Consumption and Ecology

Organic, recycled, recyclable, earth-friendly, arsenic/mercury free, reduced packaging, CFC-Free…ecology seems to be the buzzword when it comes to material consumption these days. But what does this all mean? Companies and corporations around the world are banking on the worldwide fixation on environmentalism, by adding the “eco-friendly” tag to their goods. The question is whether this is a genuine movement towards easing the strain on our environment or another fad that corporate “cool hunters” have swooped upon for profit? While this may seem a little cynical and pessimistic, I personally feel that it is more of the latter.

By playing the eco-friendly card, corporations have taken a spin on consumerism and given it a new positive outlook. This is rather ironic because excessive consumerism is one of the root problems of environmental problems. Landfill space around the world is running out, due to the excessive consumption and disposal of material goods. I feel that openly promoting material goods as eco-friendly does not solve the problem of excessive consumption. In fact, I feel that this will only aggravate environmental problems even further. An abundance of material goods with green labels could potentially pave the way for guilt-free shopping, in which consumers are encouraged to buy as much as before or perhaps even more than before since the products they buy have a smaller carbon footprint. However, reduced carbon footprint or not, purchasing more than what we need, as these corporations would like us to do, will have long-lasting devastating impacts on our environment. Also, electronics companies constantly ensure their products have a planned obsolescence, pressuring their customers to replace their old purchases, and yet boast about their environmental awareness. The problem is that companies are not actively encouraging their customers to consume less as this would lead to a reduction in profits, instead they have neatly sidestepped environmentalist movements against consumerism by marketing their products as eco-friendly.

Environmentalism has also become a popular issue that has become associated with being on the cutting edge of new developments or simply being ‘cool’. Rock stars, politicians, designers are all incorporating environmentalism into their work and dealings with people. Bono, the frontman of Irish rock band U2, initiated the Project Red which raised much controversy about using global issues as a marketing vehicle. It was seen as an inefficient way of raising funds, requiring a commercial middleman between donors and charity. Critics claim that $100 million was invested in Product Red advertising, while only $18 million was raised for the Global Fund.[1] The infamous I’m Not a Plastic Bag was launched as an environmentally-friendly shopping bag meant to discourage the use of plastic shopping bags. However, these bags, now commonly carried, has negated its own environmental offsets. Firstly, the bag itself is seen as largely a fashion item and has seen huge demand, even spawning its own counterfeits. The large-scale production of these bags doesn’t seem very environmentally friendly to me… Secondly, I have observed that many of the people carrying these bags STILL carry lots of plastic bags, which is very ironic. Consumption and ecology have become irreversibly linked by multi-national corporations that seek to exploit our concern for the environment by making it appear as if consumption is not part of the problem, but the solution.
Ethical and environmentally friendly material goods for discerning consumers? This seems to be a statement that contradicts itself, since the act of shopping in itself places a huge burden on the planet. Of course, if companies can make saving the planet more ‘fashionable’ and ‘hip’, it might very well happen. The only snag is that to really make a credible effort to save the planet, we must take constructive action to reduce our consumption habits, however, that’s exactly what corporations don’t want you to do.

References

1. (Red) Gets a Beating. Laura Starita, Philanthropy Action (2007). Retrieved on 1 November 2008 from http://www.philanthropyaction.com/nc/red_gets_a_beating/

Social Implications of Video Gaming

The popularity of video games as a modern recreational activity has grown steadily over the years, from being the province of unruly youngsters to a world-recognized sport with teams of professional players who are treated and paid like sports athletes. People are able to make entire careers out of playing video games, be it winning gaming competitions or selling virtual commodities. The World Cyber Games, to be hosted in Cologne, Germany, this year, has all the distinctive hallmarks and characteristics of a global sporting event.[1] The games have a symbolic torch relay that stopped over at cities like Rome, Paris, Sao Paulo and Seattle before ending up in Germany for the beginning of the games. It has its own “events”, comprising of contemporary popular games. Teams from nearly 80 countries will compete for medals from the various events. However, one interesting difference is that video gaming appears to be a predominantly male affair, with very few, if any, female representatives. Perhaps, gaming as a sport has not reached the same level as traditional sports – the early Olympics games had originally excluded women from taking part.

