Animals
Analyse recent changes in the relationships people have with animals, drawing on Adrian Franklin’s ideas about changes in family life.
Introduction
In order to analyse recent changes in the relationship people have with animals there are a few changes in family life that can drawn on from Adrian Franklin. We can look at the new flexible family unit with various aspects of individualism. Family structures have also adapted within the many types of modern homes. Using Franklins views of ‘Ontological Insecurity’ that has developed in post modernity an analyses can be made of the change in western cultural perspectives toward animals, in particular pets. Also how animals have gone from being something just to eat or a working tool into something loved and protected by laws. As a developing and progressive civilisation, people have found ways to express their affections toward animals in a trusting and committed way that has been the consequence of diminishing human to human relationships. With a career focus for some family members and the many opportunities for sport, hobbies and other interests people have created families of individuals all trying to negotiate internal roles, affection and even time. In this emotionally unfulfilling environment, pets have been given more prominence and their emotional stability is the plug filling the emotional gaps.
History of Human Animal interaction
In tutor England people saw animals from the Christian perspective that they are here to serve humanity. They saw it in the same context as Adam and eve in the Garden of Eden. (Franklin, A. 1999 p11) In early modern England people lived in close proximity with animals, it was common in winter to live under the same roof (Franklin, A. 1999 p11). When people became more urban they no longer needed to “place a difference” with humans and animals with “rituals of separation” that where “brutal and cruel” (Franklin, A. 1999 p12). Now the culture of difference had already been established, people allowed themselves to have pets. They then started to see the old way of treating animals as bad. As society grew into an industrial world, under Fordism animals become a consumer item for capitalists to make profits. With experimental systems they introduce “chemical and hormone additives to fine tune animal health” (Franklin, A. 1999 p131). Animal’s movement is limited and they are taken out of their environments for cost cutting and more manageable “in order to improve yields and profits” (Franklin, A. 1999 p131). Some aspects of our history with animals can still be seen in some capitalist formations such as the meat preparation and farming industries. However also to come from Fordism was the higher incomes that workers could get and the average lifestyle got better. This allowed more working class people to afford pets (Franklin, A. 1999 p39). Since the 1960s pet keeping has become more prominent. A growing pet food and pet service industries show this. “In Britain the number of dogs rose by 66 per cent between 1963 and 1991”, a higher rate with cats, “with a 75% increase between 1963 and 1995” (Franklin, A. 1999 p89). Franklin also provides evidence of the rising amount of money spent on pets in the 1990s. This shows an increasing trend toward a more accepted and loving attitude toward their pets.
Animal Protectionists
There are extreme groups of animal rights campaigners who don’t eat meat and want to separate humans from animals to allow animals to have their own natural habitats and that they should be protected (Franklin, A. 1999 p32). With the change in the perspective about animals society has new ways to show care and attention, animal rights groups have pushed for laws and with advertising the realities of some ‘in-human’ aspects of modern capitalist treatment of animals, they have brought more public awareness and support for their causes. This has brought people from loving the animals in their homes to loving all animals. Treating animals like they have feelings and that as a dominant species we must protect them not hurt them. People see helping animals now as an “outlet for ‘good works’...”, “where humans form a cast of saviours, champions and heroes” (Franklin, A. 1999 p197)
Most people in post modernity are considered to have a ‘sentimental’ view of animals. They have had or currently have a pet, believe in the fair treatment of animals and they like activities related to animals, like the Zoo, safari parks, National parks and watching TV programs about animals, “they are most likely to eat meat, support a limited application of animals in scientific experimentation, be concerned about endangered species and have ambivalent feelings toward hunting” (Franklin, A. 1999 p32). Franklin shows in this how the majority of people have become balanced about animals.
