Thursday, January 31, 2008
Electronic Colonialism and things...
I actually found reading this part of the book to be fairly easy and understandable. (Which is rare for a textbook!) I liked how McPhail compared Electronic colonialism to the other forms of colonialism in the past and also how he compared media to "wearing a mask."All this about the Electronic Colonialism Theory and World Systems Theory was hard for me to read though. Hard because I was almost ashamed to be American. Don't get me wrong, I do plenty of my share of enjoying American media and think we produce some very fine quality things, it's just that I feel like when we bombard other countries with it so much, it's like we're discounting their culture. I know we talked about how a lot of countries don't have the option to create a lot of their own media but who's to say that broadcast media is the best thing for the people anyway. If American media can co-exist with existing cultures....power to it. I would hate for the world and all the peripheral and semi-peripheral nations to homogonize because of our influence. What a boring world! I love other cultures. Speaking french and spanish, I've wanted to travel the world and indulge in all that other countries have to offer...it's not about the media for me in that aspect. I was also really unnerved by the passage where McPhail talks about the World Systems Theory where business leaders of core multinational media firms seek to convert and capture the attitudes, minds, and purchasing behavior of others. We're victims of it as we speak. The clothes we wear, food we eat, any materials we buy and how we think about others is shaped my media. Are we simply purchasing puppets? It's scary to think about. Media is part of culture...i don't think it should manipulate it and warp it for us and others in the global community.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Fate of the World...According to Some
It's been a long day. Between the Rory Kennedy event and the 2 readings, things are tending to look a little grim for the world. But I have hope still! The speaker was fantastic and gave me some great journalistic/documentary aspirations. We'll see...
At first, I wasn't sure what the agenda was for The Coming Anarchy by Robert D. Kaplan. However it began to take shape after a little reading. My first thoughts were the same as any conversation concerning Africa. My heart breaks for the whole continent. I'm overwhelmed with the situation and wanting to help. But when Kaplan used West Africa as a model for the future of the U.S, it got a little scary. It's hard for me to think we could end up that way and "how did this begin and how can we prevent it?" become the bigger questions. In the words of Kaplan, "Democracy is problematic, scarcity is more certain." Those words became clear and evident to me when I thought about the environment as a possible cause for conflict. The population will increase in the poorest parts of the world where development even now is difficult. I never really thought of the environment being such an issue but Kaplan posed it as a threat. One last part of the reading that struck me was the contradiction between Huntington and Kaplan in their views of borders and conflict. Huntington thinks borders will be the natural place for clash between civilizations but Kaplan talks about their insignificance. With Islamic Extremism and the recent terrorist cells, borders mean nothing as the groups of individuals shrink. Even in the U.S, we have so many cultures Kaplan argues that with racial polarity, educational dysfunction, and social fragmentation, it would be easy for a solid feeling of patriotism to slip through the cracks. People would naturally stick to smaller groups. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
In response to The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria, my definition of democracy was completely turned upside down! I think many people are in the same boat as myself when it comes to having a certain idea of what democracy is according to the Western constitutional liberalism model we see everyday. It's easy to look at struggling countries and our economic/political success (if you can call it that) as a country and want to implement our ideas. Yet when you look closely at the flaws in our system such as the small number of justices in the supreme court with life terms, the not so equal representation in the senate, and more, it seems our form of democracy is just "an exit on the road" as opposed to Fukuyama's "End of History." The word democracy is seemingly misunderstood. Democracy can lead to constitutional liberalism but not necessarily the other way around. I liked how Zakaria gave a lot of examples of different "democracies" to open my eyes to the possiblities of definitions. Democracy doesn't always equal harmony. I also agree with the fact that it is important to not confuse the need for a powerful government with the need for a legitimate constitutional government to build a strong base. It's hard for me to see even constitutional liberalism model of democracy as perfection but it's certainly a start and a place to improve from. Onward ho!
