Ecology

Recently, there has been a change in the attitudes of world leaders towards environmental problems. Many have come to realize that is something is not done about the rising environmental pollution, the Earth will eventually become too polluted for us to live in not to mention the increase in natural disasters we will have due to rising greenhouse emissions. In fact, there has been an effort in many countries for families to adopt a green lifestyle that will reduce pollutants into the environment.

In my opinion, it is going to be extremely difficult for families to adopt such a lifestyle because of the way stratification takes place in society. Most societies have stratified their people into three main categories – the upper class, the middle class and the lower class or the working class. This certainly holds true for Singaporeans. Most people consider themselves middle class here and in order for a family to be middle class, they have to have a car. The better the model, the better your status is. This means that a lot of people buy cars so that they can show off, although they might not intend to do it, it happens a lot. Cars obviously pollute the environment not only because of the gases they release but also because of the carbon emissions that happen when the car is being produced or the oil that goes into the car is being obtained. So the more cars on the road, the more the pollution. It’s why the Singapore government encourages people to take public transport.

However, because there are so many people who aspire to be in the middle class, more cars inevitably end up on the road thus polluting the environment even more. This class stratification that takes place in society is one of the main reasons that most families, especially if they are working class, will not opt to go green. Society therefore, dictates the goods that are held valuable and in this case, owning a car is definitely one of the requirements for being in the middle class.

Why is being in the middle class so important to Singaporeans that they do not mind forgoing going green? The government emphasizes the large middle class we have here a great deal. So much so, that society itself has begun to view the middle class as a class for the working class to aspire into.

Another reason the stratification system will not help families to adopt a green lifestyle is that for those who have been stratifies into the working class strata, they want to move into the middle class strata and so need to have the money in order to that since wealth is an important indicator of the middle class. However, if they were to adopt a green lifestyle, they would have buy organic foods for example which are more expensive than normal foods. This would place a burden on them since they would be spending much more on the food they consume than they usually do and this could hinder their progress into the middle class strata.

The price of green food is significantly higher than normal foods in most countries including Singapore which would obviously keep people from buying it because they would rather spend their money on something better such as a car. This is because, the car can, as mentioned before, be used as a status symbol in society. On the other hand, no one is going to look at whether a person buys organic food as a symbol of their social status.

Therefore, I believe that the social stratification system has to scrapped for families to adopt an environmentally lifestyle but seeing as how this system has lasted for a really long time, I don’t think it’s possible. It is possible for families to adopt a green lifestyle though I believe it will take a long time before majority of the working class will do so.

Technology

The world today is dependent on technology in my opinion. Everything is run on it. Everything is computerized and in today’s society, it is extremely difficult to find a job if you are not computer literate. This requirement for computer literate people has widened the gap between the rich and poor and thus increased social inequality.

One main reason for this is that the rich do have more access to computers. I’ll look at countries in this. The USA is much richer than Sudan. The USA obviously has more access to computers than say Sudan. Therefore, in the globalized economy where almost anyone in any country can move to another country to get a job, it is much easier for those from the US to find jobs than someone from Sudan. This is because those in the US are exposed to computers from a very young age because they can afford them. This makes them very versatile when it comes to computers. It gives the rich a higher chance when it comes to getting a job. Those in Sudan, which is mostly poor, have no or little access to this technology which makes it much harder for them to compete on a world stage and get a job. If they can’t find good jobs, they are not going to get out of poverty since they have no money. In this case, the rich get richer because they can use computers and the poor get poorer because they can’t.

The internet is also something that gives people access to knowledge. With this knowledge, people get jobs. Again, the US has access to this and therefore can use the knowledge for its own purposes, one of which is to increase its wealth. They can do this because they can find out information about the financial institutions and can invest in the stock markets with that information. Majority of Sudan doesn’t have access to the internet and cannot gain useful knowledge that way. So they don’t really have the proper information if they want to invest and can end up investing in wrong companies meaning companies that will not give them any positive returns. So they cannot get rid of poverty that way. If they do make poor investments, they will only get poorer and the social inequality will increase.