Emotional Needs
Some feelings of tension between humans in modern families have helped to develop relationships with animals (Franklin, A. 1999 p5). As we have shifted our focus more onto our pets as part of the family we have also begun to accept them as having human rights within many homes, Animals are now being treated like they have the same rights as humans in many homes (Franklin, A. 1999 p5) “Animals are uniquely positioned relative to humans in that they are both like us but not us” (Franklin, A. 1999 p9). Our relationship with animals has grown because animals are more stable than human relationships, “they make long term bonds with their human companions; they rarely run off with others; they are almost always pleased to see ‘their’ humans; their apparent love is unconditional (and therefore secured) and they give the strong impression that they need humans as much as humans need them” (Franklin, A. 1999 p85). As they have proved their worth within the home of many kinds of family’s pets have become more important and treated more like they are humans. One of the signs that pets have become part of the family emotional system in post modernity is the higher rates of human names given to them in the UK and Australia and of personalised nick names they have in the US (Franklin, A. 1999 p95). Even rats can have human names and be seen as part of the family and treated as though they are human (Knight, J. 2005 p134).
As part of sustained pet involvement in modern homes relationships with pets and their owners have become “highly individualised and personal” (Franklin, A. 1999 p84), pets have become signifiers of a pet keeper’s image. Lap dogs for women and effeminate men, aggressive dogs for men displaying a ‘Tough guy’ image and traditional hunting breads have become popular family pets because of their intelligence and loyalty. The Rat has gone from being a disgusting beast to a pet that is loved and cared for. In its natural setting it is filthy and diseased. In its pet role it is clean and rewarding for some people (Knight, J. 2005 p119). Rats have a long history of being bread, with evidence of hobby rats as far back as the 1800s (Knight, J. 2005 p124). They are now a fairly common pet and reflect another type of Pet owner like Punks and Goths (Knight, J. 2005 p131). As people have lived longer with pets they have adopted them and present their pets with personalities and rights on an equal bar as humans. Their importance to the people they share homes with has evolved them into being more humanised. They are now more like a child who never grows up then an animal.
Practical implications of pets
Pets have become the playmate of an only child or children with working parents, a companion for the single person and part of therapy for the sick and infirm. Elderly people are able to feel more productive and have a purpose in their day if they have to get up and feed a cat or put him outside to go to the toilet, the cat will make noises until it gets what it wants. Pets also give the sick and infirm company. (Franklin, A. 1999) Elderly with pets can live longer than those who don’t. Pets can replace children in some families and can give an only child an emotional supportive companion. These animals can teach children interaction skills, how to care for another living creature. In some families animals are part of the entertainment for children, something to play in the park with and to help get kids away from the Television and gaming technology.
Conclusion
Western society has become more driven with careers, individual interests and a more flexible family unit has appeared. This has created an Ontological Insecurity in our society that has drawn people into closer relationships with animals (Franklin, A. 1999 pp194-195). As the decline of ontological security developed in late modernity pet numbers increased and people’s attachment to animal relationships grew more predominant. Family members have become more unreliable and less available in regards to many of the humans emotional craving. On the other hand animals are dependant and loving providing a child like attachment that fulfils the need for a reliable emotional bond. The need for a stable companionship and other “ordinary but significant embodied benefits-touch, someone to come home to, someone to doze with, cuddle, groom, feed, even clothe.” (Franklin, A. 1999 p195).
Bibliography
Franklin, A. (1999). ‘Pets and Modern Culture’. Animals and Modern Cultures. London: Thousand Oaks.
Franklin, A. (2006). Animal Nation: The True Story of Animals and Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Knight, J. (2005). Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies. Oxford, New York: Berg.
Smith, N. (1999). ‘The howl and the pussy: feral cats and wild dogs in the Australian imagination’. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 10(3), 288-305.
Some of the Family
The Important things in life are not things
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Essay on Globilization
It has been claimed that globalisation has the potential to reduce inequalities in the world. Conversely, it has been argued that globalisation is leading to deeper and broader social inequalities. Evaluate these claims, using at least two topics covered in the course.