The level of preparation for this “virtual” sports event seems rather ridiculous, considering that the very nature of technology. Multiplayer gaming does not require the players to all be physically present at the same location, with the availability of high-speed broadband connections around the world that connect computers and gaming systems to each other. Bringing all the players together in one location seems counter productive to technology, which could have easily facilitated the games from the comfort of the players’ homes. However, I believe all these preparations are precisely a strike against the proliferation of technology. By insisting on holding this type of e-sport events in the traditional way, cyber athletes show a certain rootedness in sports ideology, regarding technology as a piece of equipment or implement in the competition, very much like how the tennis athlete regards his racket.

With the introduction of the Nintendo Wii video game console system, there is the rise of the possibility that more components of our daily lives can be replaced by their electronic versions. Using a motion sensitive remote control, people are able to simulate virtually any action or activity that we can do, be it bowling, hockey or even to pet a digital dog’s head. Though these advances are still rather tentative and unrealistic when compared to REAL life, but what will happen when video game technology has improved to the point that living in a video game world has little difference from the original world. This presents the disturbing image of people who are physically disconnected from each other and know of little beyond the digital experiences within games, which leads me to my next point on how addictive video games are becoming.

Gaming as a recreational activity has never been as absorbing as it is now, people are getting so engrossed that they are neglecting their families and even their basic needs.  In fact, a term describing the spouses and partners of addicted gamers has arisen, “gamer widows”. [2] These are people who believe that their partners have suffered a sort of “digital death” through the neglect of their loved ones, due to the exorbitant amounts of time they spend immersed in virtual worlds. The danger of gaming, like any other addiction affects not only the sufferer, but his or her loved ones as well. In 2007, a young American couple were so addicted to the online gaming, that they left their babies to starve, even though they had adequate food to feed them.[3] What is frightening about the how addictive video games are growing, is that some game manufacturers hire psychology graduates to help them develop games that are addictive[4], to keep customers playing the game, especially popular online games that require a regular subscription fee to play. Are these companies hiring developers with psychology degrees to improve the value of games and the quality of recreational games for the consumer, or are they callously exploiting the human psyche in order to increase their profits?

References

World Cyber Games (2008). Retrieved on 26 October 2008 from http://www.wcg.com
Game widows grieve ‘lost’ spouses. Winda Benedetti, MSNbc (2007). Retrieved on 26 October 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20397322/
Couple play computer games as children starve. Tom Leonard, Telegraph UK (2007). Retrieved on 26 October 2008 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557480/Couple-play-computer-games-as-children-starve.html
Head to head: Is online gaming bad for you? Liz Woolley, BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 26 October 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4273125.stm

The Social Stigma of Aids

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, is a controversial disease that has sparked countless debates and has had far-reaching socio-economic impacts on the world. Carriers of the AIDS virus also carry heavy social stigmas that lead to social alienation of individuals from meaningful work and the rest of society. People living with HIV/AIDS are often rejected from their community, shunned, discriminated against or even physically hurt. But what is it about AIDS that renders its victims so abhorrent and irregular to the rest of society?

Proper nutrition, health care and medicine for AIDS are generally more readily available in developed countries, and its prohibitive costs limits access to developing countries. This causes rising global inequalities between the developing and developed world. Developing countries with a significant AIDS population will suffer economically due to the high mortality rate of the population and the reduced labour force. Many AIDS sufferers are unable to hold jobs, due to the stigma or discriminatory practices that view AIDS or HIV sufferers as a liability. Even if sufferers are able to find jobs, they will have to put up with alienation and social isolation from their co-workers and employers, due to the fear of infection and lack of education on AIDS.