The internet allows people to get their ideas across and sway people to their side. This is useful because people use the internet to find out more about their politicians. Almost anything can be found online. For example, in the US elections, US citizens can find out anything they want about the 2 candidates online and can use this decision to make informed choices about who will help them increase their wealth. In Sudan, they don’t have access to the internet and cannot find out any information other than what is told to them by people which is often biased and not completely true. Therefore, they cannot use their votes to get the people who will get them out of poverty into power since their message is often not heard. The social inequality widens because the people in Sudan cannot get the people who will benefit them the most in power while those in the US can make decisions that benefit them and make them wealthier.

The computer and the internet therefore become tools that encourage social inequality. This inequality within the countries will only get wider as those in the US continue to make good decisions based on knowledge they get from the computer and become richer while Sudan will only get poorer if its people cannot afford the vast amounts of knowledge on the computer.

Health

Mental illness is a failure to adapt mentally to external conditions that incapacitate a person in some ways (Ritzer, 1986:111). One of the main causes of mental illness is the stratification system in society that divides people into social classes such as the upper class, the middle class or the lower class based on how much they earn and the amount of power they have. Mental illness is more common among those in the lower class according to George Ritzer. The reason for this is that people who are in the lower class are subjected to more stresses than those in the upper class.

Mental illness prevents people from moving up the social class system. There is a social stigma attached to the phrase mentally ill. If someone is considered to have a mental illness be it schizophrenia, anxiety disorders or personality disorders, people automatically assume that the person is crazy or a danger to others and don’t want to be around them. This would pose a problem to those who need to get a job but are considered mentally ill. People would rather not hire them so they find it very difficult to get a job or earn money that will allow them to move up in the social class stratification. This anxiety that they face because they have not put themselves into the middle class strata adds on to their stress level and undoubtedly worsens their mental illness. It is like a cycle that will not stop. When people cannot achieve their goals of moving up the social strata, they become stressed and develop disorders referred to as mental illnesses that prevent them from getting the job or money they need to meet their goal which just starts of the whole process again.

There are mental hospitals of course in almost every country but again, the stigma attached with going to one actually prevents people from seeking treatment there. Then there is the fact that only the rich can afford to take a break from their stressful life so that their illness does not return. The poor cannot afford to take a break so once there are disorder is treated, they go back to work and face the same stresses again making the likelihood of a regression much higher. Mental institutions then are not particularly helpful in completely eradicating mental illness from the lower class.

What has to be done in order for the high mental illness rate among the lower class to decrease is that the whole idea of social stratification has to be scrapped. Social stratification as explained earlier just seems to worsen the problem because it sets out clear socially valued goals that everyone should aspire to. But getting rid of social stratification is something that is not possible at this time. Society has formed identities based on which strata they come from and it is highly unlikely that they would be willing to give it up. In my opinion, society exists because there is social stratification. Even in ancient societies there used to be stratification and if we haven’t been able to get rid of it over more than a thousand years, I seriously doubt we will be able to get rid of it anytime soon. And if stratification is eradicated, then there seems that there is nothing for society to aspire to. So stratification does play an important role. The best solution to this problem is therefore mental institutions.

References

1986 Social Problems Ritzer, George 2^nd edition pg 111 – 141

Urbanization

In the Philippines, more and more people are moving to city areas because they believe that in the city, they can earn more money than what they did back their village. This movement from rural areas to urban areas has led to the creation of slums because many of the people from the villages either cannot find jobs or cannot find jobs that pay well and therefore, cannot afford proper housing.

With the increase in the number of slums in the Philippines, there is an increase in the amount of crime in the slums as well. This is due to various reasons. One of these is that there is really bad hygiene among the people living in the slums which means it is very easy for illnesses or diseases to spread. Also, because the slums are extremely close to one another, if there is an illness, then it can spread very easily. It is also very easy for viruses to spread because of pollution that is only heightened by the close quarters of the people. These people are poor people who do not have the money to go to a doctor and buy medicine of their loved one gets sick. The money they earn on whatever jobs they can find is not enough to cover their living expenses so they don’t have any savings they can rely on in times like this. Therefore, they have to steal or rob in order to obtain the money. It is desperation that drives these people to crime.

