"Identity politics is inspired by the interests of, and intended to benefit, a particular group with a shared identity." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
I scoff at the idea that Identity politics is comforting as it promises security and meaning. I think identities will always be changeable and, thus always pulled into question. It is just as unstable as small-scale social groupings, like those cliques in American high schools and barkadas in Filipino schools.
Identity politics then can only exist as long as people still feel like identifying themselves with a certain group that although may be intrinsically different, suspend these differences for the comfort and safety of a larger pack. But the fact remains, that in some way, they are quite irrevocably different.
"The illusion that people possess a single, fixed identity results in a culture of political correctness and a focus on personal conduct, rather than revolutionary change."(Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
That a person's racial, religious, sexual, or class identity defines a person's (political) views is such a Western concept. It is not necessarily true. Sure, these may have a large bearing on people's decisions and opinions, especially when they are unaware of the implications of being boxed in by a label. But a person can always rise above labels.
We are whoever we consent to be at a certain moment in time. Philosophy accepts the fact that this can change from its initial state in event of some kind of life-changing experience. It may be a simple realization (which may not necessarily be simple) or a "faith"-shattering experience. But identity, whatever it may be can change. So an existence based on labels is not very reliable at all, and identities cannot, much less, be defined by a few words.
23.3.10
(ML) How Does THe Nation-State Work?
"In a social-political frame, one must abandon the social contract version of national societies, and turn to a version that can register the situations in which territorial allegiances are in flux, ambiguated and productive of changing sentiments towards self and other." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
A nation is an imagined community. It is limited and has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which are other nations. They are imagined as sovereign with deep, horizontal comradeship. A nation-state on the other hand is a form of political organization and ideals; an autonomous political community bound by overlapping bounds of citizenship and nationality.
The nation-state only works in the event of temporary association that different nations or identities engage in for a specific purpose. This may be simply a territorial issue or the issue of safety against outside forces.
A nation-state only works then in the event of the cooperation of all parties involved. It is like the issue of a representative government, be it parliamentary or otherwise, because the concept simply relies on the agreement of all parties involved.
In my opinion, that's such a fickle concept...
A nation is an imagined community. It is limited and has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which are other nations. They are imagined as sovereign with deep, horizontal comradeship. A nation-state on the other hand is a form of political organization and ideals; an autonomous political community bound by overlapping bounds of citizenship and nationality.
The nation-state only works in the event of temporary association that different nations or identities engage in for a specific purpose. This may be simply a territorial issue or the issue of safety against outside forces.
A nation-state only works then in the event of the cooperation of all parties involved. It is like the issue of a representative government, be it parliamentary or otherwise, because the concept simply relies on the agreement of all parties involved.
In my opinion, that's such a fickle concept...
(ML) Why Do We Obey?
Why do we obey our government?
Well, I do suppose we vote citizens into public office because we believe that by being in positions of power, they can put into action things that are for the good of the country. That, I hope, is the reason why society decides to put a few individuals into positions that have control over things like passing laws, handling the funds of the country that is taken from taxes.
So, in reciprocation, I think it's only right that we obey our government, since we put them there in the first place to do the things that they're supposed to be doing.
This reciprocation is brought about by the belief in the cause of the people in power. If you believe that the decisions made are things that are, for the most part, right and good for the majority, then it only follows that your conscience would bother you to, perhaps, sacrifice a little to obey what is asked of you, if only to improve the general situation in society.
Then, of course, there is the tendency for people to look for a sort of guide, or a leader, or even just someone to relieve them of most of the responsibility of a decision because they merely have to follow. In which case, the pull to obey isn't so much a decision than the mindlessness of being ordered around.
If the case arises though that the govenrment is "bad," then I would think that there are certain situations wherein the obligation to obey is negated.
If the public knowingly votes into office somone who has lacks proper moral values and has an essentially horrible character, then I think the obligation to obey stands. But if the case may be that the official gained office through false pretenses and hoodwinking the public, then, in a democrasy, the obligation to obey this official is nulled.
It is in this case that the obligation of the people then is to make sure that the bad government is removed from power and is, later, replaced by one that can fulfill its promises and obligations to the majority.
In the case of a good government, on the other hand, I think the obedience of the peole is deserved. If the power they have is fairly obtained and properly used, then I see verry little reason that the citizens should abdicate their leaders from their positions. If they are doing what they should be doing, I suppose they do deserve the obedience of the people so that they would be able to accomplish the goals they set out for the good of the majority. After all, those in office, like any other person, cannot change the world with only their own hands... Cooperation is essential in creating a change.