“Though we do not have a policy so far, I can say that if at the time of recruitment there is a person with HIV, I will not take him. I’ll certainly not buy a problem for the company. I see recruitment as a buying-selling relationship. If I don’t find the product attractive, I’ll not buy it.” – A Head of Human Resource Development, India[1]

In an increasingly competitive global economy, economic rationality and pragmatism seems to leave us with little space for any “disabilities” or “concessions” to those who are unable to fulfill unrealistic expectations.

A number of misconceptions have arisen surrounding AIDS, perhaps because AIDS is still a relatively new disease. Three of the most common misconceptions are that AIDS can spread through casual contact, sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS[2], and that HIV mainly infects only homosexual men and drug users.

The misconception of AIDS that any act of anal intercourse between gay men can lead to AIDS infection is one of the most prominent. With the outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, this was a commonly held opinion as AIDS was poorly understood at the time. In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality. Often, in religious and conservative communities where homosexuality is already frowned upon, HIV/AIDS is seen as a form of punishment for this “immoral” behavior, thus legitimizing and reinforcing the stigmatization of sufferers. Perhaps, the lack of homosexual feelings or experiences, or the lack of interaction with gay people have caused this misconception and the resulting intolerance and blame towards homosexuals for spreading AIDS.

Ryan White, the national poster child for AIDS in America, is the prime example of society’s misconception that AIDS can be spread by casual contact. As a hemophiliac, he was infected with AIDS in 1984 after receiving contaminated blood. His status as an AIDS carrier proved a huge hindrance in his desire to be a “regular kid” and go to school like the rest of his peers. During a time when little was known about the AIDS virus, many parents and teachers demanded that he be barred from returning to school, fearing that Ryan would spread the virus among the staff and students.[3] Even though Ryan gradually gained the acceptance of his peers and nationwide celebrity for his struggle, I feel (maybe pessimistically) that the widespread sympathy to his plight was due more to his young age, and photogenic opportunities as a poster boy for AIDS, and the fact that he contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion (therefore less blameless) rather than homosexuality and drug abuse.

South Africa has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS infection in Africa and this is mainly due to the widespread belief that sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS.  This myth has gained considerable notoriety as the perceived reason for certain sexual abuse and child molestation occurrences – in 2001, a nine-month-old baby girl was raped by six men, of which at least one was tested positive for HIV, in a remote part of rural South Africa.[4] The dangerous prevalence of this belief has the potential of spreading AIDS to innocent, previously uninfected victims. This myth will also have long-lasting social effects on societies struggling with AIDS. The belief in sexual intercourse with a virgin as a cure for AIDS brings up the frightening possibility of increased prostitution and child-trafficking to support this industry, potentially facilitating the spread of the disease even further.

Despite the fact that AIDS is not an easily contagious disease, its continued presence in the world today is an interesting showcase of human behavior and its irrationality.

References

Stigma, discrimination and attitudes to HIV & AIDS. Marta Zaccagnini, AVERT (2008). Retrieved on 18 October 2008 from http://www.avert.org/aidsstigma.htm
HIV/AIDS, the stats, the virgin cure and infant rape. Mike Earl-Taylor, Science in Africa (2002) Retrieved on 18 October 2008 from http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm
A biography of Ryan White. Kit and Morgan Benson (2001) Retrieved on 18 October 2008 from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1612
South African men rape babies as ‘cure’ for Aids. Jane Flanagan, Telegraph UK (2001). Retrieved on 18 October 2008 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-%27cure%27-for-Aids.html

THE CAR CULTURE WITHIN URBAN CITIES

Industrialized nations everywhere have made the automobile the primary instrument of urban mobility. An overwhelming number of the modern cities and practically all the suburbs in the world are planned and oriented towards automobile travel. However, the uncontrollable rise in the use of the car has brought about many unanticipated consequences for urban life. The car is the cause of many serious environmental and social problems for residents of cities and suburbs. Cars account for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. The car isolates the young, the elderly, and others who cannot drive and this problem is particularly acute in suburban areas where there is no other means of transport.

