Globalization thoughts...the world is changing

Yesterday, my mom and I went for a walk and we were talking about we feel a sense of unrest and turnover in our lives, and how our friends have expressed similar feelings. I recently read that while the Mayan calendar ends on December 21st, this does not mean that the world is going to end, but that a certain era is coming to an end and a new one is beginning. I could not agree more because I think our society is advancing and changing rapidly, and perhaps this is the appropriate time to rebirth an entirely new segment of time and a new coming of age.

I feel that all of the developments in our society are powerful. We have instant access to information, news, and resources at the press of a button. People are gaining equality and many new laws have been passed, such as the legalizing of homosexual marriage in some states and marijuana in others.  Everything is evolving. Sometimes this rapid change can feel scary, but at the same time, we can use the opportunity for change embrace improvement rather than curl up in fear about scarcity of jobs and increased competition, or how we might lose control over our lives with all of the latest advancements. We can choose to move forward.

I was also thinking about how globalization can affect education. For example, all of us could not take Sociology 200 online if it was not for the development of technology and distance learning! We would not have had the opportunity to learn this information, earn college credits and meet requirements for degree programs, interact with one another, or engage in an online classroom. Therefore, there are developments that are definitely a positive.

Just wanted to share some final thoughts as the semester comes to a close.
Best wishes to all of you!!!

Global Governance

Just wanted to share picture of the United Nation’s organization if you’re interested in taking a look: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/pdfs/un-system-chart-color-sm.pdf

I wanted to copy and paste it, but it's a PDF file, so you'll have to click the link.

The structure and organization of the UN is very detailed and complicated, which is impressive. I imagine such division amongst the organization allows its members and employees to be trained, specialized, and focused on executing their specific duties. However, upon research, I also discovered that there is skepticism and criticism over such organization. In fact, the UN is accused of being an ineffective bureaucracy. While this complicated structure lends organization, it also limits the responsibilities and power of individuals due to its ranked tiers, and this can further lead to the abuse of power.   

I do think global governance is important to the continuous development of our world, especially since the population is increasing and our lives are becoming more interconnected. Because issues are also becoming more large-scale and individual governments cannot manage such issues individually, the foundation of international organizations that promote peaceful and amiable relations as well as benevolent, humanitarian interests proves to be beneficial. Perhaps these organizations should consider what size and structure they will operate upon to avoid a wasteful, bureaucratic system though.

Shift Happens

This week we must watch a video, Shift Happens, about the information age. Well, brace yourself folks because apparently technology is the apocalypse. Just think, by 2049, a $1,000 computer will exceed the computational ability of the entire human race. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it does sound frightening, and hey, shift happens. 

There were several interesting facts in this video (as well as exciting music):

·          China has more honors-leveled school children than the United States has children. With all due respect, my first thought and question is: Define children. Are these Chinese children indeed children who are well-rounded and balanced people who know how to live, love, and laugh? Or are they hard-working robots? I don’t know…weren’t those Olympic gymnasts underage, although, yes, very talented?  I think our school system should continue to take education seriously and prepare children by practicing standardized tests, but there is more to life than textbook knowledge and high scores (for instance, balance, health, and happiness).  

·         The top 10 jobs in demand for 2010 did not even exist in 2004. I am curious to know the updated statistics for this. While researching jobs, I admit that I was shocked to learn of many jobs that I had never even heard of. Why are jobs such a significant issue in our economy if there are so many different types and innovations?

·         To whom were questions addressed B.G. (before Google)? There are a variety of questions I search on Google including academics, health, directions, attempts for laughter, etc. Sure, I could have used a textbook or a map for some of my questions, but I don’t know what I would have done for others. (An aside—consider how Gangnam style would not be famous, how people couldn’t comment on political candidates, and how Cyber Monday shopping wouldn’t be possible without the internet and Google searches).

·         Half of what a college student learns in their first year of college will be outdated by their third year.  Great. We’ll be outdated before we obtain a Bachelor’s degree. There goes $50,000…However, I think there is a value to constantly learning and staying up to date. One must always be on his or her toes to continuously learn, grow, evolve, and improve.