This essay will lay out the issues about globalisation in regards to social inequalities and the potential for the reduction of inequalities. It will look at the colonial conquests with the power and control these brought to primitive countries and see the way the economic system was set up ensuring Europe was gaining wealth from the cheap labour and other resources of less developed nations. We will also look at the way the modern economic system still holds this power flow from the Transnational Corporations (TNC’s) and that these corporations still help to boost their host Nations. We will see how the economists claim to help people in any country to which they can bring the Global Markets. During this it will be explained how this power and control is keeping people in situations that assist profits for the “rich club” and to show that even though new technology and world systems could be created for better opportunities and equality for workers, instead these mechanisms are used primarily to boost the networks of the powerful and to maintain the status quo for the capitalist financial interests.
The European colonisation of undeveloped countries has been a substantial historical process. This has boosted the rise of capitalism and has been the base of Transnational Corporations. Through the trade routes they conquered, developed and protected, these countries were able to exploit the primitive populations of the new found colonies (D J Boudreaux, 2008 pp 9-10). The discovery of the gold in the New World (America) allowed Europe to have the financial boost that instigated the renaissance. Europe was getting richer and more cultured while the new colonies were left in a state of poverty and exploitation. In modernity we see the rise of companies with factories and the fight between unions and corporations in developed countries and new concepts of workers’ rights against production costs and profit margins. The Fordism era must also be taken into consideration with the rise of consumerism to make more customers for mass produced products (Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy 2007 p87). It is no surprise that these foundations of globalisation lead us to an indulgent market that still exploits the under developed nations. These combine technology and cheap labour for mass production and they evolved into post-Fordism with relations to capitalists gaining more control through casual and temporary work with little if any benefits for workers (Cohen, Kennedy (2007 p101).
The World Bank maintains a lot of financial control through ongoing debt. It has the vantage point of the bird’s eye view of the whole global economic situation. It is no doubt they know how things work for the maintenance of the capitalist profit plans and how they can go about them. John Williamson from the World Bank while talking to a science convention in Sri Lanka argued the benefits and the problems of globalisation and how the primary globalisation was set up for financial reasons. Trade through global networks is the driving force of international links. He argued that there was benefit for countries with low skilled labour to increase the living standards in their poor nations through new technologies if they produce items cheaply for the world markets. But he argues that this then lowers the standards of low skilled labour in developed nations. He also discussed that the poor nations should focus on education to compete with other nations who provide low skilled labour.
He also stated that, “there is a good analytical reason for arguing that trade will tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer” (Williamson, 1998).
The book Small Countries in a Global Economy points out that small countries with specialised production such as Switzerland with watches, Ghana with cocoa, Nicaragua with coffee and Kuwait with oil have found the way to do well on the world stage of markets. They can even control the prices of such products through their level of production (D Salvatore, M Svetlicic and J P Damijan 2001 pp 71-72). They also show how globalization has been good for the smaller nations gaining sovereignty from larger empires like the Soviet Union. After there independence some get caught up in the importance of sovereignty verses economy and the fact they must comply with many internationalist rules and regulations along with competitions with other countries for low skilled labour and other industry making them servants to Multinational Corporations (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, pp 25-27). Hence nations are joining with other countries in Conglomerates (like the European Union) to get the benefits of free trading deals, open borders, and combined trading might against other conglomerates such as the USA (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, pp 8-15). This means that although there has been a boom in New Nation States since the break of World War II there has also been the hard fact that these new nations need the trading power of the greater nations close to them to compete and survive in the global market. The empires were broken down after WWII when they became too restrictive for capitalism, and American-dominated global hegemony started to take the place of European colonialism. These new states can thank globalization for their new found independence from Imperial rule. This in turn shows that globalization has helped bring some level of self determination to these countries. The idea of the New World Order that was being developed in 1989 was going to bring peace because of free trade markets through Globalization and it was a big ideal for those pushing the United Nations position and the larger number of countries involved in it (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, p 3).