Another reason is that with globalization, materialism is on the rise. This means that even in the Philippines, in urban cities like Manila, it is common to find people showing of their wealth by wearing expensive jewellery or watches. Walking among these people are the urban poor who live in slums. Obviously, when they see these people who are showing off what they themselves do not have, they feel jealous. They feel that they deserve to have that piece of jewellery because perhaps they have been working so hard but still cannot make enough money to live properly. Often, even among those living in the slums, the one who has material goods in his possession is better off in some relative sense. So the desire to show off is also there. If they cannot earn the money to purchase the items they want, they steal it. It doesn’t matter if everyone knows you stole it because you still have it.

There is also little police presence in the slums often because it is very difficult for them to manoeuvre around the homes in the slums. The people in the slums know this and they also know that they face no consequences if they do commit a crime like theft. Also, even if the police do enter the slums, for many of the people there, they have been living there for years and therefore, there is some solidarity among them and they perhaps feel more loyalty towards each other than they do towards the police. Also, many of the police in the Philippines themselves are corrupt so a little bribery would get them off the back of the criminals. Knowing that they are not going to go to jail if they do get caught means that there is nothing preventing them from turning to crime if they are desperate or if they just want something expensive that the can show off.

The rising crime in the Philippines slum areas clearly illustrates one of the problems with urbanization. This crime could well get more dangerous unless proper measures are in place to reduce it.

Identity

Aborigines in Australia

The Aborigines are the native people of Australia. They have formed an identity based strong spiritual beliefs that tie them to the land and a difficult colonial history. There are many different distinct groups (around 500 – 600) of them and although they interacted with each other they did not have a common identity to unite them as one people until after the British came and took over their land.

The Aborigines used to identify with others through their land, their relationship to others and their language and stories – which may have been expressed through ceremony, the arts, family, religion, and sports. Many of them had distinctive cultures and beliefs. They came from different territories ranging from lush woodlands to harsh desert areas. Different groups specialized in different areas and possessed various skills and knowledge. The Aborigines people identified themselves as belonging to one of the many tribes. They continued to do this until the Europeans came and the Aborigines formed a more common identity that was based not on where they came from or what stories their ancestors had passed down but instead an identity based on resistance.

The identity brought the Aborigines together as one people against the British. The reason they banded together as one was because the British people took the children of the Aborigines away from them and put these children in foster homes. The British saw the Aborigines as inferior to them and they wanted to culturally assimilate these children into contemporary Australian society. Obviously, the kidnapping of their children made them furious and they had to come together so that they could do something about it since individually, they were no match for the much more powerful Europeans.

By coming together and creating one identity, that of being Aborigines, the emphasis on where they came from, the different way of living they had, was much less. The identity that they now had was not one constructed on the level of an individual but on the level of the group. This meant that the group as a whole was more important than individual.

Another reason for the formation of a resistance identity was that the Aborigines were forced to join white rural and urban communities. Although they joined these communities, they were marginalized both socially and economically by the people there. They were excluded from the white society. Therefore, they sought to exclude the whites from their own society. They did this by forging a common identity.

In the 1970s, all this came to a head and the Aborigines spoke out for equal rights and more importantly, they wanted the land the British settlers had taken from them. Eventually legislation was passed that increased their rights. However, many Aborigines still live in very poor conditions. Illiteracy is high, so is unemployment. Infant mortality rate is high and there is low life expectancy due to the drug and alcohol problems. Many of the Aborigines are forgetting the common identity they once shared and are forgoing the culture and traditions that their ancestors had.

References

http://www.ebgymhollabrunn.ac.at/projekte/abori.htm

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/indigenous/

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aboriginal1.html

 

democracy

India is one of the biggest democracies in the world. As of 2004, it has 8 national parties, 42 state parties and 730 registered unrecognized parties. There has never been an election where the majority was formed with only 1 party. There has always been a coalition that has to be formed.

The good thing about having so many parties is that it truly is a democracy where people can choose who they want to elect. It truly means rule of the people. However, each of the parties has their own interests and it therefore becomes very difficult for the party in power to do anything because they do not have the majority vote. The parties are also either race based or geographically based so many of the people would either vote the party that was of the same religion or the party that was from their town or area. When elections are over, the parties have to negotiate a deal so that a ruling coalition can be formed. There is no clear majority formed unlike in the US where either the Democratic or the Republican Party has the majority.There seems to be very little consensus within the ruling coalition as each party jostles for power. This creates a great deal of bureaucracy and corruption which makes it very difficult for anything to be done as is currently the case.

