This week's readings in the last of Hobsbawm's novel was mainly focused on science and revolution. In this final section, Hobsbawn elaborates on the nature of the rise of science and its impact on religion, and subsequently, revolution and war. How are these related, one may ask?
Religion had been the basis of people's beliefs as long as history books were written. People didn't question why the sky was blue or why the grass was green, because the answers were all in whatthe priests told them. All they knew was to go to mass and do their prayer and they would be rewarded in heaven. But all of a sudden, the Scientific Revolution came along and upturned all this earlier religious dependence. People started questioning things, and scientists came up with solid, factual answers to age-old questions. Religion was no longer the panacea to all problems and questions in the world. Therefore, due this rise of the education of the masses, religion began to fall back. As it fell back, it made more room for even more questions by science, leading to more answers and eventually led to more inventions and technology. These new found innovations provided an even greater sense of identity for nations, strengthening nationalism.
There is also the question of revolution. A point, or rather, a question, that was stressed in the book was the reason for why people will revolt. What is the fundamental reason people will rise up and protest something? The answer: dissatisfaction. When someone is dissatisfied with something and feel like the possibility of being satisfied is very well within reach, they will protest and speak out. And if this certain individual gains enough supporters that follow behind his cause, it will become a revolt. The switch from religion to science was a sort of quiet revolution, seeing as the people were no longer satisfied with pat answers like "Because God made it that way." So, they saw satisfaction and cold hard facts in science, and revolting against religion, switched to science as "the favorite."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Week 10 Make Up
In Book lll of "Leo Africanus," the question of identity is discussed. In the book, Hasan takes a new name when he is exiled. If you think about it, our names define who we are. It's our label, what we respond to, who we are know as. To change a name is to change a person's entire identity. So when Hasan changes his name to Leo Africanus, he changes his identity in a way, to become a man of travel instead of a man of nation or tribe. His wish is to put aside the influence of culture and become an unbiased man, able to travel and not be burdened by his past. In my opinion, that is an impossible goal. A person is founded and grounded by what he/she learns in childhood. It is entirely impossible to set that part of yourself aside and pretend to have unbiased accounts and views about certain things when culture will always be a part of you.
Another thing that struck me was the Pope's blatant favoritism towards Leo/Hasan. What made him so special that he was practically treated like a son by the Pope, and regardless of the fact that he was imprisoned, the Pope still took great care in providing for Leo/Hasan's needs and education. The obvious motive would be that the Pope was hoping that when Leo/Hasan got baptized, he would return to his home and bring numerous converts to the Catholic church. But was that the only reason, or did the Holy one have an ulterior motive?
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and found it a) a much easier read that all the other non-fiction narratives assigned earlier on in the semester. The author weaves a riveting tale through which history is also taught, and I found that I retained the same, if not more, information than I normally would with a textbook. It also puts into stark contrast the ways our society today and the society back then clashes. Issues like sexism, polygomy, cultural identity...I would not normally think of those things on a daily basis, but reading about it triggered my thoughts on it and therefore, I thought the book and overall enlightening experience.
Another thing that struck me was the Pope's blatant favoritism towards Leo/Hasan. What made him so special that he was practically treated like a son by the Pope, and regardless of the fact that he was imprisoned, the Pope still took great care in providing for Leo/Hasan's needs and education. The obvious motive would be that the Pope was hoping that when Leo/Hasan got baptized, he would return to his home and bring numerous converts to the Catholic church. But was that the only reason, or did the Holy one have an ulterior motive?
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and found it a) a much easier read that all the other non-fiction narratives assigned earlier on in the semester. The author weaves a riveting tale through which history is also taught, and I found that I retained the same, if not more, information than I normally would with a textbook. It also puts into stark contrast the ways our society today and the society back then clashes. Issues like sexism, polygomy, cultural identity...I would not normally think of those things on a daily basis, but reading about it triggered my thoughts on it and therefore, I thought the book and overall enlightening experience.
Week 8 Make Up
This week's readings was in a new book, "Leo Africanus" by Amin Malalouf. This was was a welcome relief from all the monotonous and confusing textbooks before, and I was still able to learn about the history but through a narrative, a work of fiction, rather than a stuffy textbook.
I thought one of the most interesting things in the reading was the complete and total culture difference. The main character's father has two wives, the favoritism of a son, these are all aspects that shocked me as I read through the beginning of the novel. The father has two wives, the first beign the main character's mother and the second being a slave. Then, when both women become pregnant and eventually give birth, the father openly favors the newborn son and pays much less, if no attention to the infant girl.
This culture shock boggled my mind. In today's society, monogomy is the only option to marriage a large majority of the population knows, and the small percentage that IS aware of polygomy frowsn down upon it as almost unspeakable. But in that society, it was completely acceptable. Also, equality is stressed to almost a breaking point in today's world. But in the novel, the father blatantly prefers the son as opposed to the daughter. Today, fingers would be pointed at him left and right for total and blatant sexism, but back then, it was allowed. This makes me think about the statement "a small world." We think that just because we have all this new technology and avenues of communication that the world has become a smaller place. But has it really? Crucial culture differences such as these cause a major rift between opposing societies. Sexism in one society is seem as the status quo while in another it is considered almost as severe as a crime. How then, can our world become a smaller place when such rifts exist?
I thought one of the most interesting things in the reading was the complete and total culture difference. The main character's father has two wives, the favoritism of a son, these are all aspects that shocked me as I read through the beginning of the novel. The father has two wives, the first beign the main character's mother and the second being a slave. Then, when both women become pregnant and eventually give birth, the father openly favors the newborn son and pays much less, if no attention to the infant girl.
This culture shock boggled my mind. In today's society, monogomy is the only option to marriage a large majority of the population knows, and the small percentage that IS aware of polygomy frowsn down upon it as almost unspeakable. But in that society, it was completely acceptable. Also, equality is stressed to almost a breaking point in today's world. But in the novel, the father blatantly prefers the son as opposed to the daughter. Today, fingers would be pointed at him left and right for total and blatant sexism, but back then, it was allowed. This makes me think about the statement "a small world." We think that just because we have all this new technology and avenues of communication that the world has become a smaller place. But has it really? Crucial culture differences such as these cause a major rift between opposing societies. Sexism in one society is seem as the status quo while in another it is considered almost as severe as a crime. How then, can our world become a smaller place when such rifts exist?
Week 6 Make Up
In this week's reading of "The Age of Empire," Hobsbawm discusses the rise of nationalism and along with that, the rise of women's roles in society. During the late 1800's until the early 1900's, the idea of nationalism began to form. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, nationalism is "national spirit or aspirations" or "the devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism." This concept did not exist before and so when German citizens thought of themselves as Germans and Italian citizens thought of themselves as Italians, it was never before seen. People now had pride for their own country, and patriotism arose. Of course, there were certain countries that did not follow the crowd and go along with the idea of nationalism. The United Kingdom was one example. The different municipalities of the UK did not want to identify with England and continued to speak their own language and/or dialect.
There was also much discussion about the rising role of women during this time period. This was known as the age of the "new woman." Due to industrialization and urbanization, the life expectancy was now much longer therefore women postponed the age of marriage, leaving more time for their own success. Women started entering the work force, claiming and holding jobs to put food on the table, along with their husbands. The birth rate also declined significantly due to the leaving a better standard of living considering the drop in the household number of mouths to feed. Women now felt empowered, and seeing that they were now equal in the fact that women now could "bring home the bacon," women began to fight for equal fights. This led to a series of struggles and contraversies that eventually and painstakingly led to the emancipation of women. Thus, the "new woman" was created.
I think it is very interesting how time moved throughout this whole period. Things were going relatively slowly during the wars and the movement of globalization, with trading and such. And suddenly, due to just a few inventions, it seems as if society exploded. Age-old traditions were broken and completely rewritten, and the status quo was abolished and redone so many times that the original can hardly be recognized. Even something as simple as a state of mine (ie nationalism) caused such an upheaval that even the traditional role of genders was turned upside down and inside out. It is a little intimidating to think that something seemingly small and insignificant will be discovered in the near future and transform society as we know it.
There was also much discussion about the rising role of women during this time period. This was known as the age of the "new woman." Due to industrialization and urbanization, the life expectancy was now much longer therefore women postponed the age of marriage, leaving more time for their own success. Women started entering the work force, claiming and holding jobs to put food on the table, along with their husbands. The birth rate also declined significantly due to the leaving a better standard of living considering the drop in the household number of mouths to feed. Women now felt empowered, and seeing that they were now equal in the fact that women now could "bring home the bacon," women began to fight for equal fights. This led to a series of struggles and contraversies that eventually and painstakingly led to the emancipation of women. Thus, the "new woman" was created.
I think it is very interesting how time moved throughout this whole period. Things were going relatively slowly during the wars and the movement of globalization, with trading and such. And suddenly, due to just a few inventions, it seems as if society exploded. Age-old traditions were broken and completely rewritten, and the status quo was abolished and redone so many times that the original can hardly be recognized. Even something as simple as a state of mine (ie nationalism) caused such an upheaval that even the traditional role of genders was turned upside down and inside out. It is a little intimidating to think that something seemingly small and insignificant will be discovered in the near future and transform society as we know it.
Blog 7
During the readings for this week we continued reading the book by Hobsbawn. He continued to tell of the growing European powers and how it lead to social stratification. Eventually recognizing the social stratification led to a revolution. A revolution can go either one of two ways. It can lead to a change in thought, therefore chosing to live life differently because of the change or its a further reinforcement of tradition. During this revolution, it was all about science and technological advances. medicine, sociology, technology, and other sciences were all pushed to the extremes. People became fascinated with science, it was almost like science was magic. Hobsbawn called science the king of mental domain. People finally were able to separate their faith and their reason.
I remember having a discussion in class about technology during this time and why people of this time put so much emphasis in trying to advance it. I could understand why and how people were so interested because they never seen anything like it because during those times there seemed to be no explanations to certain events. Now when things that seem to be magic, people of our time can attribute it to some type of scientific fact.
I remember having a discussion in class about technology during this time and why people of this time put so much emphasis in trying to advance it. I could understand why and how people were so interested because they never seen anything like it because during those times there seemed to be no explanations to certain events. Now when things that seem to be magic, people of our time can attribute it to some type of scientific fact.
Week 5 Make Up Post
In this week's reading, Hobsbawm discusses the rise of the proletariat and the shift of power to the rising phenomenon of democracy. Throughout the late 1800's to the early 1900's, there was a dramatic shift in world politics as the proletariat, or the "working class" slowly rose to power, therefore creating a resurgence in the ideal of democracy. There are many reasons for this shift, but much of it is just a simple case of cause and effect.
Industrialization caused urbanization, and as more and more new inventions were being discovered, the farms and peasant from the countryside knew a good opportunity when they saw one. A shift of the masses occurred as the industrialized cities became more and more populated, filling up with small-town folk hoping to make a more comfortable living. As the cities got more crowded, a sense of togetherness began to form and the people soon started forming trade unions, workers movements, and then eventually even political parties to make their voices known. When changes began to happen, the "proletariat" realized the capacity for change and their power over that capacity, and thus arose democracy.
In today's world, democracy is treated completely differently. Instead of being chosen by the people to adopt democratic ideals, it is forced upon some people. America, being the light and beacon of democracy, is now trying to enforce i in other countries. It thinks that because democracy worked for America, it should work for every other country as well. But, as seen in the case of the War in Iraq, such beliefs do not hold against contestation. Other countries did not go through the process that America did in following democracy, therefore it is both unfair and unpractical to force this political theory on other countries. Thoughts?
Industrialization caused urbanization, and as more and more new inventions were being discovered, the farms and peasant from the countryside knew a good opportunity when they saw one. A shift of the masses occurred as the industrialized cities became more and more populated, filling up with small-town folk hoping to make a more comfortable living. As the cities got more crowded, a sense of togetherness began to form and the people soon started forming trade unions, workers movements, and then eventually even political parties to make their voices known. When changes began to happen, the "proletariat" realized the capacity for change and their power over that capacity, and thus arose democracy.
In today's world, democracy is treated completely differently. Instead of being chosen by the people to adopt democratic ideals, it is forced upon some people. America, being the light and beacon of democracy, is now trying to enforce i in other countries. It thinks that because democracy worked for America, it should work for every other country as well. But, as seen in the case of the War in Iraq, such beliefs do not hold against contestation. Other countries did not go through the process that America did in following democracy, therefore it is both unfair and unpractical to force this political theory on other countries. Thoughts?
Blog 4
During this week we finished the book Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawn. It basically described the world druing the time period of 1875 – 1914. The booked talked alot about imperialism and specifically how it affected the United Kingdom. Initially, iimperialism was thought of as being postive and a step in the right direction towards a united country. It had a HUGE economic and a HUGE cultural impact. Even though it made these positive advances, it did not help the relationship between the metropoles and dependencies. Britain created a new imperialist expansion with South Africa being its main comepetition. Britains, seemingly, easy success was due to the exploitation of Britain's already existing position as a BIG TIME inporter. South Africa, India, and Egypt were all independent projects for Britain. With imperialism, Britain took a large share of the new regions. therefore gaining control of its biggest competition by controlling the dense parts of Africa.