Everything about the suburbs seems cliché, stereotypical and unnatural – a cul-de-sac of unending indistinguishable, identical houses, row after row, seeming to contribute to cultural vacuousness. It is said that no one can grow up in an American suburb without becoming entwined in the twisted web of the Car Culture. The lack of any public transport forces the suburban resident into mandatory car ownership since daily needs, like schools or markets, are rarely within walking distance. Suburban sidewalks are also inadequately maintained, making it inefficient for cyclists or pedestrians. This encourages car trips for even short distances, creating serious traffic congestion problems. (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swless05.htm) This is rather ironic, since most middle and upper-class suburban residents moved to the suburbs to escape the jam-packed, congested problems of city life. A census has revealed that over 40 percent of all commute trips took place wholly within the suburbs, while 7 percent were reverse, city-to-suburbs commutes and only 20 percent were from suburb to the central city. (http://www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?057.pdf)

In urban cities, cars are a constant danger and is the main cause of air pollution in many cities like Bangkok and Jakarta. Worldwide, the WHO reports that 38,848,625 injuries were received by people involved in motor vehicle accidents in 1998. (http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm) Perhaps, one of the reasons why people living in cities are unable to relax is because they are constantly looking out for traffic. Donald Appleyard, the author of Livable Streets, documented how the the level of traffic on different streets correlates with the stress levels of residents and their level social contact with people. Residents who live on streets with heavy traffic rarely speak to their neighbours and often do not even know who they are, which shows how automobiles are gradually breaking down the social ties within urban communities. The noise, danger and pollution also drives people from the street causing the gradual decay of urban street life. Activists opposing the automobile’s encroachment of public spaces have formed a non-violent resistance movement known as Reclaim the Streets. Residents would typically find a way to halt traffic flow, often at busy intersections, and hold a street party, “complete with music, food, costumed performers, poets, political banners and flags.” (http://everything2.com/e2node/Reclaim%2520The%2520Streets) The idea of a Reclaim the Streets action has been taken up as a form of protest around the world and “Street parties” have been held in cities all over Europe, Australia, North America, and Africa.

There are already 531 million cars in use around the world, and members of developing countries seem all too eager to jump onto this bandwagon.(http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1537) The thought of car-choked cities and towns everywhere in the world is an unpleasant vision indeed. The car seems to be the symbol of upward class mobility, yet the social and environmental consequences of owning a car should not be so easily ignored. Can we continue to tolerate the pollution, danger, noise and disruptions to our social lives? Can car-free cities be a possibility in the future?

Identity in Mainstream Culture

Our lives within a consumerist, cosmopolitan, modern society have produced many identities unique to our era. Styles, attitudes, even music tastes are being adopted by mainstream culture for commercial purposes. Businesses often capitalise on subcultures, like those of street punks or minority groups from the ghetto, to seek out what is “cool” and repackage what used to be alien to mainstream culture to a commercial audience. For example, urban graffiti once an outlet of free expression for rebellion and individuality, has been exploited by corporations and brands like ecko, that use graffiti’s association with being “hip” and “cool” to sell their “graffiti apparel” and products. In 2005, Sony launched a graffiti advertising campaign in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Miami, where graffiti artists were hired to “spray-paint buildings with simple, totemic images of kids playing with the gadget (PSP gaming device).” (http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69741) This drew wide criticisms from the populace who saw this as a corporate company trying to buy the credibility of street art.

The economic separation of consumers has created subconscious identities that people assume when they purchase material goods and products. Our shopping centres are filled with shops that try to sell us goods that make us believe that we have an “alternative” identity rather than a homogenous one. Specialty shops, like the Harley Davidson stores and the Body Shop, encourage us to think of ourselves as hardened bikers or sensitive environmentalists. The ‘Get a Mac’ ads where the PC is personified as the fat, bumbling nerd and the Mac as the competent, good-looking young hipster, use our norms of identification against us. Even our association with computers and technology influences how others and ourselves perceive an identity.