·         E-paper will be cheaper than real paper. NO! I love real books! I refuse to give up the scent of fresh, new books. What will happen to public and school libraries? I love having a physical copy of information in front of me, and I will be very upset if all paper items change to electronics, though I guess this could improve our carbon footprints.

·         A week’s worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across during a lifetime in the 18^th century. The amount of information available to people nowadays is incredible. However, do we even utilize it? In some respect, I think this abundance of information can cause some people to tune out. For example, there will be times when I turn off the news, not because I am apathetic towards the world’s affairs, but because I am simply tired of hearing so much noise, though, sometimes I think information becomes white noise when it is so readily available. In other ways, I think we benefit greatly from the variety of information available and people are investing more in education and using their intelligence and skills for their careers.

While the video presents intimidating facts and figures, I think we should be optimistic about our future. With all of the knowledge and information available, there must be some good that we can make of this. As Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens claim in Introduction to Sociology, we can shape the world in a positive way.  Changes do not mean that social and political reform are over, especially when values like social community, equality, and caring for the weak and vulnerable are still alive worldwide.

Urban, Suburban, Rural life

There have been interesting shifts in the location of residence for much of the United States population. Since about the World War II, period, there has been a dramatic increase in suburbanization, or the development of suburbia, that is areas of housing outside of inner cities. This may be explained by the decline of rural areas since agricultural industries have declined and people have sought more personal and professional opportunities by leaving rural areas. The exodus of young people from rural areas explains the phenomenon called aging in place where rural areas have disproportionately greater populations of older people, and because there are such few young people there, it is unlikely that babies will be born to replace the declining population. Suburbanization can also be explained by the decline in urban areas. Particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, suburbanization was stimulated by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)’s assistance in mortgage loans, which allowed people to own homes in suburbs for less money than renting a residence in a city. Additionally, the mass production of automobiles and development of roadways enabled commuting and further encouraged people to move outwards from cities in order to enjoy better housing, schools, and amenities. This suburbanization trend has continued today and minorities are more present in suburbs, although the suburbs are still about 2/3 white. 

I have lived in both suburban and urban areas. When describing a city, I definitely agree that it is a map of contrasting areas with distinct characteristics, as Introduction to Sociology states. For example, I lived in Washington D.C. and noticed that the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast portions of the city were all vastly different from one another. I also noticed that the poorer or more affluent sections were concentrated in specific and seemingly contained areas. For example, southeast is known for its poverty, whereas northwest is known more for its affluence and national monuments. I think this is an interesting demonstration for the theories of the effects of job opportunities vs. housing segregation on poverty as Wilson and Massey/Denton debate. I think these sociologists each have valid points, but I do think housing segregation is powerfully isolating and helps continue the cycle of poverty by not promoting social mobility and improvement. One might not believe this to be true, but if one witnesses how sections of poverty are like pieces of a different world, one can understand how this might feel like a completely different, cut-off world where the same principles of opportunity and equality are not applied to people. 

Additionally, in the suburbs, I have noticed a greater variety of people. While Introduction to Sociology emphasizes increased minority populations in the suburbs, I would like to argue that this is not necessarily relevant because I think the population has shifted in general. There has been in an increase in the diversity of our population, so an increase of minorities in the suburbs might not mean that there are less in urban areas so much as there are just more minorities living in the United States. Also, increased minorities in the suburbs does not mean that urban areas are less poor. I don't think living in an urban vs. suburban environment is that strong of an economic or class indicator. Living in one place over the other does not mean a person is wealthier or poorer, it just adjusts their budgets and opportunities.

Introduction to Sociology states that scholars are debating about the importance of the distinction between a city and a suburb, and I think that in certain areas this distinction is hardly definable. Cities and surrounding neighborhoods seem to mesh into one, which is why the term “metropolitan area” has become one of my favorites to describe such a general area, and sociologists are using it more and more too. 