This book taught me alot about imperialism and its purpose. Although it was indeed a strong and smart thing to do during this time; I am happy it did not make it to modern society's of today, such as America. I really did like this book, well the things i remembered, and i think future classes can definitely benefit from this book and the things it talks about. It provides alot of knowledge
This book taught me alot about imperialism and its purpose. Although it was indeed a strong and smart thing to do during this time; I am happy it did not make it to modern society's of today, such as America. I really did like this book, well the things i remembered, and i think future classes can definitely benefit from this book and the things it talks about. It provides alot of knowledge
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Cyberspace
I find that the internet is a great thing with millions of possibilities. The internet is still a very young invention and still has a far way to go before all the information in different books and such can be found on there, but I feel that it will not be long before everything can be found. I found it interesting that in the movie Cyberspace declaration of independence that it was said the way information is regulated on the internet is wrong. I believe that technology is developing at rate that is suitable with everything that is going on in the world. I also believe that the video format made it hard to take the point of the video seriously. I do find that both patents and laws are very good things. Some information needs to be protected. I think some people can not handle having certain information at their fingertips because they may misuse it. I feel that because people invented the internet that they should be allowed to regulate it. I find that the government regulates everything else so it shouldn't be a surprise that the internet is. I feel that as time passes and technology advances certain copy writes will not be needed.
-Teresa Green
-Teresa Green
Week 4 Make Up
This week's readings come from Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Empire," and focused primarily on the Europe's reign of world power throughout the 20th century. This power was primarily due to drastic changes in population count, technology, communication and transportation, and the connection between politics and economics. The series of changing events went something a little like this:
New inventions and rapid industry growth led to the economic boom of big and/or major cities. This in turn led to major population growth as more and more people moved to the cities and the boom caused the increased population to thrive. The people were looking for new jobs in these industrialized cities but anoher reason they fled from the rural areas was because moving had become so much easier. With increased transportation fashions, ie advanced railway systems and new found inventions like the steamboat, more and more people made the move the major cities. This major population shift also caused overpopulation, something no one had ever heard of before.
This got me thinking. One little rift in history can cause so many different and perhaps unforseen waves and ripples in the following years. And as much as the society back then and society now are different, some parallels can still be drawn. Back in the 20th century, the invention of the steamboat resulted (indirectly) in the creation of overpopulation. But now, invention like the telephone and the television and now the cellphone have resulted in world-wide connections. With a few numbers, a person in America can ask a person in Beijing what the weather is like. Circumstances like these could have never have been imagined back when the steamboats were first invented. Yet, noting the differences, the similarities in the impact these inventions made on society are still just as significant.
New inventions and rapid industry growth led to the economic boom of big and/or major cities. This in turn led to major population growth as more and more people moved to the cities and the boom caused the increased population to thrive. The people were looking for new jobs in these industrialized cities but anoher reason they fled from the rural areas was because moving had become so much easier. With increased transportation fashions, ie advanced railway systems and new found inventions like the steamboat, more and more people made the move the major cities. This major population shift also caused overpopulation, something no one had ever heard of before.
This got me thinking. One little rift in history can cause so many different and perhaps unforseen waves and ripples in the following years. And as much as the society back then and society now are different, some parallels can still be drawn. Back in the 20th century, the invention of the steamboat resulted (indirectly) in the creation of overpopulation. But now, invention like the telephone and the television and now the cellphone have resulted in world-wide connections. With a few numbers, a person in America can ask a person in Beijing what the weather is like. Circumstances like these could have never have been imagined back when the steamboats were first invented. Yet, noting the differences, the similarities in the impact these inventions made on society are still just as significant.
Week 3 Make Up Post
This week, Abu-Lughod talks about the history of trade from the Mongols to the Cairo region, the Indian Ocean to China. What I found especially interesting was how she stressed interconnection throughout that time period, and even more interesting, how there was no one, defined world power, no single world hegemony. She describes the possible candidates for the spot, though: China and India.
India was in the perfect position to become a world hegemony. It was the bottleneck and bridge between the two different parts of the Indian Ocean, the Eastern and the Western. Therefore, this meant that a large majority of traders had to move through India to accomplish their trade routes, therefore leaving much much rich, cultural residue in India and also providing it with an economical boost. Trading was highly crucial back then and therefore having control over basically an entire trade route put India in a very powerful position. But, even so, India did not take its chance in becoming a world hegemony. Even though they were powerful, they held no desire to expand. India was very content with their situation and had no desire, need, or will to fend off the troubles that would come with being a world hegemony. Subsequently, the Black Death arrived and with the onslaught of other economic problems, India lost their opportunity.
China also had the opportunity to rise and become a world hegemony, but due to a number of reasons, it did not. It had the perfect opportunity too, but at the end of the day, it did not have the desire to become so powerful of an influence in the trading world. This made me wonder, though. Why exactly did China withdraw? It had all the promise and hopes of becoming a world power, with military power that no one could compete with, solid economic foundations and technological advances that no other country at the time could even come close to. Why then, did China back down?
India was in the perfect position to become a world hegemony. It was the bottleneck and bridge between the two different parts of the Indian Ocean, the Eastern and the Western. Therefore, this meant that a large majority of traders had to move through India to accomplish their trade routes, therefore leaving much much rich, cultural residue in India and also providing it with an economical boost. Trading was highly crucial back then and therefore having control over basically an entire trade route put India in a very powerful position. But, even so, India did not take its chance in becoming a world hegemony. Even though they were powerful, they held no desire to expand. India was very content with their situation and had no desire, need, or will to fend off the troubles that would come with being a world hegemony. Subsequently, the Black Death arrived and with the onslaught of other economic problems, India lost their opportunity.
China also had the opportunity to rise and become a world hegemony, but due to a number of reasons, it did not. It had the perfect opportunity too, but at the end of the day, it did not have the desire to become so powerful of an influence in the trading world. This made me wonder, though. Why exactly did China withdraw? It had all the promise and hopes of becoming a world power, with military power that no one could compete with, solid economic foundations and technological advances that no other country at the time could even come close to. Why then, did China back down?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Week 1
The first week of classes we were introduced to the book Before European Hegemony. The demise of the economy and the many barbaric invasions is what eventually led to the fall of the empire. The invasions began in the 3rd century between the German and the Romans in Europe. The fifth centur is when the invasions that held the most weight occurred. Invasions before this were not as successful. By the end of the 5th century the fall of the empire began to heavily take place and Northwestern Europe was becoming more apparent that it is separate from the rest of the country.
Due to the invasions the Government quickly loss controll. It was not "central" anymore , therefore causing friction between different groups. In the 8th century Charlemagne became emperor. He took advantage of the church to try to regain control of the government and the rest of the political system. It became a long slow process and Charlemagne ended up dying and the empire crashed once again. It seemed as though a "key saviour" in establishing Europe as a substantial power was the introduction into feudalism. Feudalism really helped Europe rise back to a place of influence. It allowed trading centers and exchanges to take place. By the 11th century Europe became more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. Population all over the country began to spark in response to these new changes and different patterns.
The “fall” occurred due to many events not just one single event. It also took a long time to occurr. It didnt just happen over night. It took centuries! Charlemagne got the ball rolling slowly but feudalism gave the ball the kick that it needed to pick up momentum.”
Due to the invasions the Government quickly loss controll. It was not "central" anymore , therefore causing friction between different groups. In the 8th century Charlemagne became emperor. He took advantage of the church to try to regain control of the government and the rest of the political system. It became a long slow process and Charlemagne ended up dying and the empire crashed once again. It seemed as though a "key saviour" in establishing Europe as a substantial power was the introduction into feudalism. Feudalism really helped Europe rise back to a place of influence. It allowed trading centers and exchanges to take place. By the 11th century Europe became more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. Population all over the country began to spark in response to these new changes and different patterns.
The “fall” occurred due to many events not just one single event. It also took a long time to occurr. It didnt just happen over night. It took centuries! Charlemagne got the ball rolling slowly but feudalism gave the ball the kick that it needed to pick up momentum.”
Thursday, December 17, 2009
week 13
Neoliberalism
This week’s reading was about neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is simply a ‘new’ kind of liberalism. “Liberalism” can refer to politics, the economy, or religion – among many other things – and is progressive in comparison to conservative methods. The main theme of liberalism is free trade. Neo-liberalism has developed from liberalism, and can be seen in the economic policies of the last 25 years or so. Many Americans believe that neo-liberalism policies are a means of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The main points of neo-liberalism include: rule of the mark; cutting public expenditure for social services, deregulation, privatization, and eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376). Rule of the market in terms of neo-liberalism means total freedom of trade for capital, good, and services. This method of trade is intended to benefit everyone by increasing economic growth via an unregulated market. Cutting price expenditures for social services refers to services such as education, healthcare, and healthcare, and decreases the government’s role in each sector. Deregulation is the process of reducing government regulation of anything that could reduce profits. Privatization is the process of selling state-owned enterprises, goods, and services to private investors. Privatization has led to a concentration of wealth in a small number of people. Eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” refers to neo-liberalism replacing the two with individual responsibility. This process takes responsibility away from the government and into the hands of the individual, forcing people to find their own solutions for problems such as health care, education, and social security.
Neo-liberalism is especially evident in Latin American, which is what the article by Patomaki and Teivainen focuses on. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the most common political theoretical response to the process of globalization is the theory of cosmopolitan democracy. Cosmopolitan democracy holds that globalization forces individuals to rethink the political community within which our democratic ideal and aspirations can be realized. Many models of cosmopolitan democracy, however, are partially detached from real world historical processes. In their article, Patomaki and Teivainen detail why they believe it important to redefine the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy in political economy terms.
As noted, many models of cosmopolitan democracy are often detached from real world historical processes. Held developed a model of cosmopolitan democracy that was greatly influenced by the European integration process, and is therefore very Eurocentric and partically detached from many real world historical processes, such as those present in Latin America. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that this has at least three consequences:
1) it lacks an account of what is going on in different sectors of the globalizing world
2) it excludes the process of transformation towards 'cosmopolitan democracy’
3) it is not as open-ended as such a model should be
In addition to these three consequences, it can give rise to negative effects of power because it is based solely on reflections of European experiences. The Mercosur region of Latin American was found in 1991, and is partially modeled on the European Union. Mercosur, however, is very different from that of Europe and is a prime example of why Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy should be redefined in political economy terms to FIT the real world processes of that particular economy.
This week’s reading was about neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is simply a ‘new’ kind of liberalism. “Liberalism” can refer to politics, the economy, or religion – among many other things – and is progressive in comparison to conservative methods. The main theme of liberalism is free trade. Neo-liberalism has developed from liberalism, and can be seen in the economic policies of the last 25 years or so. Many Americans believe that neo-liberalism policies are a means of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The main points of neo-liberalism include: rule of the mark; cutting public expenditure for social services, deregulation, privatization, and eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376). Rule of the market in terms of neo-liberalism means total freedom of trade for capital, good, and services. This method of trade is intended to benefit everyone by increasing economic growth via an unregulated market. Cutting price expenditures for social services refers to services such as education, healthcare, and healthcare, and decreases the government’s role in each sector. Deregulation is the process of reducing government regulation of anything that could reduce profits. Privatization is the process of selling state-owned enterprises, goods, and services to private investors. Privatization has led to a concentration of wealth in a small number of people. Eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” refers to neo-liberalism replacing the two with individual responsibility. This process takes responsibility away from the government and into the hands of the individual, forcing people to find their own solutions for problems such as health care, education, and social security.
Neo-liberalism is especially evident in Latin American, which is what the article by Patomaki and Teivainen focuses on. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the most common political theoretical response to the process of globalization is the theory of cosmopolitan democracy. Cosmopolitan democracy holds that globalization forces individuals to rethink the political community within which our democratic ideal and aspirations can be realized. Many models of cosmopolitan democracy, however, are partially detached from real world historical processes. In their article, Patomaki and Teivainen detail why they believe it important to redefine the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy in political economy terms.
As noted, many models of cosmopolitan democracy are often detached from real world historical processes. Held developed a model of cosmopolitan democracy that was greatly influenced by the European integration process, and is therefore very Eurocentric and partically detached from many real world historical processes, such as those present in Latin America. Patomaki and Teivainen argue that this has at least three consequences:
1) it lacks an account of what is going on in different sectors of the globalizing world
2) it excludes the process of transformation towards 'cosmopolitan democracy’
3) it is not as open-ended as such a model should be
In addition to these three consequences, it can give rise to negative effects of power because it is based solely on reflections of European experiences. The Mercosur region of Latin American was found in 1991, and is partially modeled on the European Union. Mercosur, however, is very different from that of Europe and is a prime example of why Patomaki and Teivainen argue that the conceptual basis for cosmopolitan democracy should be redefined in political economy terms to FIT the real world processes of that particular economy.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
week 12
Postnationalism
In this week’s reading, Mohammed A. Bamyeh discusses post nationalism. Post nationalism came about to replace nationalism in Europe after it reached its demise, and today, the European Union has the most advanced institution of post nationalism in the world. Bamyeh highlights two major distinctions between nationalism and post nationalism, being their relation to value judgments and multiplicity of forms. Nationalism tends to always be looked at from a moral standpoint (good vs. evil), as its history shaped and continues to shape our perspectives and opinions on it today. Post nationalism, on the other hand, escapes the limit of moral judgment because it has no major history yet, and is just beginning to unfold. Post nationalism also escapes the limit of having to impose a single ethnocentric form upon it, because it offers multiple venues for solidarity. Conversely, nationalism was always singular in character, and spread throughout the world in the form of an exact replica of the model used in Europe. This replication of solidarity resulted in such things as war and ethnic cleansing, and Bamyeh suggests that nationalism is by “far the most destructive ideology ever experienced by humanity.” He argues that today’s form of globalization, post nationalism, is far more promising than nationalism, because it reintroduces alternative modes of conglomeration and solidarity.
