightened dog into a corner and see what he does, someone just may have to make a trip to the emergency room for a point to get across.
The Black Panther Party believed that all other forms for protest where exhausted and ineffective hence their militant presence on the extreme where they started as an organization to make sure inner-city kids had a good breakfast. The explanation is simple. Sometimes circumstances warrant violence. This group got its start there, in the inner-city community and was very much a grassroots organization built from the ground up and manifested into what was perceived as an extreme militant exterior. Dr. King and his cohorts came in to the scene with a different approach. He swooped in from the side and wowed his crowds with brilliant speeches. He was a preacher after all. These approaches to initiating change differed in the aspect of how they were executed by which groups they target.;
The other avenues as a matter of course which I hinted at can consist of mass rallies, heavy political lobbying, petitioning, etc. These are all forms which would likely be considered peaceful. These methods are cumbersome and slow which is akin to most of the peaceful methods that are in used in forms of social protesting.
In short, I believe that peace is the way to initiate social change and create a lasting effort that is perpetuated even after the goal is accomplished. Through this the organization that chooses peace is able to sway larger sections of the population and allows for a greater sense of community.
Assignment 1, Text-Based
Walk in to any retailer and purchase a product. Doesn’t matter what it is, not find the tag or imprint that explains where the product was made. Much more than likely it wasn’t made in the United States. More likely it was made in Southeastern Asia, China, or Mexico. That, is globalization. Through that global consumer attitude goods are able to be made more cheaply and people are able to buy them in greater quantities. However in purchasing these products the consumer is voting with her dollar against industries that are exclusively American. People in recent decades have begun to take notice of this new global economy and the real power of the consumer dollar.
It is largely after World War II that globalization as we study it in a contemporary context began to emerge. Foreign investment began to take shape beginning with the reconstruction of Europe under the Marshall Plan. This was the idea that gave birth to The World Bank and subsequently the International Monetary Fund. This was the international organization that was charged with dispensing money to nations in need of reconstruction. Where did that money come from? Largely from the governments of the rich western super-powers of the time, the chief lending being the United States. This gave the capitalist West a very large stick to wield on the global stage and opened the door for what was to come.
After Europe was back on its feet per se the WTO was a loose dog carrying that rather large stick and didn’t know where to swing it next. Enter, Robert McNamara, who as described by William Finnegan in his essay “Affinity Groups and the Movement Against Corporate Globalization” shifted the WTO’s focus and resources to Southeast Asia. The intentions seemed pure enough, pull these struggling nations to their feet with the help of foreign money to build infrastructure and develop better agriculture prospects. However, with this foreign aid (which were essentially loans) came mountains of national debt on the part of the poor countries. So the WTO began privatizing its operations and allowing foreign business investors to get their foot in the door.
The WTO and the IMF have had a snowball effect as far as foreign investment goes; they started these projects and then helped them evolve and carry over to other markets and nations with the help of an overarching international board which dictates policy and doesn’t really have a direct reporting agency.
Organizations have keep watch on the WTO and the IMF for several years. Chiefly the AFL-CIO who is concerned with workers rights here in the United States. On a Fall morning, November 30, 1990 to be precise the AFL-CIO as well as hundreds of other international, national and local organizations took to the streets of downtown Seattle in what came to be known as the “N30” protests against the WTO summit held there. Over the course of several hours nearly 50,000 people crammed into the streets in a blockade of the convention center. Many considered this a success in generating general public knowledge of the WTO and its practices.
The WTO being the big international bulldog it is makes it quite difficult for social organizations to fight it as a whole. Therefore a greater emphasis is currently placed on dealing with individual international corporations and individual company dealings. Contemporary watch groups such as CorpWatch and the consumer education organization Ad Busters are attempting to reach the general public with sustained information feeds and publications on how to fight globalization and what the new global economy means on a human rights playing field and how other countries who are not on the consuming end of the cycle are affected.