Whether or not it is right to disobey our governments, outside of these situations, I can't say. It would likely be justifiable, but as to if it is "right" would depend on the circumstances leading to the disobedience, I suppose.
Well, I do suppose we vote citizens into public office because we believe that by being in positions of power, they can put into action things that are for the good of the country. That, I hope, is the reason why society decides to put a few individuals into positions that have control over things like passing laws, handling the funds of the country that is taken from taxes.
So, in reciprocation, I think it's only right that we obey our government, since we put them there in the first place to do the things that they're supposed to be doing.
This reciprocation is brought about by the belief in the cause of the people in power. If you believe that the decisions made are things that are, for the most part, right and good for the majority, then it only follows that your conscience would bother you to, perhaps, sacrifice a little to obey what is asked of you, if only to improve the general situation in society.
Then, of course, there is the tendency for people to look for a sort of guide, or a leader, or even just someone to relieve them of most of the responsibility of a decision because they merely have to follow. In which case, the pull to obey isn't so much a decision than the mindlessness of being ordered around.
If the case arises though that the govenrment is "bad," then I would think that there are certain situations wherein the obligation to obey is negated.
If the public knowingly votes into office somone who has lacks proper moral values and has an essentially horrible character, then I think the obligation to obey stands. But if the case may be that the official gained office through false pretenses and hoodwinking the public, then, in a democrasy, the obligation to obey this official is nulled.
It is in this case that the obligation of the people then is to make sure that the bad government is removed from power and is, later, replaced by one that can fulfill its promises and obligations to the majority.
In the case of a good government, on the other hand, I think the obedience of the peole is deserved. If the power they have is fairly obtained and properly used, then I see verry little reason that the citizens should abdicate their leaders from their positions. If they are doing what they should be doing, I suppose they do deserve the obedience of the people so that they would be able to accomplish the goals they set out for the good of the majority. After all, those in office, like any other person, cannot change the world with only their own hands... Cooperation is essential in creating a change.
Whether or not it is right to disobey our governments, outside of these situations, I can't say. It would likely be justifiable, but as to if it is "right" would depend on the circumstances leading to the disobedience, I suppose.
(ML) Why Is People's Movement Restricted?
The government is meant to rule for the benefit of the people. If they are voted into office and they are doing their job, then I would think that the people have an obligation to help them do it by obeying it. Doing so, the people's movement is restricted. When the government abuses the power given to them, when they stop doing what they're meant to do, then what are they there for? The reason then why the people's movement is restricted, is simply a matter of the initiative to free themselves from the oppressive power.
What is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization?
Well now, that's a good question. Now that boundaries are increasingly being overcome, I think the nation-state still has the responsibility to maintain the culture of the land they occupy and the people with whom they are concerned.
Even though we should begin using the upsides of globalization to better our country through the adoption of beneficial traits, we should still be able to maintain our original identity beneath all the "advancements" or else. That's what I think the role of the nation-state should be, the maintenance of a people's origin and identity.
Now, about the Philippines. How I see it, the Philippines has turned out the way it is because it was not properly equipped for democracy. The islands were already initially diverse and independent in the way they were governed. Having been colonized by the Spanish, the islands were lumped together and later on, being named as one "Philippines", robbed of the independence they already had. It's quite unfair and unjust since not all the islands were conquered for one, and for another they did not even initially have the same cultures and practices.
After the unjust colonization and combination of the people of the islands now known as the Philippines, the people were also suppressed in their "freedom" under the Americans. Where, in truth, the fight against the colonization of the Spaniards had not risen to the level which united the nation (at least those parts that were colonized), there was also a lack of solidarity. This was followed quickly by a kind of influencing towards another people's culture, the American one.
So without even being able to establish a definitive collective identity, the Filipino people were subjected to another culture, this time presented to them in an appealing manner.
Then when the Filipino people were suddenly "granted" democracy by the Americans, they weren't prepared for it anymore. The people didn't know who they were as a people. They didn't develop on their own, and were not, and are still not, used to it. That being so, we're still grasping at straws as to what to do with it.
That's what I think the reason is for the rockiness and instability of Philippine politics.
What is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization?
Well now, that's a good question. Now that boundaries are increasingly being overcome, I think the nation-state still has the responsibility to maintain the culture of the land they occupy and the people with whom they are concerned.
Even though we should begin using the upsides of globalization to better our country through the adoption of beneficial traits, we should still be able to maintain our original identity beneath all the "advancements" or else. That's what I think the role of the nation-state should be, the maintenance of a people's origin and identity.