Post nationalism is concerned with the way questions of collective identity are reworked and refers to frames of solidarity offering themselves as alternatives to nationalism. Post nationalism is a more specific outcome of globalization; it seeks to find alternatives to modern nations and states and seeks to transcend the limits of defining group identity by nationality and political form by the modern state. Bamyeh says that there are three common features of a post national culture, which include:
1) Post national culture is perspectively fragmented rather than wholistic
2) Post national culture is not congruent with state ideology
3) Post national culture approaches all given identities as restraints and
emphasizes expansive action in the world
Bamyeh also says that there are four types of post national solidarity, and goes one to describe each one. Spiritual solidarities represent the global growth of religious solidarities, and are characterized by religious fervor as a means to accomplish a global mission. The second type, material solidarity, represents the global connections between people, mainly concentrated in society’s professional classes, that foster an interconnected global life. Humanist solidarities represent the idea of human interest as a basis for solidarity. Humanistic solidarities believe that global humanistic causes can be articulated in broader terms than economic interest to the self and beyond national borders, and strive to do so. The last type of post national solidarity is the life-emancipatory solidarity. This type emphasizes liberation and modes of expression that are restricted within a society. Life-emancipatory solidarities encourage movements oriented toward individual freedom to pursue lifestyles or choices that contradict mainstream cultural patterns.
All in all, post nationalism is in the works to replace nationalism. Bamyeh made a statement to help explain why the transition to post nationalism is taking place, and it really helped me understand the way institutions in the world work. He stated that there are “less audible social formations which, in due time, assert themselves because they better correspond to the realities of their age than do established institutions and discourses.” This really made sense to me, because times do change, and it only makes sense that the institutions that govern society change as well.
In this week’s reading, Mohammed A. Bamyeh discusses post nationalism. Post nationalism came about to replace nationalism in Europe after it reached its demise, and today, the European Union has the most advanced institution of post nationalism in the world. Bamyeh highlights two major distinctions between nationalism and post nationalism, being their relation to value judgments and multiplicity of forms. Nationalism tends to always be looked at from a moral standpoint (good vs. evil), as its history shaped and continues to shape our perspectives and opinions on it today. Post nationalism, on the other hand, escapes the limit of moral judgment because it has no major history yet, and is just beginning to unfold. Post nationalism also escapes the limit of having to impose a single ethnocentric form upon it, because it offers multiple venues for solidarity. Conversely, nationalism was always singular in character, and spread throughout the world in the form of an exact replica of the model used in Europe. This replication of solidarity resulted in such things as war and ethnic cleansing, and Bamyeh suggests that nationalism is by “far the most destructive ideology ever experienced by humanity.” He argues that today’s form of globalization, post nationalism, is far more promising than nationalism, because it reintroduces alternative modes of conglomeration and solidarity.
Post nationalism is concerned with the way questions of collective identity are reworked and refers to frames of solidarity offering themselves as alternatives to nationalism. Post nationalism is a more specific outcome of globalization; it seeks to find alternatives to modern nations and states and seeks to transcend the limits of defining group identity by nationality and political form by the modern state. Bamyeh says that there are three common features of a post national culture, which include:
1) Post national culture is perspectively fragmented rather than wholistic
2) Post national culture is not congruent with state ideology
3) Post national culture approaches all given identities as restraints and
emphasizes expansive action in the world
Bamyeh also says that there are four types of post national solidarity, and goes one to describe each one. Spiritual solidarities represent the global growth of religious solidarities, and are characterized by religious fervor as a means to accomplish a global mission. The second type, material solidarity, represents the global connections between people, mainly concentrated in society’s professional classes, that foster an interconnected global life. Humanist solidarities represent the idea of human interest as a basis for solidarity. Humanistic solidarities believe that global humanistic causes can be articulated in broader terms than economic interest to the self and beyond national borders, and strive to do so. The last type of post national solidarity is the life-emancipatory solidarity. This type emphasizes liberation and modes of expression that are restricted within a society. Life-emancipatory solidarities encourage movements oriented toward individual freedom to pursue lifestyles or choices that contradict mainstream cultural patterns.
All in all, post nationalism is in the works to replace nationalism. Bamyeh made a statement to help explain why the transition to post nationalism is taking place, and it really helped me understand the way institutions in the world work. He stated that there are “less audible social formations which, in due time, assert themselves because they better correspond to the realities of their age than do established institutions and discourses.” This really made sense to me, because times do change, and it only makes sense that the institutions that govern society change as well.
Week 8
Leo Africanus
Leo Africanus begins with Leo describing the relationship between his mother and father and how he came to be born. He tells readers that when he was born his father was overwhelmed with joy, but it was nothing in comparison to the joy his mother felt. When I first read this, I assumed his mother, Salma, was more joyous simply because she is a woman; women bear their unborn child for 9 months, which usually results in a stronger emotional connection to their young, and women are generally more emotional anyway. Salma’s joy was indeed distinct from Leo’s father, Muhammad, because of their gender, but not for the reasons I expected.
Leo goes on to tell readers that his mother and father are actually cousins, who were betrothed to each other at since childhood, and married four years prior to his birth. A mere two years after their marriage, Muhammad brought home a mistress he called Warda, who was beautiful and young. Salma takes over narration at this point. She explains that she was free, and that Warda was slave. Because Warda was a slave, however, she was able to express more freedom than Salma; “she could go out unveiled, sing, dance, pour wine, wink her eyes, and take off her clothes.” Salma could do none of these things as a married woman, and was even supposed to refrain from showing any interest at all in her husband’s pleasures. She tells us that Muhammad would call her “my cousin” and that at the end of the night, it was Warda, not herself, who went to bed with her husband. This description highlights the dynamics between Leo’s parents and his father’s mistress, and gave me the impression that Leo’s mother was very alone before his birth.
Salma then goes on to explain how she became pregnant with Leo. Her friend Sarah came over one day and say how unhappy she was in her present living situation with her husband. Sarah gave Salma a potion, and told her to pour it into Muhammad’s glass that night, after three nights, and again after seven. Salma did so, and within a few weeks she found herself pregnant. Salma was ecstatic, because she knew a child meant that Muhammad would be there for many years to come. Even this failed to ease the tension Salma felt towards her husband, however, as Warda was also pregnant and whoever birthed the first son would give Muhammad his legacy.
This insight to Salma’s situation really made me feel for her. I could not imagine having to: 1) marry my cousin, 2) tolerate my husband having a mistress whom he went to bed with every night, and 3) being nervous that my child would be a girl rather than a boy or be born too late. It is clear to me that Salma is not must unlike other women during her time, and that her worries were the norm. The fact that free women felt less free than slave mistresses is very sad to me; almost as sad as the fact that there actually were slaves. Reading this section really made me appreciate the rights that women have today and the fact that relationships in this day and age are so different from what they were in terms of gender roles.
Leo Africanus begins with Leo describing the relationship between his mother and father and how he came to be born. He tells readers that when he was born his father was overwhelmed with joy, but it was nothing in comparison to the joy his mother felt. When I first read this, I assumed his mother, Salma, was more joyous simply because she is a woman; women bear their unborn child for 9 months, which usually results in a stronger emotional connection to their young, and women are generally more emotional anyway. Salma’s joy was indeed distinct from Leo’s father, Muhammad, because of their gender, but not for the reasons I expected.
Leo goes on to tell readers that his mother and father are actually cousins, who were betrothed to each other at since childhood, and married four years prior to his birth. A mere two years after their marriage, Muhammad brought home a mistress he called Warda, who was beautiful and young. Salma takes over narration at this point. She explains that she was free, and that Warda was slave. Because Warda was a slave, however, she was able to express more freedom than Salma; “she could go out unveiled, sing, dance, pour wine, wink her eyes, and take off her clothes.” Salma could do none of these things as a married woman, and was even supposed to refrain from showing any interest at all in her husband’s pleasures. She tells us that Muhammad would call her “my cousin” and that at the end of the night, it was Warda, not herself, who went to bed with her husband. This description highlights the dynamics between Leo’s parents and his father’s mistress, and gave me the impression that Leo’s mother was very alone before his birth.
Salma then goes on to explain how she became pregnant with Leo. Her friend Sarah came over one day and say how unhappy she was in her present living situation with her husband. Sarah gave Salma a potion, and told her to pour it into Muhammad’s glass that night, after three nights, and again after seven. Salma did so, and within a few weeks she found herself pregnant. Salma was ecstatic, because she knew a child meant that Muhammad would be there for many years to come. Even this failed to ease the tension Salma felt towards her husband, however, as Warda was also pregnant and whoever birthed the first son would give Muhammad his legacy.
This insight to Salma’s situation really made me feel for her. I could not imagine having to: 1) marry my cousin, 2) tolerate my husband having a mistress whom he went to bed with every night, and 3) being nervous that my child would be a girl rather than a boy or be born too late. It is clear to me that Salma is not must unlike other women during her time, and that her worries were the norm. The fact that free women felt less free than slave mistresses is very sad to me; almost as sad as the fact that there actually were slaves. Reading this section really made me appreciate the rights that women have today and the fact that relationships in this day and age are so different from what they were in terms of gender roles.
Week 7
The Age of the Empire
In Chapter 13 of “The Age of the Empire,” Hobsbawm details how the norm in Europe shifted from peace to violence. Prior to 1914, peace was the norm and was expected by Europeans. Since 1914, however, Europe has been plagued with world war after world war. Hobsbawm notes that since 1914, most Europeans over the age of seventy have passed through at least two wars over the course of their lives, and most over fifty have experienced at least one. In great contrast to this, from the period of 1815 to 1914 there were no wars involving European powers, and it was most likely because of this that no one expected a world war to breakout, despite it being forseen.
Beginning around 1870, Europeans expressed the likelihood of a future war, and the chances of a world war were made apparent. The concerns about war were well heard, and in the 1890’s, the World Peace Congress was established.
In the 1900s, the likelihood of war was drawing nearer and in the 1910s, its nearness was taken for granted, as many statesmen still did not believe a world war would ensue. It did. There was an international crisis in July of 1914, where international leaders met to deter a world war. The leaders were troubled at the state of the world, but believed that a peaceful solution could be made and the crisis would deteriorate, ending the possibility of a world war.
The optimism of leaders was most likely due to the fact that war was utterly non-existent in Europe for over a century. Today, I cannot even fathom world leaders meeting to discuss the threat of an upcoming world war, and be so confident to believe that no war would ever ensue. I believe if our leaders took on this optimistic attitude, they would be criticized by citizens and actually seen as a threat themselves. Do you think that this shift in attitudes took place because of the shift in history from peace to war that took place during the 1800 and 1900s?
In Chapter 13 of “The Age of the Empire,” Hobsbawm details how the norm in Europe shifted from peace to violence. Prior to 1914, peace was the norm and was expected by Europeans. Since 1914, however, Europe has been plagued with world war after world war. Hobsbawm notes that since 1914, most Europeans over the age of seventy have passed through at least two wars over the course of their lives, and most over fifty have experienced at least one. In great contrast to this, from the period of 1815 to 1914 there were no wars involving European powers, and it was most likely because of this that no one expected a world war to breakout, despite it being forseen.
Beginning around 1870, Europeans expressed the likelihood of a future war, and the chances of a world war were made apparent. The concerns about war were well heard, and in the 1890’s, the World Peace Congress was established.
In the 1900s, the likelihood of war was drawing nearer and in the 1910s, its nearness was taken for granted, as many statesmen still did not believe a world war would ensue. It did. There was an international crisis in July of 1914, where international leaders met to deter a world war. The leaders were troubled at the state of the world, but believed that a peaceful solution could be made and the crisis would deteriorate, ending the possibility of a world war.
The optimism of leaders was most likely due to the fact that war was utterly non-existent in Europe for over a century. Today, I cannot even fathom world leaders meeting to discuss the threat of an upcoming world war, and be so confident to believe that no war would ever ensue. I believe if our leaders took on this optimistic attitude, they would be criticized by citizens and actually seen as a threat themselves. Do you think that this shift in attitudes took place because of the shift in history from peace to war that took place during the 1800 and 1900s?
Week 1
Before European Hegemony
In the section “Emergence from Old Empires,” the epic “fall of Rome” was outlined and discussed. I was very intrigued with the timeline of the “fall”, and the different impact it had on northern and southern Europe. The process of the “fall of Rome” took several centuries, and is accredited to a disintegration of the economy and numerous barbaric invasions. These invasions began as early as the third century A.D., when Germanic tribes broke through Roman lines in northwestern Europe. Although this first wave of invasions was unsuccessful, successive ones were not. In the fifth century, several more invasions occurred, and by the end of the century, a unified Roman rule was beginning to demise, and the separation between northwestern Europe and the rest of the continent was becoming clearer.
The continuous invasions on Europe quickly their toll, and the empire regressed on both a political and individual; the government was decentralized and disorganized, and there was far less sophistication across people. Europe suffered gravely, but found hope when the eighth century finally rolled around, and Charlemagne took the title of Emperor of the West. In an attempt to reorganize Europe’s political system, Charlemagne took advantage of the church, which was the institution that retained any unity. It was after this that western Europe began to put back together the pieces of its fragmentation. This rise was rather slow, however. Charlemagne eventually died and the empire again fragmented and fell to attack. At the end of the ninth century, a system of protofeudalism was established, and a century later feudalism became institutionalized. This adoption of feudalism really helped Europe come back from its demise. It enabled small trading centers to operate and exchange took place with merchants who received protection from local lords in exchange for their commercial services.