The neo-Marxist mass society theory states is inclined to the fact that these protest organizations form out of lack of a middle-man type agency between the people and the larger organization. As stated previously there is not agency that the WTO is directly responsible to and really no middle ground on which the organization and the people can meet face-to-face, especially since the WTO meetings (like the 1999 event in Seattle) are held behind closed doors. Out of necessity more than anything these organizations form and conduct these protests so someone will listen to them and take notice.
As far as rational approaches to the political process anti-globalization activists are floundering, again with not overarching political organization to keep the WTO IMF in check it falls the international community of governments to take notice and regulate at the national level. This is quite difficult since, as many people, see it globalization brings jobs where they are needed (developing countries) and goods were they are demanded (developed countries). Therefore, many governments see it as a win-win situation. Also, perhaps more powerful than the international community of governments is where the buck stops, literally. No, it’s not President Truman’s desk. It is the individual consumer with the power of her almighty dollar. It is she and she alone who decides where and on what to spend it on. Therefore by campaigns like Ad Busters which focus on consumer education she can become more informed and fight the bulldog or globalization from its core.
As far as cultural and emotional approaches to the subject. The social protest organizations in questions focus, as stated previously, on the human/workers rights issues. For example a recent shoe sale campaign in Ad Busters sold shoes made by Portuguese workers in a sustainable factory where they were paid a living wage (meaning the minimum above the poverty line.) These shoes to the general public would likely be considered expensive but it goes to indicate that these cheap products from developing countries must be produced by workers in extremely low paying jobs and terrible working conditions. Also the government system of these developing countries can be in constant turmoil which is also cause for concern on the human rights front.
Of all of these explanations the most effective for the anti-globalization campaign would be adopting rational political and educational approaches to works against the global machine. These practices are largely sustained efforts and create constant and perpetuating awareness of the situation at hand and help the smart consumer guide where her next dollar may go.
It is largely after World War II that globalization as we study it in a contemporary context began to emerge. Foreign investment began to take shape beginning with the reconstruction of Europe under the Marshall Plan. This was the idea that gave birth to The World Bank and subsequently the International Monetary Fund. This was the international organization that was charged with dispensing money to nations in need of reconstruction. Where did that money come from? Largely from the governments of the rich western super-powers of the time, the chief lending being the United States. This gave the capitalist West a very large stick to wield on the global stage and opened the door for what was to come.
After Europe was back on its feet per se the WTO was a loose dog carrying that rather large stick and didn’t know where to swing it next. Enter, Robert McNamara, who as described by William Finnegan in his essay “Affinity Groups and the Movement Against Corporate Globalization” shifted the WTO’s focus and resources to Southeast Asia. The intentions seemed pure enough, pull these struggling nations to their feet with the help of foreign money to build infrastructure and develop better agriculture prospects. However, with this foreign aid (which were essentially loans) came mountains of national debt on the part of the poor countries. So the WTO began privatizing its operations and allowing foreign business investors to get their foot in the door.
The WTO and the IMF have had a snowball effect as far as foreign investment goes; they started these projects and then helped them evolve and carry over to other markets and nations with the help of an overarching international board which dictates policy and doesn’t really have a direct reporting agency.
Organizations have keep watch on the WTO and the IMF for several years. Chiefly the AFL-CIO who is concerned with workers rights here in the United States. On a Fall morning, November 30, 1990 to be precise the AFL-CIO as well as hundreds of other international, national and local organizations took to the streets of downtown Seattle in what came to be known as the “N30” protests against the WTO summit held there. Over the course of several hours nearly 50,000 people crammed into the streets in a blockade of the convention center. Many considered this a success in generating general public knowledge of the WTO and its practices.
The WTO being the big international bulldog it is makes it quite difficult for social organizations to fight it as a whole. Therefore a greater emphasis is currently placed on dealing with individual international corporations and individual company dealings. Contemporary watch groups such as CorpWatch and the consumer education organization Ad Busters are attempting to reach the general public with sustained information feeds and publications on how to fight globalization and what the new global economy means on a human rights playing field and how other countries who are not on the consuming end of the cycle are affected.