Now, about the Philippines. How I see it, the Philippines has turned out the way it is because it was not properly equipped for democracy. The islands were already initially diverse and independent in the way they were governed. Having been colonized by the Spanish, the islands were lumped together and later on, being named as one "Philippines", robbed of the independence they already had. It's quite unfair and unjust since not all the islands were conquered for one, and for another they did not even initially have the same cultures and practices.
After the unjust colonization and combination of the people of the islands now known as the Philippines, the people were also suppressed in their "freedom" under the Americans. Where, in truth, the fight against the colonization of the Spaniards had not risen to the level which united the nation (at least those parts that were colonized), there was also a lack of solidarity. This was followed quickly by a kind of influencing towards another people's culture, the American one.
So without even being able to establish a definitive collective identity, the Filipino people were subjected to another culture, this time presented to them in an appealing manner.
Then when the Filipino people were suddenly "granted" democracy by the Americans, they weren't prepared for it anymore. The people didn't know who they were as a people. They didn't develop on their own, and were not, and are still not, used to it. That being so, we're still grasping at straws as to what to do with it.
That's what I think the reason is for the rockiness and instability of Philippine politics.
(ML) Why Are Some People Better Off Than Others?
I didn't know that people referred to poverty as a sign of otherness. Is that really so in a country where majority of the population falls under the poverty line?
Though, frankly, from the list given in David Gordon's indicators of poverty and hunger, I don't think I could go without some of these things. It's really amazing how other people persist. If I think that I'd be living half a life without all these leisure things like music and movies, what more food, the source and nearness of safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health care, adequate shelter, privileged education, information through both media and communication, and access to services?
Another thing I had never heard of before was Giorgio Agamben's concept of zoe and bios. Zoe, apparently, is bare life where moral and political standings are disregarded for mere survival. Those who live the "bare life" or zoe are simply bodies and are excluded from the higher aims of the state except to have their lives transformed to Bios. The Bios though or those living a "qualified life" are considered as citizens (political beings).
The concept was a little bit confusing for me, because I never knew there to be such classifications for people. If you fall below the poverty line, you're not involved in the political arena? It doesn't quite make sense to me yet.
About the activity during class where we were asked to choose, if we could, in which country we would like to be born, I chose Japan or Britain. It's not that I don't like that I was born in the Philippines, but because being born into a country seems so arbitrary to me in today's world. It seems like living in a country only has to do with learning and growing up with the culture and language. Because aside from simply the experience and the accent, everything else can practically be picked up from the internet.
Though, frankly, from the list given in David Gordon's indicators of poverty and hunger, I don't think I could go without some of these things. It's really amazing how other people persist. If I think that I'd be living half a life without all these leisure things like music and movies, what more food, the source and nearness of safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health care, adequate shelter, privileged education, information through both media and communication, and access to services?
Another thing I had never heard of before was Giorgio Agamben's concept of zoe and bios. Zoe, apparently, is bare life where moral and political standings are disregarded for mere survival. Those who live the "bare life" or zoe are simply bodies and are excluded from the higher aims of the state except to have their lives transformed to Bios. The Bios though or those living a "qualified life" are considered as citizens (political beings).
The concept was a little bit confusing for me, because I never knew there to be such classifications for people. If you fall below the poverty line, you're not involved in the political arena? It doesn't quite make sense to me yet.
About the activity during class where we were asked to choose, if we could, in which country we would like to be born, I chose Japan or Britain. It's not that I don't like that I was born in the Philippines, but because being born into a country seems so arbitrary to me in today's world. It seems like living in a country only has to do with learning and growing up with the culture and language. Because aside from simply the experience and the accent, everything else can practically be picked up from the internet.
17.3.10
(ML) Internet Responsibility
I have two reactions for what I heard of the discussion for this week:
First, I find it reasonable. When you write something and publish it online, you must assume that it can be accessed by other people whether legally or illegally.
The fact that you publish means that other people can read it, so there is a certain responsibility that comes with that power. If you intend to avoid insulting or causing harm or any such effect on other people, it is important to make sure that you do not mention last names, if at all. Assuming the fact that you publish "for everyone" and not anonymously (without chance that it would be traced to you), you are responsible and should be able to answer for what you write.
Second, it kind of appalls me a bit. If somebody publishes something online and classifies it as "friends only" or "private viewing", then the website should maintain its agreement that it posed upon the creation of the account to uphold the author's privacy setting.
Had something that was posted under a specific privacy setting leaked out where they should not have been viewed, it would seem a little bit like an invasion of privacy. (Although, the reality of the internet does effectively comprimise this term.)