In summary, yes, I agree that there is an increase in suburbanization, an increase in the diversity of the population (though isn’t this happening in general anyway?) a decline in rural areas, and a seemingly perpetual challenge of poverty and urban decay. 

Picture of suburbia!

 

Who Rules in Our Democracy?

A democracy is a political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision making or to elect representatives to government bodies. The United States embodies a liberal democracy, or a system of democracy in which voters can choose between two or more political parties and the majority of the adult population has the full right to vote. This is different from other kinds of democracy such as a participatory or direct democracy in which all members of a group or community participate collectively in making decisions, as in ancient Athens. While citizens of the United States may exercise their right to vote, who really holds the power in our society? There are a few theories that seek to explain this.

Democratic elitism, founded by Max Weber, explains that democracy is impossible as a means of government for large scale societies because millions of people cannot meet to make political decisions and running a complex society requires expertise. Weber believes “rule by the people” is possible, but in a limited sense. In order to achieve power, political parties must become organized in a systematic, bureaucratized way, and effective democratic systems have: 1. Political parties that represent different outlooks, thereby creating choice for voters, and 2. Political leaders with imagination and courage to escape bureaucracy. Joseph Schumpeter echoed Weber’s viewpoints and added that democracy is about the rule of the politician rather than the people. I agree with these points, but the following theories encompass even more information.

The pluralist theory accepts Weber’s beliefs in that individuals have little or no direct influence on political decision making, but pluralism proposes that individuals can exercise influence through the presence of interest groups, or groups organized to pursue specific interests in the political arena, operating primarily by lobbying the members of legislative bodies. These competing interest groups are vital to democracy as they divide power and prevent any one particular group from becoming too powerful including the government. While I agree that this theory holds many truths, I think the following theory makes the most sense.

           The Power Elite was a work by C. Wright Mills that explains how the United States has changed during the twenty-first century. I agree most with this theory because it cites how our nation has changed in terms of politics, economics, and military. For example, in terms of the economy, small units, businesses, banks, and farms used to be more prevalent, but now our society is dominated by many large corporations, and I think this is an accurate statement. Mills explains that political, economic, and military spheres have become more centralized and have merged into a unified system of power, and those who hold the most power in running the country are called the power elite. Mills explains that power is divided as such: the power elite (wealthy families and political leaders from upscale, prestigious backgrounds. They are closely connected, work together, and have considerable influence in power and policies), interest groups and local government agencies, and at the lowest, the rest of the population, which has little or no power due to the closed settings of the power elite. I agree with this division because I think wealthy, government officials hold the most power due to their close-knit connections and upscale backgrounds, followed by people in interest groups who seek to lobby and manipulate the power elite, and finally the rest of the population, which has little power except voting for a candidate whose policies are already predetermined by interest groups. 

     I think that for a democracy being showcased as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” it is rather unequal in its manipulative structure of power and influence. 

Haha, this cartoon may be unfair and wrong, but I couldn't help but giggle.

 

Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

 Wow. I did not know all of this information about Wal-Mart. When I think of Wal-Mart, I have fond memories of excitedly walking into the store with my mom as a little girl and receiving a yellow, smiley face sticker. I adored those stickers. Lo and behold, this low price store is practically a monopoly, and definitely an oligopoly because it has severely dictated the terms in which it purchases materials from its suppliers.

While the low prices and “one-stop shop” of Wal-Mart makes it a convenient choice for consumers, I do not think Wal-Mart is good for America. Wal-Mart has encouraged trading with China, and China provides 80% of Wal-Mart’s imports. However, Wal-Mart has exploited China country and its workers workers in the process.  One woman in Long Beach, California said they receive $36 billion in imports from China, and only export $3 billion to provide China with supplies for products.  That doesn’t seem right, and as many people throughout the program said, this setup is a better deal for the importer.

Meanwhile, the workers in China, who “are determined to move forward” and “will do anything to move forward” only work for 50 cents an hour, but usually 25-30 cents an hour, and must work long hours to keep up with rapid rates of production.  This is completely immoral, but there is nothing the Chinese can do about it since labor unions are illegal in their country, as our textbook writes.