At the end of the tenth century, invaders (Vikings) turned back, and by the eleventh century, northwestern Europe was becoming more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. This led towns to quickly multiple and there was an internal explosion of population and urbanization that helped doctor that damages that occurred during the “fall of Rome.”
The “fall” took a much larger toll on northwestern Europe, and it is only to this section of Europe that the “Dark Ages” refers to. The “fall” occurred due to a series of events that took place over the course of centuries, more specifically a uniformed government and continual invasions. The efforts of Charlemagne helped initiate Europe’s comeback, especially northwestern Europe’s, and the installment of feudalism was the catalyst to ending the “fall.”
In the section “Emergence from Old Empires,” the epic “fall of Rome” was outlined and discussed. I was very intrigued with the timeline of the “fall”, and the different impact it had on northern and southern Europe. The process of the “fall of Rome” took several centuries, and is accredited to a disintegration of the economy and numerous barbaric invasions. These invasions began as early as the third century A.D., when Germanic tribes broke through Roman lines in northwestern Europe. Although this first wave of invasions was unsuccessful, successive ones were not. In the fifth century, several more invasions occurred, and by the end of the century, a unified Roman rule was beginning to demise, and the separation between northwestern Europe and the rest of the continent was becoming clearer.
The continuous invasions on Europe quickly their toll, and the empire regressed on both a political and individual; the government was decentralized and disorganized, and there was far less sophistication across people. Europe suffered gravely, but found hope when the eighth century finally rolled around, and Charlemagne took the title of Emperor of the West. In an attempt to reorganize Europe’s political system, Charlemagne took advantage of the church, which was the institution that retained any unity. It was after this that western Europe began to put back together the pieces of its fragmentation. This rise was rather slow, however. Charlemagne eventually died and the empire again fragmented and fell to attack. At the end of the ninth century, a system of protofeudalism was established, and a century later feudalism became institutionalized. This adoption of feudalism really helped Europe come back from its demise. It enabled small trading centers to operate and exchange took place with merchants who received protection from local lords in exchange for their commercial services.
At the end of the tenth century, invaders (Vikings) turned back, and by the eleventh century, northwestern Europe was becoming more integrated and producing more goods for exchange. This led towns to quickly multiple and there was an internal explosion of population and urbanization that helped doctor that damages that occurred during the “fall of Rome.”
The “fall” took a much larger toll on northwestern Europe, and it is only to this section of Europe that the “Dark Ages” refers to. The “fall” occurred due to a series of events that took place over the course of centuries, more specifically a uniformed government and continual invasions. The efforts of Charlemagne helped initiate Europe’s comeback, especially northwestern Europe’s, and the installment of feudalism was the catalyst to ending the “fall.”
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is often seen as a derogatory term given to its supporters because opponents use it to highlight the ills of global capitalism and decadent consumer culture. As the name suggests, it is a revival of Liberalism. The ideology states that the state should be kept to a minimum in the lives of the people to allow the most freedom to the individual. Neoliberalism is also closely linked with Laissez-faire economy principles. For Neoliberals, the self-regulating market is very important because if this assumption is false then there would be a bigger role for government.
Neoliberalism tries to embrace the classical liberal views but is more willing to let government have a part to play. Government is useful for regulating the market and is important for things like consumer protection. The goal of neoliberals is to create governments and structures that allow the people to be as free as possible NOT the overall dismissal or monopoly of government that some other political ideologies would promote. In this way, it is a departure from old Keynesianism which sought to increase the power and influence of government in the market. However, government must have some part in the public’s life for any of the liberal goals to be achieved.
Neoliberalism should not be confused with Libertarianism which is a political ideology very close to classical Liberalism that wants little or no government intervention in the publics dealings.
Neoliberalism tries to embrace the classical liberal views but is more willing to let government have a part to play. Government is useful for regulating the market and is important for things like consumer protection. The goal of neoliberals is to create governments and structures that allow the people to be as free as possible NOT the overall dismissal or monopoly of government that some other political ideologies would promote. In this way, it is a departure from old Keynesianism which sought to increase the power and influence of government in the market. However, government must have some part in the public’s life for any of the liberal goals to be achieved.
Neoliberalism should not be confused with Libertarianism which is a political ideology very close to classical Liberalism that wants little or no government intervention in the publics dealings.
xtra credit: wikipedia bias
Every publication is subject to bias and Wikipedia is no different. The fact that much of its content is user created should make most of us think twice before accepting the content as indisputable. However, unlike some other media (such as books and journals) Wikipedia actively seeks out bias and tries to be as much like an encyclopedia as possible. This is because many people would agree that an encyclopedia is as close as one can get to an unbiased source of information.
The simple fact that Wikipedia seeks to be unbiased is an important feature that has allowed it to rise in importance for those wishing to educate themselves. Wikipedia is conscious of its bias and welcomes constructive criticism. In a way, the glaringly obvious biases in some articles on Wikipedia are the cause for observers to question and change the content and keep the Wikipedia experiment alive.
The simple fact that Wikipedia seeks to be unbiased is an important feature that has allowed it to rise in importance for those wishing to educate themselves. Wikipedia is conscious of its bias and welcomes constructive criticism. In a way, the glaringly obvious biases in some articles on Wikipedia are the cause for observers to question and change the content and keep the Wikipedia experiment alive.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
I think that the internet and overall technology are capable of much more than we can even fathom. The declaration condescendingly implies that the way information on the internet is regulated is wrong. I feel that technological progress we as humans have made is where it should be. Personally, my mind would explode if I realized all that is potentially possible with the internet.
The video neglects the notion that humans created the internet, and humans are ruled by governments. We should be able to access what we want to but ultimately the government will regulate access. Governments regulate access to most things anyways. We are not “legally” allowed download music or do drugs but obviously people still find access to drugs and I have an Ipod full of music I didn’t buy. Just because something is regulated doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to access it.
Patents and laws keep us from progressing, which should be good since we “are not welcome” or ready for this future (Implied by video of declaration). I understand that ideally all information and ideas should be accessible; but it would mean ALL information. People would be able to find resources to help others (like a charity organization) as well as how to make biological weapons. I’m really not comfortable with that idea. I don’t trust humanity enough either. Hackers shouldn’t be allowed to alter programs that they don’t create or want to destroy. That’s why if you hack a government website it’s a federal crime. Overall, I just feel that the futuristic world that the video implies is one day possible and that we will get there in time as laws and copyrights change; but, for now the laws should remain until they are not needed to regulate human behavior. .
The video neglects the notion that humans created the internet, and humans are ruled by governments. We should be able to access what we want to but ultimately the government will regulate access. Governments regulate access to most things anyways. We are not “legally” allowed download music or do drugs but obviously people still find access to drugs and I have an Ipod full of music I didn’t buy. Just because something is regulated doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to access it.
Patents and laws keep us from progressing, which should be good since we “are not welcome” or ready for this future (Implied by video of declaration). I understand that ideally all information and ideas should be accessible; but it would mean ALL information. People would be able to find resources to help others (like a charity organization) as well as how to make biological weapons. I’m really not comfortable with that idea. I don’t trust humanity enough either. Hackers shouldn’t be allowed to alter programs that they don’t create or want to destroy. That’s why if you hack a government website it’s a federal crime. Overall, I just feel that the futuristic world that the video implies is one day possible and that we will get there in time as laws and copyrights change; but, for now the laws should remain until they are not needed to regulate human behavior. .
Neoliberalism
This article discusses the emergence and the laissez-faire type ideological principles of neoliberalism and responses to it from South America. Neoliberalism emerged in the 1970s and is based on the idea of a gobal economy becoming necessary. Neoliberalists argue that the best way for the global economy to grow is through free international trade and sound budgets. They propose cuts in welfare spending, low inflation, and the deregulation of the financial markets. The problem with this theory is that it caters to the socio-econmic elite whose position is based on transnational mobility. Smaller poor countries will suffer while the wealthier nations will continue to profit. The idea of neoliberalism seems fair enough. It appears to believe that free trade would give all nations the same opportunity for economic growth and power.
This however, is an ideal that I do not believe would ever materialize. If the markets could somehow run themselves without the intervention of the "human aspect" then perhaps this could actually work; but in actuality, the markets are not run separate of human endeavors and soon the agendas of the larger, more powerful countries would overtake the smaller countries and push them further into poverty. Exploitation has been a constant for centuries that would not all of a sudden disappear and allow the markets to run independent of regulation and be fair. How could anyone still be a proponent of this sort of globalization and trade when we are experiencing now the global recession that was caused by no one watching the markets and allowing those in charge to do whatever they pleased?
This however, is an ideal that I do not believe would ever materialize. If the markets could somehow run themselves without the intervention of the "human aspect" then perhaps this could actually work; but in actuality, the markets are not run separate of human endeavors and soon the agendas of the larger, more powerful countries would overtake the smaller countries and push them further into poverty. Exploitation has been a constant for centuries that would not all of a sudden disappear and allow the markets to run independent of regulation and be fair. How could anyone still be a proponent of this sort of globalization and trade when we are experiencing now the global recession that was caused by no one watching the markets and allowing those in charge to do whatever they pleased?
Post nationalism and transnationalism
The first reading by Bamyeh discusses post-nationalism. Postnationalism refers to the process by which cultural identity has become less important on the grounds of establishing a more global network that integrates political, economic and social ideology. This article goes back to what we talked about during the discussions on nationalism during Hobsbawm's The Age of Empire section in class. Nationalism, as it came to be called in the 19th century, was different than it had been in the past. One of the four "mutations", as they were called, was that the new meaning of nationalism called for defining a nation based on the ethnic and language similarities of the people living in one area. Bamyeh argues that we are now living in a world that is past this sort of nationalistic approach. He uses the example of warfare to illustrate this point. Bamyeh says that wars fought after WWII were not fought on account of nationalism, but fought to preserve the nation as it stood at the time. He pretty much argues that beliefs of cultural superiority are because of the way the world interacts today.
We also discussed transnationalism which seems to stem from the ideas set forth of postnationalism. As we are moving away from our ethnocentric views, there is now more than ever an increased sense of the global community. Transnationalism is pretty much synonymous with globalization. Halle argues that transnationalism was made possible by the communication and information sharing that occurs on the internet. Cultural distinctions are becoming much less important and less clear than they were even 20 years ago as the people across the world enjoy many of the same things. Corportations, restaurant chains and films that were once considered as belonging to one particular culture are now mainstream parts of society in many different places all over the globe.
What I found interesting in this particular section is that transnationalism seem to be phenomena occuring between core nations and peripheral nations alike, but post-nationalism seems to be something that is occurring between the core nations only. For example, places like American Samoa are immersed in culture that has been brought to them by the United States and other powers that had dominated the area during the colonial era. Although Americans may now share a lot of the same mainstream films,restaurants, etc., there are still alot of people who feel as though American or western culture is superior to the cultures of the Pacific. Or take for example, the middle east. Places like Iraq or Syria were major players and seem to be highly important to the development of the modern economic system, Islamic cultures are often portrayed as inferior and less important than western cultures despite the fact many of the same corporations that we are accustomed to in America, also have a presence in the middle eastern countries. The question that I would like to pose is: do you think that we are now living in a truly post-nationalistic world or has transnationalism just diverted our attention away from the nationalistic ideals that had previously consumed the world.
We also discussed transnationalism which seems to stem from the ideas set forth of postnationalism. As we are moving away from our ethnocentric views, there is now more than ever an increased sense of the global community. Transnationalism is pretty much synonymous with globalization. Halle argues that transnationalism was made possible by the communication and information sharing that occurs on the internet. Cultural distinctions are becoming much less important and less clear than they were even 20 years ago as the people across the world enjoy many of the same things. Corportations, restaurant chains and films that were once considered as belonging to one particular culture are now mainstream parts of society in many different places all over the globe.
What I found interesting in this particular section is that transnationalism seem to be phenomena occuring between core nations and peripheral nations alike, but post-nationalism seems to be something that is occurring between the core nations only. For example, places like American Samoa are immersed in culture that has been brought to them by the United States and other powers that had dominated the area during the colonial era. Although Americans may now share a lot of the same mainstream films,restaurants, etc., there are still alot of people who feel as though American or western culture is superior to the cultures of the Pacific. Or take for example, the middle east. Places like Iraq or Syria were major players and seem to be highly important to the development of the modern economic system, Islamic cultures are often portrayed as inferior and less important than western cultures despite the fact many of the same corporations that we are accustomed to in America, also have a presence in the middle eastern countries. The question that I would like to pose is: do you think that we are now living in a truly post-nationalistic world or has transnationalism just diverted our attention away from the nationalistic ideals that had previously consumed the world.
Blog 7- The impact of science
Hobsbawm focused these sections of the book on science and its growing importatce to the world before World War I. He discusses how the western world had begun to review the pinciples of physics, chemistry, and science in general in terms of how things will occur in the future and not as way of explaining past events. The latter was the thought pattern that had been used throughout history up until this time. Intellectuals at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century had begun to separate intuition and common sense from science altogether. He uses the crises that occurred in mathematics and physics to illustrate the transformation from the theological to rational thought in the sciences. These conflicts roused questions about the religious basis of our knowledge and caused a major shift away from religious doctrine in the west. Education soon became the standard centerpiece of knowledge. With the advancement of scence people were able to gain knowledge at a more rapid pace. This lessened importance of religion in the west sparked western beliefs of superiority over non-western countries.