One positive aspect of globalisation has been the uniting of groups for workers rights around the world. The workers networks have been fighting government oppression, companies who exploit workers and environment impacted issues. It could be argued sadly that they have little real effect on the quality of life for the world’s poor and low paid workers. Unions have been in an uphill battle that could be seen as them losing (Rodrik 1997 p75). They make some inroads and then the corporations along with Governments find ways to reduce their effectiveness. In the US the workers asked for the human side to be taken into consideration, and that the cost of labour should not be part of the financial equations as labour is more than profits; it is people (Rodrik 1997 p76). In countries that succeed in gaining higher wages, there is a consequence of higher unemployment (Rodrik 1997 p11). Their factory closes down because the TNC moves their business to a factory that still exploits its workers. They undercut the factory with better conditions and higher production costs as a result (Rodrik 1997 pp 1-2). The struggle to keep profits coming in are reflected by Rodrik by such sayings as “low wage competition” and “race to the bottom”, representing the desire to pay as little as possible for the use of labour (Rodrik 1997 p3).
Rodrik goes on later to explain how the workers have three major issues, firstly that they pay a larger share now in work conditions and benefits, secondly that they have an insecurity in regards to pay rates and hours worked because of higher labour productivity and thirdly their bargaining power is eroded in regards to settling the terms of employment by the rising unemployment (Rodrik 1997 pp 4-5). With little hope of promotion, no surplus income (barely enough to live with) and the risk of not being able to find another job because the number of unemployed is putting pressure on available jobs to the point that any mistake could see them replaced. Then when changes happen that reduce the conditions of employment there is no way to protest without jeopardising jobs. The modern low skilled labour has been manipulated into becoming a slave type cast by corporations who have too many binding circumstances hanging over the employee’s heads. On top of this they are kept powerless by their bills and general high cost of living in consumer societies. Debt grows and envelopes their lives, leaving them chained to their jobs. This is in contrast to the middle to high income earners who have highly mobile opportunities with their skills and educations to be able to negotiate and to move on if they are not satisfied.
Much of this is reflected by the companies themselves with different ways they look at work ethics on a global front. In some cases were companies will look after their home countries employees who will be higher skilled and harder to replace, but they outsource some functions (like low or unskilled labour) to other countries in order to exercise the “exit” option instead of the “voice’ option. This allows them to be disengaged from local communities, removing themselves from responsibility for the people around the outsourced facilities (Rodrik 1997 pp70-71). Products are now easier to move through modern communications and transport technologies, easier border controls, and inviting governments. Local employment options are locked into globalisation whether they like it or not. Only drastic government restrictions can alter this formula (Rodrik 1997 pp 71-72).
Bolton argues that the current climate of anti nationalism is fuelled and supported by the powerful TNCs and the Governments that need and support them. They use the term “racist” as a way to subdue any form of national pride and anyone who wants to protect their national culture from mass immigration that forces the lowering of wages and homogenises the cultures into a potential world culture. This would then break down barriers of trade as the lack of national pride means that there is no longer a resistance to globalisation and multiculturalism. He also explains that Marx supported the free trade agenda by the capitalists because it also suited his own desire to see the nation-state destroyed (Bolton 2009). These prejudices toward Patriotic/Nationalists politics lead to an international move to put down nationalism and remove it from having any voice. This political favouritism toward internationalist driven politics in itself shows an example that globalisation creates an unequal environment for political expression.
The financial driven experts have their own view of this. Boudreaux claims that historically it is nationalist based economic countries which cause financial depressions (D J Boudreaux, 2008 p10) and that the current countries which suffer the most poverty are those who have cut themselves off from the Global Market, such as North Korea and Niger (Boudreaux, 2008 p34). He also shows that the lower fifth of a country’s income earners go up or down as a result of the country’s economic percentage. So that when a country is doing well at the market trade their people’s wages will go up right down to the lowest paid worker (Boudreaux, 2008 p30). He rubbishes the argument that wages drop in the high consumer countries as a result of cheap labour in poorer nations. He uses statistics from the United States showing that workers are compensated based on their productivity (Boudreaux, 2008 p60). If he is to be believed then all the countries that are poor are that way because their Governments shut them off from the world economy and that everyone has a better life as a result of Globalisation.