In Singapore, ethnically-influenced identities mainly as an exaggeration of racial stereotypes have been on the rise. Anyone who has lived for a period of time in Singapore will have heard of the Malays being labelled as ‘Maats’ and ‘Minahs’, and the Chinese as ‘Ah Bengs’ and ‘Ah Lians’. Locals who are deemed to have become too ‘Westernised’ are branded as ‘Ang Moh Pais’. While some of these labels may sound disparaging, some of these people are actually proud of this tag and assimilate the stereotypical values as their own, while adopting new moral codes amongst themselves to distinguish themselves from their ‘original’ race. ‘Maats/Minahs’, ‘Ah Bengs/Ah Lians’ and ‘Ang Moh Pais’ have gradually developed their own unique identities, however it is still interesting to note that membership to this classification is limited to racial origins.

Music-based cultures are particularly influential in shaping identity. Goth, emo, punk, hip-hop, metal, indie, avant-garde – most die-hard fans of any music genre will tell you that their taste in music is more than just preference for a certain type music, but an entire way of life and a lifestyle movement. Fanatical music fans are apt to follow the attitudes, fashion styles and image of their musical idols, and this has led to the formation of “urban tribes” with their own developed stereotypes. For example, Emos are often stereotyped by popular media as over sentimental, emotional, shy, introverted, or angsty. Emo fashions include tight jeans, long, black straight hair covering faces, and black eyeliner. Other groups like the punks and metalheads have also sprung up through collective appreciation of specific genres of music. In a way, this loyalty and passion of music has produced groups or “urban tribes” that are much more fervent than even patriotism or nationalism. In March 2008, “anti-emo” groups made up of punks and metalheads went on an emo-beating rampage in the cities of Mexico. (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/anti-emo-riots.html) In response, the Emos began “organizing to defend their right to be emo” (Daniel Hernandez, LA Weekly) and staged a series of demonstrations against the violence in several Mexican cities, resulting in clashes between the 2 groups. The rioting escalated to the point that riot police were called in to protect the Emos. Social and youth workers believe the sexual ambiguities cultivated by emo fashion helped set the group up for targeting by more macho groups. Emos are the targets of frequent ridicule and scorn, regularly discriminated against by the merchants at Plaza Rio Tijuana. (http://danielhernandez.typepad.com/daniel_hernandez/2008/03/now-the-punks-h.html) Could music discrimination be the new racism? (By the way, I am NOT a fan of emo music or ideology)

Human Rights

Human rights have always been a rather uncertain and complex issue. Rights have to be recognised by others for it to exist and everyone has their own idea of what rights they should or should not have. Personally, I believe that there is no such thing as rights. Rights are ideas thought up by people of how a person should behave, what they are entitled to and what they cannot do. In a way, upholding human rights gives us less freedom to live our lives than without any at all. Rights place constraints and obligations on people to act according to their given rights and the rights of others. The way I see it, we either have no rights at all or the right to everything.

I believe that there is no such thing as any permanent human rights, there are only temporary privileges granted to people for good behaviour or their ethnicity. Rights are not rights if they can be easily taken away by the same authorities that gave them to the people. On October 26, 2001, US President George W. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act which gave US law enforcement agency greater powers in dealing with terrorism. This allowed the authorities to infringe on the personal rights of citizens, like detaining suspects indefinitely, listening in on telephone conversations, inspecting private email accounts and searching private financial records, all without warrants or court orders. (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html) A similar infringement of rights would be the forcible internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in 1942 after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour. Two-thirds of those incarcerated were American citizens whose only crime was their Japanese ancestry. (http://www.asianamericanmedia.org/jainternment/) Can the internment and the PATRIOT Act happen again? Must the principles of civil liberties be compromised at the expense of national security? This temporary violation of personal liberties show the all too fragile state of the rights that Americans are so proud of – human rights are negotiable should governments decide that they interfere with the state.