An example of this can be seen in the US – India nuclear deal which has yet to be signed. The US congress which was required to approve the deal has already done it. It is the Indian parliament which has yet to agree. Some in the Indian government feel that this deal is beneficial to them because it will bring India closer to the United States at a time when the two countries are forging a strategic relationship to pursue their common interests in fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Others argue it limits India’s sovereignty and hurts its security with the excessive US participation. Whatever their beliefs, it is taking far too long to come to a decision about this issue.

While the huge number of parties keeps with the spirit of democracy where anyone who is fit to stand for elections or form a party is able to, the sheer number of parties makes it close to impossible for anything to be done quickly.

What then can be done to allow democracy to flourish and still minimise the negative effects of democracy?

Clearly the level of corruption has to be decreased. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has earned a great deal of respect because he is seen as someone who is incorruptible. Other leaders should follow his example. There should be checks in place to ensure that leaders do not become corrupt. It can be argued that the vast majority of parties act as a check where opposition parties can ensure other government leaders or ministers do not accept bribe. But many in the opposition themselves are corrupt so they cannot really do anything because it would be rather hypocritical of them. What can be done is the leaders could declare their income for example. That would allow the people to see that their parties are not corrupt. This would be helpful in reducing the number power struggles as many officials would then not be there to get more power for themselves but instead could work together to improve the living standards in India and help the democracy progress.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/#5

http://www.world-affairs.org/globalclassroom/curriculum/DemocracyInIndia.pdf

War

Israel and Palestine have been at war for decades. Both nations are fighting over the same piece of land which Israel is currently in control of. The Palestinians want their own state and they are willing to fight Israel for it. There are currently 2 main Palestinian groups who do this – Fatah and Hamas. Although Fatah does not fight with Israel as much today as it did before, Hamas is still involved in any battles between the 2 nations.

Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. It is committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamist Palestinian state. It carries out attacks on Israel and is seen by some countries as a terrorist organization. Many Palestinians are part of this group and it’s for a reason. Hamas devotes majority of its annual budget to an extensive social services network. The provision of these necessary items by Hamas to Palestinians would make the many of the Palestinian people loyal to them. It has thousands of supporters and sympathizers because of this reason.

The way which Israelis treat the Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank also contributes to the reasons for Palestinians taking up arms against Israel. Israel controls the only entry and exit into and out of Palestinian areas. It also controls all food and supplies going in. often the food that gets in can’t be eaten. For example, the eggs are broken because the Israelis did not handle them with care or the fish has rotted because it was out in the sun for hours. Many Palestinians are also treated with contempt and disdain by the Israelis and this makes the Palestinians angry and frustrated. It looks to them as though they have no rights. Hamas then seems as though it is fighting for the rights which the Palestinian people do not have. The people can also identify with the cause that Hamas fights for. So the either join them or support them. And others join because they want to get back at Israel for their degrading and humiliating treatment of them.

Furthermore, although this initially started out as a political conflict between 2 nations over, it has now degenerated into a war of religious fanaticism with extremist Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims carrying out attacks. This has to cease for the war to end.

Peace talks in order to end this war have been going on but it is hard to accomplish much when one of the Palestinian governments – Hamas – is seen as a terrorist organization by Israel. There also isn’t much room for negotiation when both Israel and Palestine aren’t willing to give an inch on any issue. The recent ceasefire agreements that were concluded have been broken and either side blames the other.

The reason both Israel and Palestine need to come to an agreement is simple for both sides. Palestinians are getting tired of war. They feel that if they can come to a conclusion that both nations are happy with then they will be able to live their lives without fear that someone else in their family will die by getting shot or bombed as is now the case. For the Israelis, Al – Qaeda which was responsible for the September 11 bombings and other attacks is also threatening to and has already carried out attacks in Israel because of the fight with Palestine. This threatens Israeli national security because this conflict allows Al – Qaeda to gather more recruits. Therefore, Israel has a more important reason now to end the war.