The TNCs with their economist apologists will argue that they are improving the world with globalised capitalism and free trade. Their rationale seems to be that the accumulation of wealth by a few will allow a drift of money to the bottom of the food chain to help even the poorest people. Yet even this is in itself showing an unequal spread of wealth. The %5 higher wages across the country will be good for someone on high wages, but show very little extra for someone on bare minimum wages (Boudreaux, 2008 p30). They also argue that technology will help poor countries. This is true if it is applied to assist people. The evidence is often contrary to this with the technology going to the hands of those who will exploit it for their own gain.
On the surface with global pop culture and the high level of entertainment for the developed and developing countries, it is easy to over look the huge inequalities of the underdeveloped nations compared to the developed. It is also more evident of the growing gap between rich and poor in western countries. But modern lifestyles have become the masters of distractions. While the status quo is maintained with the wealthy expanding their power and the debt bound Governments making policies to support capitalist progress, the workers and the poor in both third world and developed world are not able to have a high standard of life (Cohen, Kennedy 2007 pp 114-116 and 202-203). With the modern technologies created to make human life better, easier, healthier, those who are suffering from poverty, disease, starvation and a list of other problems are mostly ignored because they are born out of sight from the “rich club” nations and the wealthy people of their own nations. In the end it comes back to the same TNCs exploiting the third world countries for profit over-looking the possibilities for equalising people and instead keeping the situation as a financial, not a human advancement.
Bibliography
• Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy (2007) Global Sociology. 2nd Ed. Palgrave MacMillan.
• D Salvatore, M Svetlicic and J P Damijan (2001) Small Countries in a Global Economy. Palgrave, New York.
• D J Boudreaux, (2008), Globalization, Greenwood Press, London
• D Rodrik (1997), has Globalisation gone too far? Institute for International Economic, Washington
• John Williamson, (1998) Globalization: The Concept, Causes, and Consequences. http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=330
• K Bolton (2009), Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation, Ab Aeterno No. 1, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, Athens, pp. 25-31
This essay will lay out the issues about globalisation in regards to social inequalities and the potential for the reduction of inequalities. It will look at the colonial conquests with the power and control these brought to primitive countries and see the way the economic system was set up ensuring Europe was gaining wealth from the cheap labour and other resources of less developed nations. We will also look at the way the modern economic system still holds this power flow from the Transnational Corporations (TNC’s) and that these corporations still help to boost their host Nations. We will see how the economists claim to help people in any country to which they can bring the Global Markets. During this it will be explained how this power and control is keeping people in situations that assist profits for the “rich club” and to show that even though new technology and world systems could be created for better opportunities and equality for workers, instead these mechanisms are used primarily to boost the networks of the powerful and to maintain the status quo for the capitalist financial interests.
The European colonisation of undeveloped countries has been a substantial historical process. This has boosted the rise of capitalism and has been the base of Transnational Corporations. Through the trade routes they conquered, developed and protected, these countries were able to exploit the primitive populations of the new found colonies (D J Boudreaux, 2008 pp 9-10). The discovery of the gold in the New World (America) allowed Europe to have the financial boost that instigated the renaissance. Europe was getting richer and more cultured while the new colonies were left in a state of poverty and exploitation. In modernity we see the rise of companies with factories and the fight between unions and corporations in developed countries and new concepts of workers’ rights against production costs and profit margins. The Fordism era must also be taken into consideration with the rise of consumerism to make more customers for mass produced products (Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy 2007 p87). It is no surprise that these foundations of globalisation lead us to an indulgent market that still exploits the under developed nations. These combine technology and cheap labour for mass production and they evolved into post-Fordism with relations to capitalists gaining more control through casual and temporary work with little if any benefits for workers (Cohen, Kennedy (2007 p101).
The World Bank maintains a lot of financial control through ongoing debt. It has the vantage point of the bird’s eye view of the whole global economic situation. It is no doubt they know how things work for the maintenance of the capitalist profit plans and how they can go about them. John Williamson from the World Bank while talking to a science convention in Sri Lanka argued the benefits and the problems of globalisation and how the primary globalisation was set up for financial reasons. Trade through global networks is the driving force of international links. He argued that there was benefit for countries with low skilled labour to increase the living standards in their poor nations through new technologies if they produce items cheaply for the world markets. But he argues that this then lowers the standards of low skilled labour in developed nations. He also discussed that the poor nations should focus on education to compete with other nations who provide low skilled labour.