I think that the fight for human rights is never-ending. Our ideas of human rights are constantly evolving with profound changes and new progressions in the world. The US Bill of Rights is a sound example of new stances toward human rights – it has been amended 17 times to date. The practice of slavery took 74 years of deliberation for lawmakers to outlaw it in the 13th Amendment. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html) Likewise, colonialism has also become an old-fashioned convention and many national liberation movements around the world have succeeded in gaining independence for their countries, the most famous example being Mahatma Gandhi’s practice of non-violent civil disobedience. Perhaps his regrettable assassination goes to show that his ideas on human rights may have been too progressive for his era. In order to grant human rights to as many people as possible, we must learn to accept the pace of the evolution of human rights.

Religion and its relation to terrorism

Personally, I have always held a very irreverent and unfavourable outlook towards religion, so my opinions toward religion may be a little coloured as I discuss its relation to terrorism. I used to really try and believe that there was a god or gods, but I just found it too ridiculous! I’m supposed to believe that there’s this great invisible father figure in the sky who watches over us? It feels rather dubious to me…I outgrew my belief in gods, the same way I outgrew my belief in Santa Claus! The thing is the existence of gods (the reason for religion) is impossible to prove. Religion is a matter of belief in someone else’s word, or maybe god’s word himself, but how are we going to verify that, besides faith in someone else’s word? I think religion is a social tool utilised by political and religious bigwigs to CONTROL basic and stupid people. Isn’t it convenient how so many people tend to justify their actions as “god’s will”?

One reason I believe why religion is so conducive for the spread of terrorism is its obsession of controlling  its believers with fear. Would you still follow your religion if there was no “Hell” to be condemned to for your sins in life? In the Bible, it says “…(God) shall cast them in a furnace of fire” and “whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire for eternal damnation and torment”. Now, Hell seems like a violent place…I think the idea of going to Hell scares a lot of people and terrorism uses that fear to intimidate and coerce people into action. Threatening people with eternal torment does tend to get people’s attention. Isn’t that strange? The same god that created heaven also happens to be the creator of hell. This god would send you to hell to be in pain, to be tortured and to suffer. But wait! He loves you and by following Him, you can be spared from hell and enter paradise in heaven. Some suicide bombers have even claimed that their religious clerics declare that god would give them “72 virgins” in the afterlife. If the concept of “Hell” or an “underworld” didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be religious fanatics around trying to “redeem” themselves through terrorism.  The fear that one might condemned straight to hell for “eternal damnation” is probably the most important, yet unnoticed convention used by religion to justify its violence and terrorism against the “non-believers”.

Religion also divides people, instead of advocating equal treatment for everyone. Religion is sexist, prejudiced and gives people the wrong idea about life. In the book of Genesis, it is stated that “men shall rule over women” and “women shall be obedient to their husbands”. It also says that slaves are to be loyal to their masters. A holy book promoting slavery and sexism, which has led to total obedience by religious extremists. Religion seems to be all about eliminating those that are inferior or more specifically non-believers. More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason – the Middle East, the Inquisitions, Jihads, Crusades, Northern Ireland and the 911 attacks. I think “Thou shalt not kill” was one of the Ten Commandments, but I suppose a really religious person knows that it depends on who they’re killing, especially if it’s a non-believer. The more devout a person, the more likely that they are to resort to terrorism to reach their goals.

Crime

How would most people define crime? Often, it is the breaking of laws laid down by governments and nameless, faceless politicians on our behalf. But is it fair for all people to be forced to work within constructed boundaries of the law when they were not consulted when the laws were made? Do laws, laid down by others, really protect the majority of the population? It seems much more fair for people to each live by their own personal code of ethics, rather than being told what is “right” and what is “wrong”, so that one may clearer understand transgressions against their own constructed morals. By adhering to social laws that one does not truly believe in, are we not “selling out” ourselves? People would lose all sense of individuality, personal opinion and development, always content to accept the word of the authorities. We would be turning our backs upon all the progress that human society has made throughout history.