Hobsbawm also discusses revolution. He talks about the insistence of the peripheral nations on gaining their independence and the fall of stable, strong powers at the the hands of these revolutionaries. Western powers were upset about this precedent and worried about their future as colonial powers. Reading these sections made me think about what we hold as true today about the world. The enlightenment took place just over 100 years ago, which shows that our knowledge of the world as it is thought about today is truly only in its infancy. Do you think that they way we think about the world today will hold up overtime or do you think there will be another revolution in thinking and the world will come to be viewed from a wholly new perspective?
Hobsbawm also discusses revolution. He talks about the insistence of the peripheral nations on gaining their independence and the fall of stable, strong powers at the the hands of these revolutionaries. Western powers were upset about this precedent and worried about their future as colonial powers. Reading these sections made me think about what we hold as true today about the world. The enlightenment took place just over 100 years ago, which shows that our knowledge of the world as it is thought about today is truly only in its infancy. Do you think that they way we think about the world today will hold up overtime or do you think there will be another revolution in thinking and the world will come to be viewed from a wholly new perspective?
Blog 6- Nationalism
A major byproduct of democratization was nationalism. Although, nationalistic ideals had been a constant throughout world history, the term "nationalism" and the meaning behind it was new. Nationalism was a concept that was first employed by the right wing in the 19th century. It was their attempt to push their ideology of expansion and to oust foreigners, liberals and socialists while doing away with their national agendas, labeling dissenters as traitors. This put a new connotation on the workd nationalism, which had been previously synonymous with patriotism; patriotism was used in association with more radical movements such as the French Revolution which stood for liberalism and the working man. This new meaning of nationalism put forth four new ideals. First being that the ideology behind nationalism changed from the liberal approach and was adopted by the conservatives. The second was the fact that nationalism now applied to any group which claimed to be a nation regardless of the group having economic, political or cultural viablility. Third, "was the growing tendency to assume that 'national self-determination could not be satisfied bu any form of autonomy less than full state independence." (p.144). The last ideal associated with the new nationalsim was the tendency to use ethnicity and language in as a way of defining a nation. This led to immigration and immigration laws which caused tension between nations.
Two other important effects of the nationalist movement was the rise of women and warfare. Women gained a lot of ground during this time and became more in control of their lives than they had ever been before. In the domestic arena, women began to marry later and used contraception to prevent pregnancy, thus having fewer children. This allowed them to move out of the traditional role that women played and allowed them to join the workforce. These developments helped to enhance women's power and thus started the need for women's rights. Warfare was hugely dependent on the idea of nationalism. Engagement in war was highly important to the conservative agenda of state expansion and imperialism. By painting dissenters as traitors, people were far more inclined to get behind the movemnets and support the war, which enabled the nation to build and army and mobilize forces.
What I find interesting about this reading is the impact that nationalism had on people as a whole. New nationalistic ideals using ethnicity and language to define a nation appears to be the root cause of xenophobic beliefs among western nations. Also By using the term traitor, it seems that the government was able to get the masses to support their agendas despite if individuals were actually behind the initiatives. This type of ethnocentricity and blind support by the masses illustrates the ways that Hitler and Nazi Germany was able to convince so many people to band together and commit genocide to annihilate Jewish people. Do you think that nationalism is truly a democratic ideal- one that empowers the people- or is it a way to remove individuality and force an agenda on a the masses?
Two other important effects of the nationalist movement was the rise of women and warfare. Women gained a lot of ground during this time and became more in control of their lives than they had ever been before. In the domestic arena, women began to marry later and used contraception to prevent pregnancy, thus having fewer children. This allowed them to move out of the traditional role that women played and allowed them to join the workforce. These developments helped to enhance women's power and thus started the need for women's rights. Warfare was hugely dependent on the idea of nationalism. Engagement in war was highly important to the conservative agenda of state expansion and imperialism. By painting dissenters as traitors, people were far more inclined to get behind the movemnets and support the war, which enabled the nation to build and army and mobilize forces.
What I find interesting about this reading is the impact that nationalism had on people as a whole. New nationalistic ideals using ethnicity and language to define a nation appears to be the root cause of xenophobic beliefs among western nations. Also By using the term traitor, it seems that the government was able to get the masses to support their agendas despite if individuals were actually behind the initiatives. This type of ethnocentricity and blind support by the masses illustrates the ways that Hitler and Nazi Germany was able to convince so many people to band together and commit genocide to annihilate Jewish people. Do you think that nationalism is truly a democratic ideal- one that empowers the people- or is it a way to remove individuality and force an agenda on a the masses?
Blog 4 - China
This section of readings involved the end of Abu Lughod's book. At the conclusion of Before European Hegemony, we take a look at the easternmost part of the world system in the 13th century and the how the west came to dominate. According to Abu-Lughod, China was "the most extensive, populous, and technologically advanced region of the medieval world." (p.316) China participated in two kinds of trade: public and private, which makes the official documents appear as if CHina held a non-chalant and passive attitude toward trading and the world system. However, China's role in private trade was huge and illustrates China's active and immensely important role in 13th century world economics. There are four phases of Chinese history identified which have been related to the economic and trading ventures of China. The first of these were before the 5th century A.D. During this period, maritime trade was not imprtant and most traders connected along the Silk Road which was an overland route. The second period spanned the 5-8th centuries. This was a time of population expansion and growth, particularly in the southern region and the advancement of new wet rice cultivation techniques which both helped to enhance trade. There was also an emphasis placed on infrastructure. One of the most important endeavors was the building of the canal which increased efficiency and reduced the cost to transport goods. The third period was marked by an exponential growth in China's economy. China's advancements in agriculture, industrial technology, population and engagement in maritime trade, were hugely important to its success. With the importance of China's sophisticated industrial and agricultural developments, it seemed that China was destined to become the world hegemon.
However, in the fourth period, which is identified as beginning with the fall of the Yuan dynasty in 1368, the Chinese withdrew from the world system. China's withdrawal was due to a number of factors. The most important of which would be the rise to power of the Ming dynasty. Under this rule, maritime trade was restricted, the powerful navy was disassembled and China's connections to foreign powers were cut off. Although it seems as though there was a change in philosophy that occurred, it is more likely that there were internal problems that needed to be dealt with which prompted the Ming dynasty to take a hiatus from the world system. The new ruling class needed to consolidate their new power over China's expansive mass, regroup from the warfare and recover from the debilitating effects of the Black Plague, so China shut its doors to world trade. This left a power vaccum in the world system. This area of the world became free for the taking, which ultimately became the way in which Europeans took over as the world's hegemony.
What I found interesting in this section was the fact that China seemed to withdrawas from teh world system, but a closer look kshows that China had a number of interal issues that needed to be tended to by the new dynasty. I think the "withdrawal" was more of a stabilization and regrouping initiative than a refutation of old policy and/or disdain for the world system. How do you think the world would have shaped up if China had become the dominant hegemon? Do you think the world would be better, that is technologically more advanced, more morally sound, or do you think it would be worse? Hard to picture or speculate about these kinds of things I know, but its just something I was thinking about.
However, in the fourth period, which is identified as beginning with the fall of the Yuan dynasty in 1368, the Chinese withdrew from the world system. China's withdrawal was due to a number of factors. The most important of which would be the rise to power of the Ming dynasty. Under this rule, maritime trade was restricted, the powerful navy was disassembled and China's connections to foreign powers were cut off. Although it seems as though there was a change in philosophy that occurred, it is more likely that there were internal problems that needed to be dealt with which prompted the Ming dynasty to take a hiatus from the world system. The new ruling class needed to consolidate their new power over China's expansive mass, regroup from the warfare and recover from the debilitating effects of the Black Plague, so China shut its doors to world trade. This left a power vaccum in the world system. This area of the world became free for the taking, which ultimately became the way in which Europeans took over as the world's hegemony.
What I found interesting in this section was the fact that China seemed to withdrawas from teh world system, but a closer look kshows that China had a number of interal issues that needed to be tended to by the new dynasty. I think the "withdrawal" was more of a stabilization and regrouping initiative than a refutation of old policy and/or disdain for the world system. How do you think the world would have shaped up if China had become the dominant hegemon? Do you think the world would be better, that is technologically more advanced, more morally sound, or do you think it would be worse? Hard to picture or speculate about these kinds of things I know, but its just something I was thinking about.
Blog 3- The Persian Gulf and Asia
The first part of this section deals with the Persian Gulf and the middle passage route from to the East. The Persian Gulf was the cheapest and easiest route to the east during this time, but a number of factors changed its popularity. The biggest happening was the Mongol conquest of Mesopotamia and Baghdad, which caused blockages along the route, but this did not stop traders from traveling this route. The true hinderances came when the Il-Khans converted to Islam and were hence considered infidels that were subject to Papal injunctions. At the same time, the Crusaders lost their foothold in Levant. These events prompted Europeans to travel the northeastern passage instead, which fostered the decline of the middle route. Until this time, Baghdad was an important point on this journey route. The city had once been a very wealthy centerpiece in the world system. However the splendor would not last. The fall of Baghdad occurred because fo the natural disasters (famine, fires, floods), religious conflict, Mongol occupance.
The Mongol occupance led to the increases in taxation and the transfer of the ruling class from Baghdad to Tabriz. The Mongol invasion also had another important effect. A truce was called between them and the Egyptian Mamluks which rendered the Italians useless and less tolerated. They retreated and the northern route became more attractive to the Europeans. Cairo and Syria were also important players in this area. Egypts two major industries- textile and sugar confectioning joined industry and agriculture which led to increases in wealth and productivity. Italians learned the banking, accounting, currency and credit practices that they employed in the French and Flemish fairs from the Egyptians. The Black Death was a pivotal turning point in Cairo's history; however, even with the reduction in population, Cairo's strategic location kept it from falling completely.
The second part of this reading concerned Asia. Abu-Lughod identified three interlocking circuits of the eastern trading hegemon. The western part was controlled by the Muslims, the southern by the Hindus on the Indian continent and the eastern part by the Chinese. This section talks about India's role in the world system. India was a integral piece of the world puzzle at this time. Not only was some of the most sought after goods produced by the Indian people, but its location was the prime location of international business. Paricularly the southern end of the continent served as host to the merchants traveling to the east from the west as well as the eastern merchants travelling west. India was also highly self sufficient in that it produced its own goods and became very wealthy because it often had a surplus of materials. Because of its prime location, it was also unnecessary for the people of India to travel in order to participate in the trading system; everyone came there. Therefore, India had no need to take an active or aggressive approach to trading and did not build a naval fleet because there was no use for it. This passive approach coupled with India's constant hosting of foreing traders, left it vulnerable to those who wished to overtake it, which is ulitmately what occurred.
What I found interesting about this portion of the book was the discussion on India. Although India had such a great opportunity to impose strict taxation, dominate the passage ways and become a world hegemon, India was content to remain a passive player in the system, which kept the peace instead of starting controversy. The people of India appear to be the antitheis of the western players who were looking for conquest, wealth and splendor. Do you think this disparate philosophies were a result of religious doctrine- (at least the way the Europeans at that time were interpreting the Bible)?
The Mongol occupance led to the increases in taxation and the transfer of the ruling class from Baghdad to Tabriz. The Mongol invasion also had another important effect. A truce was called between them and the Egyptian Mamluks which rendered the Italians useless and less tolerated. They retreated and the northern route became more attractive to the Europeans. Cairo and Syria were also important players in this area. Egypts two major industries- textile and sugar confectioning joined industry and agriculture which led to increases in wealth and productivity. Italians learned the banking, accounting, currency and credit practices that they employed in the French and Flemish fairs from the Egyptians. The Black Death was a pivotal turning point in Cairo's history; however, even with the reduction in population, Cairo's strategic location kept it from falling completely.
The second part of this reading concerned Asia. Abu-Lughod identified three interlocking circuits of the eastern trading hegemon. The western part was controlled by the Muslims, the southern by the Hindus on the Indian continent and the eastern part by the Chinese. This section talks about India's role in the world system. India was a integral piece of the world puzzle at this time. Not only was some of the most sought after goods produced by the Indian people, but its location was the prime location of international business. Paricularly the southern end of the continent served as host to the merchants traveling to the east from the west as well as the eastern merchants travelling west. India was also highly self sufficient in that it produced its own goods and became very wealthy because it often had a surplus of materials. Because of its prime location, it was also unnecessary for the people of India to travel in order to participate in the trading system; everyone came there. Therefore, India had no need to take an active or aggressive approach to trading and did not build a naval fleet because there was no use for it. This passive approach coupled with India's constant hosting of foreing traders, left it vulnerable to those who wished to overtake it, which is ulitmately what occurred.
What I found interesting about this portion of the book was the discussion on India. Although India had such a great opportunity to impose strict taxation, dominate the passage ways and become a world hegemon, India was content to remain a passive player in the system, which kept the peace instead of starting controversy. The people of India appear to be the antitheis of the western players who were looking for conquest, wealth and splendor. Do you think this disparate philosophies were a result of religious doctrine- (at least the way the Europeans at that time were interpreting the Bible)?