The neo-Marxist mass society theory states is inclined to the fact that these protest organizations form out of lack of a middle-man type agency between the people and the larger organization. As stated previously there is not agency that the WTO is directly responsible to and really no middle ground on which the organization and the people can meet face-to-face, especially since the WTO meetings (like the 1999 event in Seattle) are held behind closed doors. Out of necessity more than anything these organizations form and conduct these protests so someone will listen to them and take notice.
As far as rational approaches to the political process anti-globalization activists are floundering, again with not overarching political organization to keep the WTO IMF in check it falls the international community of governments to take notice and regulate at the national level. This is quite difficult since, as many people, see it globalization brings jobs where they are needed (developing countries) and goods were they are demanded (developed countries). Therefore, many governments see it as a win-win situation. Also, perhaps more powerful than the international community of governments is where the buck stops, literally. No, it’s not President Truman’s desk. It is the individual consumer with the power of her almighty dollar. It is she and she alone who decides where and on what to spend it on. Therefore by campaigns like Ad Busters which focus on consumer education she can become more informed and fight the bulldog or globalization from its core.
As far as cultural and emotional approaches to the subject. The social protest organizations in questions focus, as stated previously, on the human/workers rights issues. For example a recent shoe sale campaign in Ad Busters sold shoes made by Portuguese workers in a sustainable factory where they were paid a living wage (meaning the minimum above the poverty line.) These shoes to the general public would likely be considered expensive but it goes to indicate that these cheap products from developing countries must be produced by workers in extremely low paying jobs and terrible working conditions. Also the government system of these developing countries can be in constant turmoil which is also cause for concern on the human rights front.
Of all of these explanations the most effective for the anti-globalization campaign would be adopting rational political and educational approaches to works against the global machine. These practices are largely sustained efforts and create constant and perpetuating awareness of the situation at hand and help the smart consumer guide where her next dollar may go.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Introduction
Greetings internet people. My name is David I am an Arizona State University undergraduate student working on concurrent B.S. degrees in Justice Studies and Geography with a certificate in Geographic Information Sciences or GIS. GIS is really just a fancy way of making maps and running analysis on spatial (place) data with the help of a computer.
My core areas of study are immigration, the Southwestern United States and a geographic focus on hydrology and natural resource issues and a little bit of economics just for fun.
Being a geographer with a liberal arts focus I am concerned with the human aspect of that for lack of a better term I call the “new global village economy.” This is not a new concept; it is only new in the sense that it is now becoming accepted as fact and the way of future economic success.
What is it? Essentially the world is no longer a group of divided states, borders are dissolving and national economies are growing together. Case-in-point: The European Union and the adoption of the Euro. Large-scale international trade or goods and services have also become normal practices.
These global alliances and covenants present an interesting quandary. How does a state retain its nationality and culture amidst apparent dissolving boarders? Also, what do the people have to say about this and why is it important to examine this issue. The easy way to answer the latter question is simple, because of money. If only it were that easy. Through the course of this blog I will like to study and share information regarding the social forces pushing for and recoiling against the emergence of the new global village economy.
My core areas of study are immigration, the Southwestern United States and a geographic focus on hydrology and natural resource issues and a little bit of economics just for fun.
Being a geographer with a liberal arts focus I am concerned with the human aspect of that for lack of a better term I call the “new global village economy.” This is not a new concept; it is only new in the sense that it is now becoming accepted as fact and the way of future economic success.
What is it? Essentially the world is no longer a group of divided states, borders are dissolving and national economies are growing together. Case-in-point: The European Union and the adoption of the Euro. Large-scale international trade or goods and services have also become normal practices.
These global alliances and covenants present an interesting quandary. How does a state retain its nationality and culture amidst apparent dissolving boarders? Also, what do the people have to say about this and why is it important to examine this issue. The easy way to answer the latter question is simple, because of money. If only it were that easy. Through the course of this blog I will like to study and share information regarding the social forces pushing for and recoiling against the emergence of the new global village economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)