However, I suppose widespread irreverence of the law would never be feasible in a society. If people committed crimes, like murder, that they deemed to be “legal” within their own morality, they would feel no guilt whatsoever for the pain of suffering for other fellow human beings. Perhaps, our current systems of defining law are the most practical and sensible approaches to dealing with crime, though it would extinguish our personal individuality and distinction. The problem is figuring out the balance in which to accept the social weight of the system and the fulfillment of our personal growth.

But are our governments really have the people in mind when they set their laws to regulate crime? It would be exceedingly convenient for governments to abuse their power and arrange political laws to suit their purpose. Aung San Suu Kyi’s perpetual house arrest by the Burmese military junta comes to mind. What is even more frightening is the speculation that organized crime is happening at the highest levels of governments around the world. Italian politicians and court judges are notorious for being suspected of having ties to the mafia. I think a question to consider would be whether crime is a product of society or our governments? Crime is defined by governments and has become its plaything, another means of controlling people rather than protecting them.

Just to touch on substance abuse as a crime in society. Are anti-drug laws economically motivated? Drug abusers do not make very good workers and serve very little use in economies. Or perhaps the anti-drug laws are trying to suppress the idea of escapism? Drugs help people escape from unpleasant and suffocating aspects of life. Escapism has always carried a negative undertone in an increasingly competitive society. When one thinks of “escapism”, it is inevitably linked to other disagreeable characteristics like “giving up”,  “hiding from problems” or a general unwillingness to accept the hard truth. But is it really so harsh to condemn anyone who is unable to live up to the high standards of society and chooses escapism to deal with it?

Women and the Family

Before I go on to address the topic at hand, I just thought I would like to voice some thoughts on the changing ideals of our constantly evolving world. A lot of writers seem to express surprise and shock that certain atrocities and violations of perceived rights. But aren’t these people living their lives as they have been taught to in their society? Ideas on family patterns that may seem reasonable in one place would be preposterous elsewhere. For example, arranged marriages are still widely practised in India, which would be unthinkable in the United States. People are behaving in a manner that they deem reasonable by their cultural standards, so it would seem narrow-minded and prejudiced to condemn another’s practices. Everyone seems to comment that human rights violations should not be present in “modern society”. But is our state of society really so modern? The Roman Empire of 27BC – AD476 was deemed be a modern society during that period of time, yet slavery was common as was the routine slaughter of prisoners in coliseums to entertain the people. These were practices that were deemed to be acceptable and even encouraged during that era, which would be grossly inappropriate in our current “modern” society. Thus, I think it would be highly irrelevant for countries to use modern societies as an excuse to pressure other countries to follow ideals that are not relevant to them. What will be the definition of modern society be in 50 years?

The Victorian ideal of womanhood, where motherhood was the aspiration of every woman, is one such ideal that has gradually been eroded over the years by the needs of the global economy. Families can no longer depend on only men for economic maintenance and for women to remain at home to maintain the home and care for the children. Yet, even as more women are entering the workforce, they are still facing significant inequalities. Women, on average, around the world still earn less than men, work longer hours with less benefits and are still responsible for maintaining the home. Even the title “housewife” is a much more widely accepted than “househusband”. Perhaps, our views towards gender roles have not changed as much as we would like. In South Korea, it is considered shameful for Korean men to be less successful than their wives or to personally to a hand in caring for their children. Popular religious beliefs may have a hand in hindering the progress toward gender equality as well. This passage from the Christian Bible firmly establishes patriarchal beliefs, slowing down movements for women’s rights.

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husband, as it is fit in the Lord.
Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter against them.
Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well onto pleasing the Lord.”