At first, I wasn't sure what the agenda was for The Coming Anarchy by Robert D. Kaplan. However it began to take shape after a little reading. My first thoughts were the same as any conversation concerning Africa. My heart breaks for the whole continent. I'm overwhelmed with the situation and wanting to help. But when Kaplan used West Africa as a model for the future of the U.S, it got a little scary. It's hard for me to think we could end up that way and "how did this begin and how can we prevent it?" become the bigger questions. In the words of Kaplan, "Democracy is problematic, scarcity is more certain." Those words became clear and evident to me when I thought about the environment as a possible cause for conflict. The population will increase in the poorest parts of the world where development even now is difficult. I never really thought of the environment being such an issue but Kaplan posed it as a threat. One last part of the reading that struck me was the contradiction between Huntington and Kaplan in their views of borders and conflict. Huntington thinks borders will be the natural place for clash between civilizations but Kaplan talks about their insignificance. With Islamic Extremism and the recent terrorist cells, borders mean nothing as the groups of individuals shrink. Even in the U.S, we have so many cultures Kaplan argues that with racial polarity, educational dysfunction, and social fragmentation, it would be easy for a solid feeling of patriotism to slip through the cracks. People would naturally stick to smaller groups. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
In response to The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria, my definition of democracy was completely turned upside down! I think many people are in the same boat as myself when it comes to having a certain idea of what democracy is according to the Western constitutional liberalism model we see everyday. It's easy to look at struggling countries and our economic/political success (if you can call it that) as a country and want to implement our ideas. Yet when you look closely at the flaws in our system such as the small number of justices in the supreme court with life terms, the not so equal representation in the senate, and more, it seems our form of democracy is just "an exit on the road" as opposed to Fukuyama's "End of History." The word democracy is seemingly misunderstood. Democracy can lead to constitutional liberalism but not necessarily the other way around. I liked how Zakaria gave a lot of examples of different "democracies" to open my eyes to the possiblities of definitions. Democracy doesn't always equal harmony. I also agree with the fact that it is important to not confuse the need for a powerful government with the need for a legitimate constitutional government to build a strong base. It's hard for me to see even constitutional liberalism model of democracy as perfection but it's certainly a start and a place to improve from. Onward ho!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
End of History and Clash of Civilizations
In response to the article by Fukuyama "End of History? ", I have to say that I think he's jumped the gun. The westernization of the world and spread of democracies has been the pattern in our global history thus far but who's to say it won't take an entirely different direction. The democratic system itself is relatively new. Socieities of people living in times when the feudal system thrived would have laughed at the idea of democracy...and here we are. It's definitely short sighted to say that democracy is the end all of political systems. They aren't perfect (as we talked about in class). How a new system will come about is hard to predict. Perhaps it will take a drastic social change or some sort of cataclysmic event to bring it about. Who knows. All I'm saying is that things are constantly changing and moving in our global community and like the past has shown, constant change is inevitable. History can't be finished...we're still living it!!
Huntington says that the normal state of the world is about cultural conflicts. He believes that a clash of civilizations will occur near their borders and that it is inevitable. I must disagree (for the hope of humanity!). Although wars have occurred regarding larger groups of people through time, who's to say things won't turn to peace. Huntington says that the West naively believes in the virtue of Western values but there are only so many of us. What is the basis of our values, our culture? When you get down to it, American culture is quite void of tradition and the richness that other cultures have. We're so diverse in race, language, culture, and everything that I cannot determine a defining one! We are learning about other people all the time. With new technology and the access to global communication, I think that cultural gaps will begin to close instead of open. In the U.S., our national language is moving toward Spanish and we're more tolerant of different races, religions, political systems and orientations than ever before. Certain vlaues are universal. Instead of communication and globalization leading to conflict, I think it can lead to peace and understanding. I have to believe so...what else is there to believe in?
Huntington says that the normal state of the world is about cultural conflicts. He believes that a clash of civilizations will occur near their borders and that it is inevitable. I must disagree (for the hope of humanity!). Although wars have occurred regarding larger groups of people through time, who's to say things won't turn to peace. Huntington says that the West naively believes in the virtue of Western values but there are only so many of us. What is the basis of our values, our culture? When you get down to it, American culture is quite void of tradition and the richness that other cultures have. We're so diverse in race, language, culture, and everything that I cannot determine a defining one! We are learning about other people all the time. With new technology and the access to global communication, I think that cultural gaps will begin to close instead of open. In the U.S., our national language is moving toward Spanish and we're more tolerant of different races, religions, political systems and orientations than ever before. Certain vlaues are universal. Instead of communication and globalization leading to conflict, I think it can lead to peace and understanding. I have to believe so...what else is there to believe in?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)