Blog 2- Genoa and Venice
The focus of this section is the Italian city-states of Genoa and Venice. Genoa was a port city from inception. It was one of the most enthusiastic cities to embark on the Crusades when the Pope called for the reconquest of Palestine form the Muslims. The Crusaders were barbaric in their ways;they burned towns and slaughtered people, even engaging in cannabalism by boiling adults and grilling impaled children. Venice did not participate in the Crusades for many years, wishing to maintain the peace between the nations with whom they had enjoyed a great trading network with. It wasn't until it appeared that the Crusaders would prevail, that Venice joined the action.
In the twelth century, Italians embarked on a series of imperialistic endeavors. In a sort of piracy, they attacked weaker sea vessels (Muslim and Christian) to capture treasures or ports that were unable to defend themselves from invasion. Two of the most imprtant destinations were Levant and Constantinople. As the Crusaders began to lose the battle with the Muslims, competition between the Venetians and the Genoese heated up. Venetians took control of Constantinople and the Genoese dominated North Africa and western Europe. The Crusades were also important because they stimulated a remarkable increase in naval operations. Genoa and Venice vied to build the best and most technologically advanced ships. With this increase, there was a substantial need for the state to play a larger role in ship builiding. Improvements were also made in navigation, protection (through the employment of convoys) and economics. While both cities made use of the public debt, Venice funded naval ventures through state capitalism assisted by private entrepeneurs, while Genoa's funding was the oppostite. Genoa funded their ships primarliy through provate interest with a lower portion of the funding coming from the assistance of the state. This is one of the main distinctions between these two city-states and why Genoa was unable to fully recover from the subsequent problems that arose, while the Venetians were able to enjoy their hegemon after the Genoese could no longer threaten them.
Changes in the eastern system of trade removed the economic center and destroyed the Venetian monopoly which prompted them to ally with the new ruling party. Particularly those in Egypt. By the end of the 14th century, wesstern Europe had also joined the trade system and a unification and pandemic prosperity became evident. In the first half of the 14th century, both Genoa and Venice declined as a result of the physical changes to their ports, decreases in convey availability, political factionalism and of course, the Black Plague.
What I found interesting about this section was the discussion of the Crusades. Crusaders operating under the principles of reconquering Palestine, seemed more interested in wealth and glory than any holy purpose. Venice illustrates these motives as they hung back wanting to maintain piece for trading reason and then chose to join the fight once it seemed as if the Crusaders would pull of the reconquest. This seems to be similar to what is happening today with our war in the Middle East, but instead of launching the war under religious pretenses, the war was launched as a human rights and freedom campaign. Do you think that the real reason that we are fighting wars in the middle east is because of human rights or is it more about capturing oil and controlling the land?
In the twelth century, Italians embarked on a series of imperialistic endeavors. In a sort of piracy, they attacked weaker sea vessels (Muslim and Christian) to capture treasures or ports that were unable to defend themselves from invasion. Two of the most imprtant destinations were Levant and Constantinople. As the Crusaders began to lose the battle with the Muslims, competition between the Venetians and the Genoese heated up. Venetians took control of Constantinople and the Genoese dominated North Africa and western Europe. The Crusades were also important because they stimulated a remarkable increase in naval operations. Genoa and Venice vied to build the best and most technologically advanced ships. With this increase, there was a substantial need for the state to play a larger role in ship builiding. Improvements were also made in navigation, protection (through the employment of convoys) and economics. While both cities made use of the public debt, Venice funded naval ventures through state capitalism assisted by private entrepeneurs, while Genoa's funding was the oppostite. Genoa funded their ships primarliy through provate interest with a lower portion of the funding coming from the assistance of the state. This is one of the main distinctions between these two city-states and why Genoa was unable to fully recover from the subsequent problems that arose, while the Venetians were able to enjoy their hegemon after the Genoese could no longer threaten them.
Changes in the eastern system of trade removed the economic center and destroyed the Venetian monopoly which prompted them to ally with the new ruling party. Particularly those in Egypt. By the end of the 14th century, wesstern Europe had also joined the trade system and a unification and pandemic prosperity became evident. In the first half of the 14th century, both Genoa and Venice declined as a result of the physical changes to their ports, decreases in convey availability, political factionalism and of course, the Black Plague.
What I found interesting about this section was the discussion of the Crusades. Crusaders operating under the principles of reconquering Palestine, seemed more interested in wealth and glory than any holy purpose. Venice illustrates these motives as they hung back wanting to maintain piece for trading reason and then chose to join the fight once it seemed as if the Crusaders would pull of the reconquest. This seems to be similar to what is happening today with our war in the Middle East, but instead of launching the war under religious pretenses, the war was launched as a human rights and freedom campaign. Do you think that the real reason that we are fighting wars in the middle east is because of human rights or is it more about capturing oil and controlling the land?
Blog 1- Before European Hegemony
Before European Hegemony by Janet Abu-Lughod, discusses 13th century world economics. She talks about the world system being centered primarily in the middle and far east, while Europe was a minor player at best. Abu-Lughod's main thesis is that although Europe utlimately became the dominant hegemon in world economics, there was no inherent reason for why this should have become the case. She begins with a look at Europe and their position in the world. With the fall of the Roman Empire, northwestern Europe sufferred through a period of invasions and isolation known as the Dark Ages. The eastern and southern parts of Europe, although affected by the Roman Empire's collapse, did not go through the same process as northwest Europe. Italy was able to keep its contacts alive with the rest of the world. In particular, Genoa,Venice and other coastal city-states kept in close contact with members of different nations and was able to serve a crucial link between Europe and the middle eastern system. The crusades also played a large role in world economics and politics in the 13th century. These holy wars helped to expand European horizons and increase trading prospects. As Europe began to re-emerge from the Dark Ages, trading opportunities became more numerous. First the fairs of Champagne and Brie provided the biggest trading opportunity. The fairs began at first to be as periodic markets but eventually evolved into sites of continuous trading. With the evolution of the markets, it became important to implement bankers to oversee currency exchange, credit, record keeping and establish a system of security for the merchants traveling to and from the fairs.
The Italians were extremely important to operations of the fairs. Because of their crafty business skills and goods obtained through their contacts with the middle and far east, they increased the popularity and relevance of the mrkets. The markets here declined as a result of the Flemish controversy, annexation and the discovery of a new Atlantic sea route that bypassed France. Soon after, the trading towns of Ghent and Bruges emerged and developd the new locale for the fairs. However, just like the Champagne and Brie, these fairs eventually collapsed and gave way to maritime trade. The decline of these fairs were due to a combination of factors as well, but the biggest one seemed to be the Black Death, which claimed appoximately 40-50% of Europe's population and important trading centers like Italy, France, and Flanders were hit the hardest. In summary Europe's venture into the world system was effected by economic, political and natural varibales that impacted the population and trading abilities.
What I found intersting is that the author shows that Champagne and Bruges and other trading towns did not necessarily deserve to fail, but the political and natural occurrences decided their fate. This she says, is the same case for the fall of economic centers in China and other eastern countries of the world system. I find her take on European hegemony quite refreshing. Instead of advocating that Europe was somehow innately "better" than the world powers of the middle and far east,and therefore, naturally assumed a dominat role, she believes hegemony was a consequence of many factors and the west came to dominate because the circumstances were right at the time for the west. I am a senior this year and I have never had a course that told both the European and the eastern perspectives. Why does western academia tend to ignore the role and importance of the east when teaching its students world history?
The Italians were extremely important to operations of the fairs. Because of their crafty business skills and goods obtained through their contacts with the middle and far east, they increased the popularity and relevance of the mrkets. The markets here declined as a result of the Flemish controversy, annexation and the discovery of a new Atlantic sea route that bypassed France. Soon after, the trading towns of Ghent and Bruges emerged and developd the new locale for the fairs. However, just like the Champagne and Brie, these fairs eventually collapsed and gave way to maritime trade. The decline of these fairs were due to a combination of factors as well, but the biggest one seemed to be the Black Death, which claimed appoximately 40-50% of Europe's population and important trading centers like Italy, France, and Flanders were hit the hardest. In summary Europe's venture into the world system was effected by economic, political and natural varibales that impacted the population and trading abilities.
What I found intersting is that the author shows that Champagne and Bruges and other trading towns did not necessarily deserve to fail, but the political and natural occurrences decided their fate. This she says, is the same case for the fall of economic centers in China and other eastern countries of the world system. I find her take on European hegemony quite refreshing. Instead of advocating that Europe was somehow innately "better" than the world powers of the middle and far east,and therefore, naturally assumed a dominat role, she believes hegemony was a consequence of many factors and the west came to dominate because the circumstances were right at the time for the west. I am a senior this year and I have never had a course that told both the European and the eastern perspectives. Why does western academia tend to ignore the role and importance of the east when teaching its students world history?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Last Blog
Neoliberalism is an economic and political strategy the believes globalization can only succeed with the principle of free trade. These types of people emphasize the reduction of restraints on international economic institutions so that free trade can occur. They believe if this is put into practice, it will be easier for all countries to profit from international trading. The article gives an example of the free trade system in Mercosur, South Africa where tariffs and restrictions are eliminated.However, the counterpoint to the neoliberalist ideology is that this type of free trade will not help, but only hurt smaller, poorer countries. It will benefit Western industrialized countries, but that is all. I agree with the more conservative ideology, that some regulation is needed. If there are no restrictions on richer countries, exploitation will most likely take place, making the wealth companies and countries richer, and the less developed countries poorer. I believe there needs to be a balance between this conservative ideology that relies on government regulation and the neoliberalist thought that only stresses free trade. My questions are, how do economic institutions such as the World Bank and UN branches think about these ideologies?
We also talked about copyright laws again in class on Wednesday. Although I think that there should be some freedom to be creative and expand on others ideas, there should be a limit. I stick by the Beatles theory, that if a band or artist is known for their sound, it should be illegal to copyright that music.
We also talked about copyright laws again in class on Wednesday. Although I think that there should be some freedom to be creative and expand on others ideas, there should be a limit. I stick by the Beatles theory, that if a band or artist is known for their sound, it should be illegal to copyright that music.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blog 3
This week we focused on the importance of the Middle East and the conflicts they had because of where they were geographically...
The Middle East was the center of all global trade. Routes through the Middle East connected Europe to the Far East. The Middle East also made it possible for the Persians and the Chinese to trade. Essentially, this connected the East and the West. Of course being such a major part of global trade, the Middle East constantly ran into conflict within its own territory. The Muslims and Crusaders fought for many years, because of conflicts like this the Middle East was never really able to reach out to other places around the world.
This moves me to the Persian Gulf. In a sense a blessing for whoever controlled it because it was a great place for trading. It connected the Mediterranean Sea, India and the Middle East. What more could you ask for? Unfortunately, it was so popular that there were constant fights over who controlled it. The conflicts made it so that the trade routes were unsafe and trade in the Persian Gulf struggled. Short after the Black Death hit, the Portuguese swooped in and took control of the Persian Gulf. This was also the fall of Egypt's superiority in trade.
The European Crusaders and the Muslims constantly fought over religion more so than money. It does not surprise me that both had a chance to share the gold mine the Persian Gulf but instead could not settle their differences. In the end the Portuguese were the winners! This is one of the few instances i can think of when money was not the top priority.
The Middle East was the center of all global trade. Routes through the Middle East connected Europe to the Far East. The Middle East also made it possible for the Persians and the Chinese to trade. Essentially, this connected the East and the West. Of course being such a major part of global trade, the Middle East constantly ran into conflict within its own territory. The Muslims and Crusaders fought for many years, because of conflicts like this the Middle East was never really able to reach out to other places around the world.
This moves me to the Persian Gulf. In a sense a blessing for whoever controlled it because it was a great place for trading. It connected the Mediterranean Sea, India and the Middle East. What more could you ask for? Unfortunately, it was so popular that there were constant fights over who controlled it. The conflicts made it so that the trade routes were unsafe and trade in the Persian Gulf struggled. Short after the Black Death hit, the Portuguese swooped in and took control of the Persian Gulf. This was also the fall of Egypt's superiority in trade.
The European Crusaders and the Muslims constantly fought over religion more so than money. It does not surprise me that both had a chance to share the gold mine the Persian Gulf but instead could not settle their differences. In the end the Portuguese were the winners! This is one of the few instances i can think of when money was not the top priority.
Blog 2
For week two's reading Janet Abu-Lughod discusses Venice and Genoa's history of trade. Both Genoa and Venice were supreme forces in the Mediterranean trade. In the 13th century northern and central Italy's most commanding merchants had a firm grasp on trade in Europe and down to the Middle East. Genoa and Venice both attempted to monopolize the trade routes. Genoa eventually fell because of their connection with Egypt. Egypt provided Genoa with many slaves through trade. Once this connection fell through Genoa never recovered.
The destruction of the Mongol Empire led to the decrease in value of the north. The Mediterranean was badly affected and produced low profits. The last significant thing Genoa attempted to do was take control of the Atlantic. This was a stretch but they weren't left with many options. In the end this was a failure and Venice took over the connection with Egypt. Genoa was left with virtually nothing and Venice took over.
I found the issues between Venice and Genoa to be quite interesting. Each tried to stay one step ahead of the other and control the trade routes. They also tried to cut off trade routes of the other. The greed for money and power both possessed was incredible. Unfortunately, Genoa fell short of this battle mainly because of natural disasters and external factors.