These ties with China have also proved to be detrimental to America. Wal-Mart’s low prices attract many customers, but this threatens other American businesses, causing many of them to fail. Wal-Mart also makes strict demands upon its suppliers. For example, Rubbermaid makes plastic, and when the cost of resin increased, Rubbermaid was forced to increase the cost of its products, but Wal-Mart would not accept this and Rubbermaid eventually closed. Upon being asked if he would work for Wal-Mart, a man said no because the low prices and cheap foreign imports are putting other American businesses and workers out of business.

While Wal-Mart has used the brilliant “pull” technique of telling manufacturers what to produce based upon what products are being purchased the most, and has capitalized its success upon showcasing low, opening prices at rock-bottom amounts to lure customers, I do not think the corporation is particularly moral or honest. It is taking jobs and businesses away from Americans and American soil and exploiting Chinese workers and the international division of labor in the process.  As Larry Mishel, President of Economic Policy Institute, said, “If people were only consumers buying things, then low prices would be good, but people are also workers who need to earn a decent standard of living,” and the national and global dynamics necessary to create these low prices are detrimental. 

                                 

Domestic Division of Labor

Generally, there is an unequal distribution of domestic labor in households. I find this topic very interesting because I think it something that I (and probably many others) have taken for granted growing up. I always counted on my mom to make dinner, clean, buy presents, make my health appointments, do laundry, go grocery shopping, listen to me talk and engage in meaningful conversation, take me school shopping, etc. etc. etc. (!) I also expected my dad to mow the lawn, kill spiders, pay the bills, (and give in to some ridiculous request when mom had said, "No.") Ms. Lerner makes a very interesting point when she brings up the time frame of tasks. For example, most mothers cook for the family, but there is a time constraint to this. In fact, I know of many families in which the father expects dinner to be ready and waiting when he arrives home from work in the evening. However, men generally have more freedom in their tasks, such as mowing the lawn, and even paying the bills has more flexibility than cooking. The division in the type of tasks is also interesting. Mothers tend to perform creative tasks like cooking, sending holiday cards, and volunteering at school events, as well as many detail-oriented tasks like scheduling doctor appointments and buying presents. Some of these tasks may seem simple or easy, but they require attention and thought. On the contrary, fathers tend to take care of the physical tasks and finances, which corresponds with the belief that men are stronger, more engaged in fixing/completing a task, and mathematically oriented.

I was not surprised by the outcome of my Family Duties chart. As a child, I knew my mother did a lot, and my father mostly took care of finances and grooming the lawn. Thankfully, I believe the division of labor in my family has evened out as my father, brother, and I have gained responsibility and awareness.

It is interesting how expectations differ, however. For example, while I am living at home this year, I essentially operate on my own basis. I grocery shop, cook, and clean for myself. However, when my brother comes home to visit, even though he is older than me, he still expects my mother to have food in the house for him and cook for him. Where did these innate expectations stem from?
I suppose, as Functionalism theorists suggest, that the family fulfills specific needs, and this division of labor ensures smooth operation. However, I think that since everyone eats, everyone should be responsible for their own food. Granted, not children, but once a person is an adult, there isn't any reason why they should be dependent on someone providing food for them. If you can bathe yourself and everything else, then why do you need someone to cook for you? Pardon me while I get off my soapbox...

I think the Feminist approach provides an interesting perspective in examining why these social and structural expectations exist. The Feminist approach also examines the "captive wife" and the effects of "suffocating" family settings, incorporating three key elements: the domestic division of labor, unequal power relationship, and caring activities, which seek to explain the structural phenomena that many families operate upon, seemingly automatically. Most importantly, the theory sheds light on the question of the domestic division of labor emerging from industrialism or patriarchy and how women tend to participate in caring activities, especially because they are emotionally sensitive.

It is thought provoking to consider how this division of domestic labor has originated, why it continues to perpetuate, yet how it may be evolving. I think the evolution of this division is primarily dependent upon the expectations of the man and women involved together, as well as how they decide to raise their children, if they have any.