What needs to be done is that Israel needs to have a full withdrawal from occupied territory as the Palestinians would be satisfied with nothing less. The Palestinians need to disarm militias and accept Israel as a state. Only then can the bloodshed be ended.

References

Flashpoints in the war on terrorism, Derek S. Reveron and Jeffrey Stevenson

Crime in South Africa

The crime rates in South Africa are one of the highest in the world. Murder, robbery, kidnapping, it all happens and not only to locals living there but to tourists as well.

One of the reasons for the high crime rate is the high unemployment rate. When people are unemployed, they feel ashamed that they don’t have as much money as other people. They feel ashamed when they can’t provide for their families. This leads them to crime which for them is the only way they can get money. The reason unemployment got so high in the first place could be because when apartheid ended, there were very few jobs. The government was new and relatively inexperienced. Furthermore, foreign investors were not sure about the stability, both political and economical, of the country and therefore did not invest. A great deal of the population was also unskilled and many were illiterate since during the apartheid era, many did not have the opportunity to attend school. This led to high unemployment levels. About 30 percent of people were unemployed during the time Nelson Mandela was president. Now, it is about 25 percent. Although jobs have been created now, the rate at which this is done is very slow.

With modernization, materialism becomes an integral part of life. Almost everything is measured in terms of the material goods a person has. A person has higher status in society if he has the latest gadgets. In order to get these gadgets, man turn to crime. When people cannot afford these things because they are poor, they feel angry. Even though they may not need the goods, they feel as though they need to prove a point to society. They feel angry and jealous and this soon turns to hate. And a willingness to turn to crime in order to get what they want so they can show off that they are not so poor they cannot afford the latest styles in a product.

Why hasn’t the government done anything? After all, it’s been more than 10 years since apartheid ended and a new South African government took power. It could be due the fact that corruption is rampant in the country. People who are caught for committing a crime often bribe the police. They are let go and get back to crime. Many government officials themselves are corrupt. Aid money meant for the poor people in the country doesn’t reach them because these people have kept it for themselves. Nelson Mandela promised his party would build a million new houses by 1999. So far, only 400,000 homes have been completed or are under construction. Many people live in slums. Yet they can see those who live in luxury because they live in gated compounds opposite them. This makes them jealous and they are tormented by the unfairness of it all. In many cases, the anguish they put themselves through results in them turning to crime so they can lessen the perceived inequality.

Sernau mentions that corruption in the police force should be stopped but this is hard to do. These policemen are not very well paid for the often dangerous work that they do and this means they look at bribes as a means of increasing their salary. They should get other benefits so that corruption might decrease.

According to sociologist William Wilson (Sernau pg 135), educational improvement and full employment policies are the answer to solving crime in countries like South Africa. Improving the educational level of the people would go a long way in lowering the crime rate. Vocational institutes that teach youths certain crafts would also keep them out of trouble. Full employment policies that expand the economy and are supported by both the private and public sector could create jobs. This will lessen the hostility felt by many towards those who are better off than them. It will allow these people to feel as though they are in charge of their own life and decrease the inequality currently present.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/africa/s.africa/

Women and Family

With both parents working in many families, parents do not get to spend enough time with either their children or their spouses. This in many cases leads to divorce and a breakdown of the family unit as misunderstandings and arguments become more common. Children are often the most affected by this breakdown. Since, more children are left at childcare centers than with their grandparents or relatives, many do not get the attention they need from their family who are often at work trying to earn enough to support them. While it’s true that childcare centers do teach these children something, they do not give them the personal attention many of them need. These children therefore, do not learn the right values and many do not know right from wrong because their parents, who would normally be the ones teaching this to them are not there. This could create a social problem if these children turn to delinquency and crime.

Parents are also affected if they are not sure if their children are getting the care and attention that they need. In the United States for example, most households do not have domestic helpers who can help take care of the child. If they do not live with their parents or have friends who are free during the day to take care of their children then they will have no choice but to put them in childcare. This means they have to find good affordable childcare that is also close to their work so that it is easier for them. Sometimes this isn’t possible especially if their employers do not provide them with subsidized childcare centers. The parents would then be worried as to whether their children are being taken care of properly or not and this would affect their job performances. Companies should be concerned because this could affect the morale of their employees and affect the way they interact with their clients and through this their profits.