My question is how much longer could Genoa have fought off Venice if they didn't lose their connection to Egypt?
The destruction of the Mongol Empire led to the decrease in value of the north. The Mediterranean was badly affected and produced low profits. The last significant thing Genoa attempted to do was take control of the Atlantic. This was a stretch but they weren't left with many options. In the end this was a failure and Venice took over the connection with Egypt. Genoa was left with virtually nothing and Venice took over.
I found the issues between Venice and Genoa to be quite interesting. Each tried to stay one step ahead of the other and control the trade routes. They also tried to cut off trade routes of the other. The greed for money and power both possessed was incredible. Unfortunately, Genoa fell short of this battle mainly because of natural disasters and external factors.
My question is how much longer could Genoa have fought off Venice if they didn't lose their connection to Egypt?
Blog 1
In before European Hegemony, Janet L. Abu-Lughod attempts to bring light to the time period before Europe became a dominant power. The reason for this is to give background and an explanation for how things changed. Janet has the idea that historians are wrong for starting with the European hegemony and working backward. Instead she suggest they go back and work their way forward.
Janet begins in the 13th century. She says that during the 13th century there was a huge amount of economic development and cultural achievement around the world. Technology played a big role in the economic boom. New technologies made it easier for countries to trade amongst each other. With the trading came a spread of culture. The money used from trading went back into cultural affairs. It was somewhat of a cycle.
During this time, there was no one country or area of the world that was a hegemonic power. At this time the West, Middle East, and East were all similar in power. The question is raised, could we describe this time period as a world system. Maybe even modern capitalism for a better term. This time period is very interesting. It's hard for me to imagine a time period in history when Europe was not seen as the dominant power. I guess my reason of thinking is the exact reason why Janet questions why we assume that Europe was always the dominant hegemony.
Janet begins in the 13th century. She says that during the 13th century there was a huge amount of economic development and cultural achievement around the world. Technology played a big role in the economic boom. New technologies made it easier for countries to trade amongst each other. With the trading came a spread of culture. The money used from trading went back into cultural affairs. It was somewhat of a cycle.
During this time, there was no one country or area of the world that was a hegemonic power. At this time the West, Middle East, and East were all similar in power. The question is raised, could we describe this time period as a world system. Maybe even modern capitalism for a better term. This time period is very interesting. It's hard for me to imagine a time period in history when Europe was not seen as the dominant power. I guess my reason of thinking is the exact reason why Janet questions why we assume that Europe was always the dominant hegemony.
Cosmo Gov
Can there ever be a world government? At first I thought that there was no way the human race would come together and be governed by a single body, at least during my lifetime. Although, after reading “Critical Responses to Neoliberal Globalization in the Mercosur Region,” by Heikki Patomaki and Teivo Teivainen and discussing this in class my argument has changed. In the reading the writers use the term Cosmopolitan democracy, which I have never heard of and I had to look it up. From what I got out of the term is that it is a theory of a government that was composed by a man named David Held. This theory is that all facets of the human race fit in to a single community that is supported by shared morality. This term can be used as a way to describe a world government or can just be an idea of different nations and individuals having more comprehensive relationships with other nations and individuals. These relationships are centered on the globalization that is occurring today with better political, economic, and moral understanding and unification between nations. The writers of this article center their argument on this term as well as neoliberal globalization.
I think this article had many interesting points, from what I could understand as I am not up to date on all the political and ideological terms. But, I try and look them up to gain some understanding of what is going on with current beliefs and movements. Since I have not heard of some of these ideas that are influencing our generation it is probably why my first response to the idea of seeing a world government within my lifetime, let’s say I make it till 2050, was absolutely not possible. Now, as I become more educated with the idea of globalization during the twenty first century and the current movements my thoughts are beginning to change. Although, even with these ideas out there I still think a catastrophic event like a natural disaster or and economic tragedy is needed for a world government to come together. There has to be a need for it and right now there seems to be really no need for a world government at least within the core countries. It may seem like we are alright without a world government, but I believe it would most certainly help the world as a whole.
I guess what it comes down to is when will humans stop classifying and stereotyping by race, religion, and geographic location. Until we can put our physical and historical differences behind or aside we will never be able to be governed by a single body. The thing that really makes me think is what is going to happen during my lifetime. I feel like we have been exponentially advancing as a species and during the twenty first century I think our advances will be at the highest rate. Thus, what will our generation do during this age of exponential growth?
I think this article had many interesting points, from what I could understand as I am not up to date on all the political and ideological terms. But, I try and look them up to gain some understanding of what is going on with current beliefs and movements. Since I have not heard of some of these ideas that are influencing our generation it is probably why my first response to the idea of seeing a world government within my lifetime, let’s say I make it till 2050, was absolutely not possible. Now, as I become more educated with the idea of globalization during the twenty first century and the current movements my thoughts are beginning to change. Although, even with these ideas out there I still think a catastrophic event like a natural disaster or and economic tragedy is needed for a world government to come together. There has to be a need for it and right now there seems to be really no need for a world government at least within the core countries. It may seem like we are alright without a world government, but I believe it would most certainly help the world as a whole.
I guess what it comes down to is when will humans stop classifying and stereotyping by race, religion, and geographic location. Until we can put our physical and historical differences behind or aside we will never be able to be governed by a single body. The thing that really makes me think is what is going to happen during my lifetime. I feel like we have been exponentially advancing as a species and during the twenty first century I think our advances will be at the highest rate. Thus, what will our generation do during this age of exponential growth?
neoliberalism globalization.
If the government was removed from world trade, I feel that there would still be problems and that poorer countries would still remain poor. It is a good theory but I feel like that it would not work in practice. We, as a richer nation would not pay the "fair price" on things that the poorer countries produce. Much as we pay lower wages to illegal immigrants to profit. I'm not sure that I even understood what the article was exactly talking about but I am pretty positive that it could not work.
Capitalism is all about maximizing profits through minimizing costs, and we will minimize costs at all costs. (pun intended). There are sweat shops where kids work for pennies a day, and that's in America so other countries are trying to minimize costs too. So I really don't feel that this could function on a global scale
What do you guys think could this system work?
Capitalism is all about maximizing profits through minimizing costs, and we will minimize costs at all costs. (pun intended). There are sweat shops where kids work for pennies a day, and that's in America so other countries are trying to minimize costs too. So I really don't feel that this could function on a global scale
What do you guys think could this system work?
last blog
The last thing we talked about in this semester was neoliberalism. Trade is very important to neoliberalists seeing as they don't think globalization is possible unless the entire world participates in trade. I can understand that point of view, because trade allows for the exchange of goods and raw materials as well as ideas, theories and morals. Without trade and the hands-on experience of a certain country, it is very difficult to appreciate the customs of that country and be willing to acquire that mindset of acceptance. But WITH trade, that task becomes much easier to accomplish.
This in turn leads to the thought of one culture. Right now, despite the fast forward effects of globilization, cultures are still very different. Each has become more accepting of other cultures, granted, but isolation is still very much in effect. But, if we continue in the fashion we are right now into the future, could it be possible that these separate cultures will eventually become one giant culture, a melting pot of the entire world under one canopy of integrated culture?
Another thing discussed during class was the issue of "copyright." All the music, movies, or the result from any creative outlet for that matter, is copyrighted, which makes it illegal for others to steal. But is it really stealing? If one person uses another person's works to provide inspiration for their own creations, how is that illegal? I think copyright has crossed the line of just being there for practical purposes and merged into the world where it's all about the money and empty rules.
This in turn leads to the thought of one culture. Right now, despite the fast forward effects of globilization, cultures are still very different. Each has become more accepting of other cultures, granted, but isolation is still very much in effect. But, if we continue in the fashion we are right now into the future, could it be possible that these separate cultures will eventually become one giant culture, a melting pot of the entire world under one canopy of integrated culture?
Another thing discussed during class was the issue of "copyright." All the music, movies, or the result from any creative outlet for that matter, is copyrighted, which makes it illegal for others to steal. But is it really stealing? If one person uses another person's works to provide inspiration for their own creations, how is that illegal? I think copyright has crossed the line of just being there for practical purposes and merged into the world where it's all about the money and empty rules.
Neoliberal Globalization
Part 1:
Potomaki and Teivainen had a very interesting article that discussed the political and economic theory of neoliberalism. The best theoretical response to globalization is a theory called cosmopolitan democracy, but the problem with it is that it is not part of the “real world historical processes”. In Potomaki and Teivainen’s article they use the example of a region in Latin America called Mercosur where neoliberal globalization has shown many political responses that exhibit signs of cosmopolitan democracy. The main issue they are having troubles with is financial globalization. They are attempting to find radical reforms. Countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil have revealed that they have developed in such a way that they now have the political consciousness to handle real problems that citizens were having. Potomaki and Teivainen also developed working definitions of concepts such as: globalization, democracy, civic public spaces, and trans/supra-national responses to globalization. They discovered that they needed to redefine the “conceptual basis”of cosmopolitan democracy in terms of political economy.
Part 2:
I found it interesting that countries in South America were exhibiting signs of neoliberal globalization. I am not sure what country I expected, but South America threw me for a loop.
Part 3:
What other countries do you think are showing signs of neoliberal globalization? Is this good or bad and Why?
Potomaki and Teivainen had a very interesting article that discussed the political and economic theory of neoliberalism. The best theoretical response to globalization is a theory called cosmopolitan democracy, but the problem with it is that it is not part of the “real world historical processes”. In Potomaki and Teivainen’s article they use the example of a region in Latin America called Mercosur where neoliberal globalization has shown many political responses that exhibit signs of cosmopolitan democracy. The main issue they are having troubles with is financial globalization. They are attempting to find radical reforms. Countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil have revealed that they have developed in such a way that they now have the political consciousness to handle real problems that citizens were having. Potomaki and Teivainen also developed working definitions of concepts such as: globalization, democracy, civic public spaces, and trans/supra-national responses to globalization. They discovered that they needed to redefine the “conceptual basis”of cosmopolitan democracy in terms of political economy.
Part 2:
I found it interesting that countries in South America were exhibiting signs of neoliberal globalization. I am not sure what country I expected, but South America threw me for a loop.
Part 3:
What other countries do you think are showing signs of neoliberal globalization? Is this good or bad and Why?
Last blog -- Neoliberalism
This week’s reading was on the subject of neoliberalism which is an economic ideology involving the reduction of restraints on economic institutions to make it easier for everyone to profit. The perfect example of this is free trade, opening up all borders for trade and eliminating all restrictions and tariffs. A recent attempt example of free trade that the authors go into detail about is the Mercosur in South America. Neoliberalists believe that globalization is a process that is only possible with the principle of free trade in practice. More conservative economists believe that free trade would just lead to further exploitation of the lesser-developed countries. With free trade, the developed nations are no longer so accounted for for what they do overseas (as they are now with countless restrictions) and they’d be free to outsource all they want. This would lose countless jobs for many citizens of the powerful nations since thousands of jobs would be moved overseas where the minimum wage is significantly lower, thus it is much cheaper. Production would boom though and huge companies would thrive. But in this situation, there is no room for improvement for the lesser developed nations even though the principle is to give everyone a free chance to progress economically. Free trade just gives developed nations an opportunity to take advantage of those less fortunate for their personal benefits.
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Last blog -- Neoliberalism
This week’s reading was on the subject of neoliberalism which is an economic ideology involving the reduction of restraints on economic institutions to make it easier for everyone to profit. The perfect example of this is free trade, opening up all borders for trade and eliminating all restrictions and tariffs. A recent attempt example of free trade that the authors go into detail about is the Mercosur in South America. Neoliberalists believe that globalization is a process that is only possible with the principle of free trade in practice. More conservative economists believe that free trade would just lead to further exploitation of the lesser-developed countries. With free trade, the developed nations are no longer so accounted for for what they do overseas (as they are now with countless restrictions) and they’d be free to outsource all they want. This would lose countless jobs for many citizens of the powerful nations since thousands of jobs would be moved overseas where the minimum wage is significantly lower, thus it is much cheaper. Production would boom though and huge companies would thrive. But in this situation, there is no room for improvement for the lesser developed nations even though the principle is to give everyone a free chance to progress economically. Free trade just gives developed nations an opportunity to take advantage of those less fortunate for their personal benefits.
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
final blog
This week's reading cover globalization, cosmopolitan democracy, and neo-liberalism. The authors provide examples of each through the European Union and Mercosur. They debate what is best for the world economy. According to neo-liberalism, there should be free trade between countries and virtually no government intervention in the process. This would help the rich get richer and possibly help the more poor countries but it would not benefit them on the same scale as the more wealthy nations. They argue that some amount of government check is needed on more wealthy countries so that they can not outsource all of their companies to areas of the world where they can take advantage of the people by paying extremely low wages.
I agree that some government regulation is needed. If there is none, the world would become more heavily skewed towards the richer companies who would be incredibly wealthy and away from the poorer countries who can not make the same economic moves as the richer nations.
Neoglobalization
This article discusses the Mercosur trade agreement in South America. In this article, Neoglobalization is questioned. It is close to cosmopolitan Democracy. One of the characteristics it contains is that every person in a group should have his or her own ability to achieve goals. Their own determination. However, if this is not the case with one or more members of the group, then it causes blocks in cooperation etc. The cosmopolitan democracy comes from many different networks that are connected and make up one nation-state. Now, it is the purpose of the Mercosur to make these different networks work together.