He also stated that, “there is a good analytical reason for arguing that trade will tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer” (Williamson, 1998).
The book Small Countries in a Global Economy points out that small countries with specialised production such as Switzerland with watches, Ghana with cocoa, Nicaragua with coffee and Kuwait with oil have found the way to do well on the world stage of markets. They can even control the prices of such products through their level of production (D Salvatore, M Svetlicic and J P Damijan 2001 pp 71-72). They also show how globalization has been good for the smaller nations gaining sovereignty from larger empires like the Soviet Union. After there independence some get caught up in the importance of sovereignty verses economy and the fact they must comply with many internationalist rules and regulations along with competitions with other countries for low skilled labour and other industry making them servants to Multinational Corporations (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, pp 25-27). Hence nations are joining with other countries in Conglomerates (like the European Union) to get the benefits of free trading deals, open borders, and combined trading might against other conglomerates such as the USA (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, pp 8-15). This means that although there has been a boom in New Nation States since the break of World War II there has also been the hard fact that these new nations need the trading power of the greater nations close to them to compete and survive in the global market. The empires were broken down after WWII when they became too restrictive for capitalism, and American-dominated global hegemony started to take the place of European colonialism. These new states can thank globalization for their new found independence from Imperial rule. This in turn shows that globalization has helped bring some level of self determination to these countries. The idea of the New World Order that was being developed in 1989 was going to bring peace because of free trade markets through Globalization and it was a big ideal for those pushing the United Nations position and the larger number of countries involved in it (Salvatore, Svetlicic, Damijan 2001, p 3).
One positive aspect of globalisation has been the uniting of groups for workers rights around the world. The workers networks have been fighting government oppression, companies who exploit workers and environment impacted issues. It could be argued sadly that they have little real effect on the quality of life for the world’s poor and low paid workers. Unions have been in an uphill battle that could be seen as them losing (Rodrik 1997 p75). They make some inroads and then the corporations along with Governments find ways to reduce their effectiveness. In the US the workers asked for the human side to be taken into consideration, and that the cost of labour should not be part of the financial equations as labour is more than profits; it is people (Rodrik 1997 p76). In countries that succeed in gaining higher wages, there is a consequence of higher unemployment (Rodrik 1997 p11). Their factory closes down because the TNC moves their business to a factory that still exploits its workers. They undercut the factory with better conditions and higher production costs as a result (Rodrik 1997 pp 1-2). The struggle to keep profits coming in are reflected by Rodrik by such sayings as “low wage competition” and “race to the bottom”, representing the desire to pay as little as possible for the use of labour (Rodrik 1997 p3).
Rodrik goes on later to explain how the workers have three major issues, firstly that they pay a larger share now in work conditions and benefits, secondly that they have an insecurity in regards to pay rates and hours worked because of higher labour productivity and thirdly their bargaining power is eroded in regards to settling the terms of employment by the rising unemployment (Rodrik 1997 pp 4-5). With little hope of promotion, no surplus income (barely enough to live with) and the risk of not being able to find another job because the number of unemployed is putting pressure on available jobs to the point that any mistake could see them replaced. Then when changes happen that reduce the conditions of employment there is no way to protest without jeopardising jobs. The modern low skilled labour has been manipulated into becoming a slave type cast by corporations who have too many binding circumstances hanging over the employee’s heads. On top of this they are kept powerless by their bills and general high cost of living in consumer societies. Debt grows and envelopes their lives, leaving them chained to their jobs. This is in contrast to the middle to high income earners who have highly mobile opportunities with their skills and educations to be able to negotiate and to move on if they are not satisfied.