The companies who do not have any policies to help their employees deal with childcare and the like feel that this is not really a huge problem for them. But more and more companies in the US have perhaps realized that there are 12.2 million single parents and 27% of the people in states like Indiana and Florida were formally married and most have children whom they need to look after as well (US Census). Some companies like the Marriott Hotel and Grand Hyatt Hotel Chains have already put in place policies that will make it easier for their employees to find affordable childcare close to work. Others might be doing something soon.

The question then becomes if the government should become involved as well considering that this could become a huge social problem. In the US, should it be the state government or the federal government? Either one could open up good, affordable childcare centers at certain places where employees could leave their kids while they work. However, in order for them to do this, they would need funding which is the problem. How would they get funds? They could tax the people further but this could prove unpopular and cost them the next elections. They could ask for donations but would they be able to raise enough money? They could just take it out from their current budgets but the US already has a huge debt (US Budget)and this could make it worse.

So should the government become involved or just leave it to the companies. I believe that the government should leave it to the individual companies to come up with a solution but if the companies seem to be doing nothing, then perhaps they should intervene and perhaps create laws that would make it mandatory for the companies to provide good, affordable childcare for their employees.

 

References

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002265.html

http://aol.careerbuilder.com/Jobs/Company/C8D7BN6GV5F6ZYT9WDZ/Hyatt-Hotels/?cbsid=90a82756b1d04101a1324a8420c272f2-273786533-VN-4&&cbRecursionCnt=1

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/

Cheap Labour – Is it exploitation?

A construction labourer working in Singapore makes on average S$800 (US$566) a month (Ministry Of Manpower). A construction labourer working in the United States earns on average S$1490 (US$ 1050) a month (US Department of Labour). Some in the United States would regard the labourer working in Singapore as being exploited because he makes much less than them. However, these workers make much more in Singapore than they could have made in their home country of Bangladesh for example. The S$800 they make in Singapore can provide for many more things for their family which is one of the reasons they are willing to come here and work.

In Singapore, domestic workers make between S$300 to S$500 a month. In the US, people who hire domestic workers have to pay them according to the minimum wage laws and they therefore make much more. Domestic workers also have specific working hours and benefits in the US; something those working in Singapore do not have. In Singapore, most of the domestic workers live in their employers homes and are usually at their beck and call. Also, most of the workers do not get days off and the law does not seem to protect their rights as much as it should. It could then be argued that those working in Singapore are being exploited because they do not make as much money or have the same benefits that those working in the US have. However, many of those working in Singapore are here because they can make much more than they could back in their home country. How are they being exploited if they can make enough to support their entire family? It can then be argued that exploitation of workers is relative and a matter of perspective.

Workers’ unions who accuse multinational companies of exploiting workers in countries like China or the Philippines are also usually in the US or other European countries who have a vested interest in this issue because for many of them, they are being replaced by workers in these countries. Workers in countries like China and India are doing the job that those in European countries once did because multinational companies like Nike are moving their factories to these places where the cost of labour is much lower.

The word exploitation means – to make productive use of (Merriam-Webster). Under this definition, the employment of workers in China and India is simply economic sense. Companies want to make profits so they employ people who can maximize their profits by taking less pay. It is a simple matter of demand and supply. There is a demand for low – skilled workers and in China, there is a huge supply of workers as compared to the European countries. The people in China are willing to work for companies at comparatively lower wages. They are well aware of what they are going to get paid and the conditions under which they will work. They choose to take those jobs and so it can’t really be said that they are being exploited.

Also according to the Herald Tribune (David Barboza), there is a growing shortage of cheap labour in China. Wages are also going up. Multinational companies which used to pay US$100 are now paying more because the number of unskilled workers is decreasing. So if wages are increasing and conditions are getting better, then how is this exploitation? I don’t believe it is. It’s just good business.

References:

Ministry of Manpower http://app.mom.gov.sg/momwagesearch/wagesearch.aspx

US Department of Labour http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm

Merriam-Webster Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/02/business/labor.php