There are more details to the Mercosur tasks. It attempts to protect the political structure, production, exploitation of materials and the need for a democratic process. Most importantly, the union between the different networks must remain strong and their collaboration not weakened by lack of self-determination.
Neoliberal societies have been most prominent in South America. However, many of these have not faired well. The countries had very little freedom for their citizens and the difference in state of living and wealth between the rich and the poor generally worsened. I think that these types of regimes are not productive for our world. In this day and age every person should have the right to influence their own government and the laws that bind them.
----Dorothy Smith "Bunny"
Extra Credit (free culture)
I think that the article about free culture was very interesting. I found that the argument that restrictions on different things actually makes us lose freedom and culture. This was interesting to me because I never thought about this in that way.
Immediately I thought of music and movies having copy writes. I feel like the only reason copy writes exist because people wanted to find ways to make as much money off of the music or movies as possible. I agree with my classmates who felt that after a certain amount of time the copy write should be lifted. I feel that music and movies are something that should eventually belong to the public because the public is the people that are exploited in a sense to make the different music and movies popular. I feel that if a person wants to continue to make money from movies or music that they should have to continue to work in the craft. I feel that artist continually making money off of old projects just reinforces wealth inequality.
Immediately I thought of music and movies having copy writes. I feel like the only reason copy writes exist because people wanted to find ways to make as much money off of the music or movies as possible. I agree with my classmates who felt that after a certain amount of time the copy write should be lifted. I feel that music and movies are something that should eventually belong to the public because the public is the people that are exploited in a sense to make the different music and movies popular. I feel that if a person wants to continue to make money from movies or music that they should have to continue to work in the craft. I feel that artist continually making money off of old projects just reinforces wealth inequality.
Neoliberalism Blog
We concluded the semester by talking about Neoliberalism. A Neoliberalist would support free trade. They also support things like the IMF and the World Bank. From the Neoliberalist view point globalization can only truly succeed, if all countries are able to trade with each other. There are currently many restrictions and tarrifs on trade from certain countries to other countries. An example of this would be the US not trading with North Korea or Cuba.
The opposition to the Neoliberalist view would say that capitalism typically helps developed countries more than countries that are not developed. Free trade globally could make things so that developed countries are not accountable for what they do overseas. Undeveloped countries would continue to be taken advantage of, as developed countries outsource. With the restrictions companies are not allowed to outsource all of their jobs for low wages in other countries. Instead companies have to build in their own countries and abide by the outsourcing restrictions. So basically free trade means more wealth, money and a better life for develop countries and the exact opposite for underdeveloped countries. This also would never give the undeveloped countries a chance to improve.
I like the idea of free trade but when you break down its effects, I don't think it is worth it.
On another note in class someone mentioned the thought of globalization leading to one mass culture. Any thoughts on that?
The opposition to the Neoliberalist view would say that capitalism typically helps developed countries more than countries that are not developed. Free trade globally could make things so that developed countries are not accountable for what they do overseas. Undeveloped countries would continue to be taken advantage of, as developed countries outsource. With the restrictions companies are not allowed to outsource all of their jobs for low wages in other countries. Instead companies have to build in their own countries and abide by the outsourcing restrictions. So basically free trade means more wealth, money and a better life for develop countries and the exact opposite for underdeveloped countries. This also would never give the undeveloped countries a chance to improve.
I like the idea of free trade but when you break down its effects, I don't think it is worth it.
On another note in class someone mentioned the thought of globalization leading to one mass culture. Any thoughts on that?
The West's Hegemony
The Western world, particularly the United States, have held varying degrees of hegemony over the rest of the world for almost the entire modern era. This brings up two very important questions. The first is, is this good? The second concerns the future. What will come after this?
So the effects of Western hegemony, to be fair, I don’t think they are terribly different from what would happen under the hegemony of any other region. Other regions are exploited for the gain of the hegemon. Human rights and democracy often take a backseat to potential helpfulness to the hegemon when governments of the “third world” or “developing world” or whatever else the term might be at the time for the less powerful nations. Hegemony over the rest of the world is good if you are the one in power, and is considerably less awesome if you are not. Western domination has helped the West, but not necessarily the rest of the world, I think.
What’s next? This is a question that has been frequently posed over the course of the class, but without any specific answers brought forth in discussion. I tend to agree with Fareed Zakaria’s idea, which is that the “pie” will simply get bigger, and therefore, even though the West’s share of that pie will grow, so will everyone else’s, and the proportion will decrease. I think this leads to the possibility of a world system closest to one without hegemony since the 13th Century system. We would see a multi-polar world, where the United States would still likely have the most important voice, but would only have one voice of many. Regional powers would have much more influence on the system, as Brazil, South Africa, India, and similar nations rise to take their places on the world stage. All of this would still be relatively hegemony-like, but multi-polar, as opposed to previous uni or bi polar systems. What do you think this system will lead to?
blogg
The article covers this issue with the trade agreement in South America called Mercosur. The only issue that I see, with it is that it is hard to imagine that more than a handful of the countries involved would oppose the abstract principles of cosmopolitan democracy. These principles include the fact that all groups and associations are assumed to have a capacity for self determinati0on. Should one of the major players, not have this capacity, it would hold the union back significantly, and prevent cooperation and collaboration. The case of cosmopolitan democracy arises from multiple overlapping networks of power, which are confined to the nation-state. These networks are complex and delicate, and it is the job of the Mercosur union to attempt to unite these nations. The defense of self determination, the creation of a common structure of political action, and the preservation of the common good are all important priorities. Democratic autonomy, another important factor, would require the ability to balance these factors, and in a nation that falls short, it could jeopardize the ability of the mercosur. Principle of social justice also follows in the political and economic union. The production, distribution, and exploitation of materials must be conductive to the democratic process, and a common structure of political action available to all. People, must be able to be members of diverse communities and retain membership to these communities. This is what is most import ant about the global societal union, the ability to collaborate based upon complex as well as diverse backgrounds and create something new and innovative. I find this the most important part, as it is instrumental to the purpose of the union itself.
Free Culture Extra Credit
Although the audio was poor at times, I found the movie we watched in class about free culture to be very interesting. Much like some of the comments I heard during our discussion in class the speaker in the movie said that because of restrictions supported by law, our freedom is prohibited and in result we are losing culture.
During class a few students voiced their opinions on the restrictions about the re-usage of work. We focused on the "copyright" and music. People commented that music should only be restricted for a certain amount of time. After the artist has died, whats the point of the restriction? That artist can't make any money off of it anymore. It may as well get used or sampled by someone else for their innovative idea.
I agree with these comments. I also have an understanding for why for people try to keep there work and the deceased work restricted. I think it is all about money, just like everything else. Of course as a person that has never a song, I would support that people should be able to use others peoples music. But I have a feeling that if people were trying to use my song I wouldn't want them to be able to. Sounds selfish but that's the way it is.
For now I have nothing anyone would want to use so I say the restrictions on music should be removed. Open new doors for other people and allow innovations. Support free culture. Or at least let me download music for free. That way I wouldn't have to steal it anymore.
During class a few students voiced their opinions on the restrictions about the re-usage of work. We focused on the "copyright" and music. People commented that music should only be restricted for a certain amount of time. After the artist has died, whats the point of the restriction? That artist can't make any money off of it anymore. It may as well get used or sampled by someone else for their innovative idea.
I agree with these comments. I also have an understanding for why for people try to keep there work and the deceased work restricted. I think it is all about money, just like everything else. Of course as a person that has never a song, I would support that people should be able to use others peoples music. But I have a feeling that if people were trying to use my song I wouldn't want them to be able to. Sounds selfish but that's the way it is.
For now I have nothing anyone would want to use so I say the restrictions on music should be removed. Open new doors for other people and allow innovations. Support free culture. Or at least let me download music for free. That way I wouldn't have to steal it anymore.
Neoliberal Globalization and Cosmopolitan Democracy Blog
Patomaki and Teivainen’s “Critical response to neoliberal globalization in the Mercosur region: roads towards cosmopolitan democracy?” begins by describing cosmopolitan democracy as realizing a political community that is more conducive to democratic goals that are based in globalization. The authors then recognize that cosmopolitan democracy has previously been seen in a Eurocentric light which is detached from numerous other historical occurrences. Next, they define globalization as “the belief in the oneness of the world and humankind” (41). Transnational neoliberalism is said to have a direct correlation with globalization because it assumes that the world has achieved, or will eventually achieve if rational policies are followed, economic unity due to economic globalization. This growth can best be gained through “free” international trade, reasonable budgets, low inflation, privatization, the economization of social life, and deregulated markets, assuming those trying to achieve it have transnational mobility. Patomaki and Teivainen then state that even if the majority of people want to disregard property rights, the government must go against this in order to further free market capitalism, which is what led to most of the instances of despotism in Latin America. This led to the strengthening of the economic elite in those countries, which caused more of a disparity in the distribution of wealth. However, globalization has also led to boundaries in Latin America being considered more along the lines of public spaces instead of state borders. Therefore, at the same time that Latin American nations are struggling against globalization, they are also increasing in their “cosmopolitan attempts to participate in world politics” (47). Transnational organizations were created, which adds to the authors’ argument that Mercosur does not prevent further democratization. Some people are worried that regional concerns could soon supersede national ones, but others view this as a natural adjunct to globalization. The EU has no problem with it since it is encouraging trans-regionalism. Patomaki and Teivainen thus conclude that globalization constrains some political possibilities while opening up others, including the possibility of a model based on the EU to help integrate toward cosmopolitan democracy, which causes them to believe that the Mercosur region is moving toward transnational and global democracy.
I found it most interesting that globalization is beginning to achieve what was simply reality. As we discussed earlier in this course, the idea of a nation being based on a common language and eventually ideology did not come into play until a fair amount of time had passed. Patomaki and Teivainen assert in the article that globalization has collapsed distance and reorganized social spaces and practices, which has led to the creation of “states” that transcend geographical and political boundaries. This sounds to me like the world is resuming its original format, which I find intriguing.
I would have found it interesting if Patomaki and Teivainen would have elaborated more on the relationship between despotism in Latin America and capitalism. They explain that despotism in Latin American countries often came about as a result of a push for capitalism, but they do not explain other methods that could have been pursued. They assert that the Latin American governments ignored the demand from a majority of the citizens to regulate property rights because that would have theoretically hurt the general welfare. So instead of following what the people wanted, the governments decided that in order “to gain free market capitalism, the demands of those opposed, including the victims of recession, unemployment, and all types of physical and moral pains, must be ignored” (44). Do you think that this was the best course to follow? Should there not be a course in which the current welfare is not disregarded in favor of the future?
I found it most interesting that globalization is beginning to achieve what was simply reality. As we discussed earlier in this course, the idea of a nation being based on a common language and eventually ideology did not come into play until a fair amount of time had passed. Patomaki and Teivainen assert in the article that globalization has collapsed distance and reorganized social spaces and practices, which has led to the creation of “states” that transcend geographical and political boundaries. This sounds to me like the world is resuming its original format, which I find intriguing.
I would have found it interesting if Patomaki and Teivainen would have elaborated more on the relationship between despotism in Latin America and capitalism. They explain that despotism in Latin American countries often came about as a result of a push for capitalism, but they do not explain other methods that could have been pursued. They assert that the Latin American governments ignored the demand from a majority of the citizens to regulate property rights because that would have theoretically hurt the general welfare. So instead of following what the people wanted, the governments decided that in order “to gain free market capitalism, the demands of those opposed, including the victims of recession, unemployment, and all types of physical and moral pains, must be ignored” (44). Do you think that this was the best course to follow? Should there not be a course in which the current welfare is not disregarded in favor of the future?
Critical Response to Neoliberal Globalization
In this interesting article, Potomaki and Teivainen question the political-economic theory of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism (in my opinion) is similar to the neo-classical theory of political economy; that is, restraints on economic systems (i.e. government) should be drastically reduced, therefore citizens of the world would be able to more easily make decisions and profit, or something like that. Neoliberalism seems very similar to cosmopolitan democracy. According to a well-cited Wikipedia article,in cosmopolitan democracy, "decisions should be made by the citizens that are influenced by them, avoiding to have a single hierarchical form of authority." That is, decisions should be made by the people rather than governments; the people should control the economy (in a capitalistic sense).
Neoliberalistic political economy has been tried in parts of the world, perhaps most notably in Latin America, with mixed results (leaning heavily towards failure). However, it is obvious that in the countries where neoliberalism was implemented, the societies were not free (e.g. Pinochet's Chile). One could also object that other nations did not have policies of neoliberalism, but is this necessary for a neoliberal political economy to work...? In many countries that have had neoliberal political economies, the economic gap between rich and poor has/had widened, which is contradictory to the theory's intent.
Here's an (semi-) unrelated question: what will the effects of globalization be on things like copyright law? Will copyright and patent law become (increasingly) internationalized/globalized?
Neoliberalistic political economy has been tried in parts of the world, perhaps most notably in Latin America, with mixed results (leaning heavily towards failure). However, it is obvious that in the countries where neoliberalism was implemented, the societies were not free (e.g. Pinochet's Chile). One could also object that other nations did not have policies of neoliberalism, but is this necessary for a neoliberal political economy to work...? In many countries that have had neoliberal political economies, the economic gap between rich and poor has/had widened, which is contradictory to the theory's intent.
Here's an (semi-) unrelated question: what will the effects of globalization be on things like copyright law? Will copyright and patent law become (increasingly) internationalized/globalized?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)