A growing, materialistic, consumer-driven economy could also be responsible for the increase in women entering the workforce. Quite simply put, we want more money to buy more material goods, more stuff.  Economies are run on our consumption habits, and they are growing at such a rapid rate that single income families are not enough to sustain the economy. Households are consuming more and need more income. In a way, it’s a little amusing. Countries are increasingly looking more and more like huge shopping malls for us to buy material goods, to pump money into our economy. People are interested in satisfying their material desires, their homes are only there to hold their stuff, while they go out and buy MORE stuff! We never seem to feel that we have enough! If a neighbour buys a new car, people are pressured to get the money together and buy a better car! In our fast paced and frenetic lives, there seems to be no escaping the perceived “rat race”. Longer working hours, stressful jobs, less time for the family, a competitive lifestyle are making people more unhappy even if our standards of living are rising.

Work (for food!) and Trade

I read the chapter by Sernau on the work and the global assembly line, and I found the information about the division of labour and how large corporations are exploiting cheap labour around the world. I think that in order to understand this state of affairs, we need to look into corporate brand image and fair trade.

We are living in a branded world, where public space is increasingly intruded upon by brands. Brands seems to permeate every area of our modern lives – our cars, T-shirts, shoes, caps, watches, pens, toys, computers…even our food has become part of the branded world. There seems to be very little public space that has been left untouched by brands or a huge logo. In a way, I think these corporations and companies are trying to sell people a sort of pseudo-spirituality to people, to make us a feel a sense of “belonging” to a brand. For example, Starbucks is not just a simple coffee house, it is an entire culture. Starbucks does not just sell coffee, it sells an atmosphere of small talk, catching up with old friends. The Starbucks name has come to be associated with the community, a refuge and a social haven. I find it quite disturbing how Starbucks has come to control the environment in which citizens gather, a previously public concept. Likewise, Nike sells the ideas of athletics, female empowerment (through their sponsor of female athletes like Maria Sharapova) and individuality (Just Do It). The biggest example of all is Disneyland. It sells the idea of a perfect safe and perfect world for children. The idea was first built through its cartoons and films, and finally brought to life in a gigantic theme park. If you’ve noticed, there are no advertisements and marketing within Disneyland. The iconic fairy castle that is often the first building you see in Disneyland is the company’s logo – the entire theme park itself is a huge advertisement for its products. Brands has grown such that they have gone beyond supplying us with our material possessions to selling us an idea of what we should be like or what we would like to be.

Perhaps, the power of brands have grown so much that there is a vast distance between brands and their products, affecting the way people view buying and consuming economic goods. Branding has gradually eroded the role of the traditional shopkeeper, craftsman or farmer in our daily lives. That is, there used to a direct relationship between buyers and sellers. You spoke and dealt with the very person who stitched your shoes or clothes or grew the vegetables you ate. Instead, we now buy our Gap T-shirts, made in a sweatshop in Cambodia, or coffee from Starbucks, that underpays their coffee farmers, all in a bright shopping mall. Manufacturers no longer seem responsible for their products as they delegate production out to contractors or subcontractors. It is this lack of responsibility of these brands for their products and how they are produced (beyond how cheaply it can be done) that brings up concerns of fair trade in the Third World.

Unfortunately, many of the world’s multinational companies source their labour from the Third World and are more concerned with reducing costs by underpaying their workers and providing them with poor working conditions so as to maximise their profits. In China, the average living wage for an assembly line worker is approximately US87 cents an hour as compared to the US where workers who do the same job are paid an average of US$18.50 an hour. Yet, even with these massive savings in labour costs, some of the richest and most prominent brands like Adidas, Nike, Reebok, Esprit and Polo Ralph Lauren, pay as little as US13 cents an hour to their workers who have to work under inhumane conditions to keep their jobs.

The Fair Trade Labelling Organisations International (FLO) attempts to address some of these problems by setting minimum fair trade standards and principles to follow like giving third world producers more direct access to mainstream markets, paying workers a minimum living wage and giving them safe working conditions. Nowadays, Fair Trade Certified labels are appearing on clothes or coffee shops, but I wonder if such a label will become as meaningless as those “dolphin-friendly” or “carbon-neutral” labels we see on other products…