Much of this is reflected by the companies themselves with different ways they look at work ethics on a global front. In some cases were companies will look after their home countries employees who will be higher skilled and harder to replace, but they outsource some functions (like low or unskilled labour) to other countries in order to exercise the “exit” option instead of the “voice’ option. This allows them to be disengaged from local communities, removing themselves from responsibility for the people around the outsourced facilities (Rodrik 1997 pp70-71). Products are now easier to move through modern communications and transport technologies, easier border controls, and inviting governments. Local employment options are locked into globalisation whether they like it or not. Only drastic government restrictions can alter this formula (Rodrik 1997 pp 71-72).
Bolton argues that the current climate of anti nationalism is fuelled and supported by the powerful TNCs and the Governments that need and support them. They use the term “racist” as a way to subdue any form of national pride and anyone who wants to protect their national culture from mass immigration that forces the lowering of wages and homogenises the cultures into a potential world culture. This would then break down barriers of trade as the lack of national pride means that there is no longer a resistance to globalisation and multiculturalism. He also explains that Marx supported the free trade agenda by the capitalists because it also suited his own desire to see the nation-state destroyed (Bolton 2009). These prejudices toward Patriotic/Nationalists politics lead to an international move to put down nationalism and remove it from having any voice. This political favouritism toward internationalist driven politics in itself shows an example that globalisation creates an unequal environment for political expression.
The financial driven experts have their own view of this. Boudreaux claims that historically it is nationalist based economic countries which cause financial depressions (D J Boudreaux, 2008 p10) and that the current countries which suffer the most poverty are those who have cut themselves off from the Global Market, such as North Korea and Niger (Boudreaux, 2008 p34). He also shows that the lower fifth of a country’s income earners go up or down as a result of the country’s economic percentage. So that when a country is doing well at the market trade their people’s wages will go up right down to the lowest paid worker (Boudreaux, 2008 p30). He rubbishes the argument that wages drop in the high consumer countries as a result of cheap labour in poorer nations. He uses statistics from the United States showing that workers are compensated based on their productivity (Boudreaux, 2008 p60). If he is to be believed then all the countries that are poor are that way because their Governments shut them off from the world economy and that everyone has a better life as a result of Globalisation.
The TNCs with their economist apologists will argue that they are improving the world with globalised capitalism and free trade. Their rationale seems to be that the accumulation of wealth by a few will allow a drift of money to the bottom of the food chain to help even the poorest people. Yet even this is in itself showing an unequal spread of wealth. The %5 higher wages across the country will be good for someone on high wages, but show very little extra for someone on bare minimum wages (Boudreaux, 2008 p30). They also argue that technology will help poor countries. This is true if it is applied to assist people. The evidence is often contrary to this with the technology going to the hands of those who will exploit it for their own gain.
On the surface with global pop culture and the high level of entertainment for the developed and developing countries, it is easy to over look the huge inequalities of the underdeveloped nations compared to the developed. It is also more evident of the growing gap between rich and poor in western countries. But modern lifestyles have become the masters of distractions. While the status quo is maintained with the wealthy expanding their power and the debt bound Governments making policies to support capitalist progress, the workers and the poor in both third world and developed world are not able to have a high standard of life (Cohen, Kennedy 2007 pp 114-116 and 202-203). With the modern technologies created to make human life better, easier, healthier, those who are suffering from poverty, disease, starvation and a list of other problems are mostly ignored because they are born out of sight from the “rich club” nations and the wealthy people of their own nations. In the end it comes back to the same TNCs exploiting the third world countries for profit over-looking the possibilities for equalising people and instead keeping the situation as a financial, not a human advancement.
Bibliography
• Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy (2007) Global Sociology. 2nd Ed. Palgrave MacMillan.
• D Salvatore, M Svetlicic and J P Damijan (2001) Small Countries in a Global Economy. Palgrave, New York.
• D J Boudreaux, (2008), Globalization, Greenwood Press, London
• D Rodrik (1997), has Globalisation gone too far? Institute for International Economic, Washington
• John Williamson, (1998) Globalization: The Concept, Causes, and Consequences. http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=330
• K Bolton (2009), Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation, Ab Aeterno No. 1, Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, Athens, pp. 25-31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)