I think though, it should not be excusable if the information was searched for and distributed without the consent of the author/creator.
Facing reality, I suppose that every person should simply be careful of what they say, write, or do, if they do not want to risk question or objection or anything of the sort.
First, I find it reasonable. When you write something and publish it online, you must assume that it can be accessed by other people whether legally or illegally.
The fact that you publish means that other people can read it, so there is a certain responsibility that comes with that power. If you intend to avoid insulting or causing harm or any such effect on other people, it is important to make sure that you do not mention last names, if at all. Assuming the fact that you publish "for everyone" and not anonymously (without chance that it would be traced to you), you are responsible and should be able to answer for what you write.
Second, it kind of appalls me a bit. If somebody publishes something online and classifies it as "friends only" or "private viewing", then the website should maintain its agreement that it posed upon the creation of the account to uphold the author's privacy setting.
Had something that was posted under a specific privacy setting leaked out where they should not have been viewed, it would seem a little bit like an invasion of privacy. (Although, the reality of the internet does effectively comprimise this term.)
I think though, it should not be excusable if the information was searched for and distributed without the consent of the author/creator.
Facing reality, I suppose that every person should simply be careful of what they say, write, or do, if they do not want to risk question or objection or anything of the sort.
(ML) What Makes The World Dangerous?
When is conflict justifiable? It is one of the most controversial kinds of questions because it brings into question a person's right, for lack of a better word, to involve themselves in another person's life.
I think, as a rule of life, conflict can never be eliminated. As long as there remains more than one thinking being on this planet, each is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. And, chances are, these opinions will not always, if at all, coincide.
The sheer existence of sentient beings is enough of a constant to create conflict. Now, whether this conflict is physical or otherwise is another matter.
It's difficult to qualify when conflict would be justifiable, because, at any point, one point of view could differ from another's and thus see the conflict as unjust.
But, for the short-term purpose of answering this question, I suppose conflict is justifiable when an issue really NEEDS to be resolved, and an agreement cannot be arrived upon by ANY other means.
That requirement alone would change on a case to case basis, since every person's interpretation differs.
I suppose then, we could add on the factor of the conflict, resulting in a situation that would benefit the majority, if not all, of those involved. If this factor would be considered as a reason for the conflict, I suppose then, that the conflict could be classified as justifiable. Of course, this also assumes that what would be good for the majority, would also benefit the individuals.
But if conflict is dependent on the perception of all the different people, then how could any leader hope to put an end to global conflict?
I'm afraid this question is an unanswerable one. Unfortunately, I think it might be impossible to completely eradicate conflict, just as it is impossible with poverty.
I think the best that world leaders could do would be to promote understanding between different groups and individuals. It will be damn near impossible, but I think that this alongside tolerance, if not acceptance, would be the best key to minimizing conflict.
If everyone in the world could just be made to understand that there will always be differences between people, and that each should respect another's beliefs and manners (so long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's right to decide for himself)... And that one individual's way may not necessarily be the way for everyone else, because it is not necessarily absolutely correct, then perhaps there is a chance that people would not be led into conflicts with their fellow man.
That if every person would understand COMPLETELY the concept of free will, and the right his own opinion, and the right to choose, without double standards, people might be able to live alongside one another without unnecessary conflict.
I think guiding people and helping them to understand this would be one of the best things that world leaders could do to minimize global conflict. Of course, aside from education, this also includes leading by example. (Which should be enough of a challenge for any one person -- "Practice what you preach.")
I think, as a rule of life, conflict can never be eliminated. As long as there remains more than one thinking being on this planet, each is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. And, chances are, these opinions will not always, if at all, coincide.
The sheer existence of sentient beings is enough of a constant to create conflict. Now, whether this conflict is physical or otherwise is another matter.
It's difficult to qualify when conflict would be justifiable, because, at any point, one point of view could differ from another's and thus see the conflict as unjust.
But, for the short-term purpose of answering this question, I suppose conflict is justifiable when an issue really NEEDS to be resolved, and an agreement cannot be arrived upon by ANY other means.
That requirement alone would change on a case to case basis, since every person's interpretation differs.
I suppose then, we could add on the factor of the conflict, resulting in a situation that would benefit the majority, if not all, of those involved. If this factor would be considered as a reason for the conflict, I suppose then, that the conflict could be classified as justifiable. Of course, this also assumes that what would be good for the majority, would also benefit the individuals.
But if conflict is dependent on the perception of all the different people, then how could any leader hope to put an end to global conflict?
I'm afraid this question is an unanswerable one. Unfortunately, I think it might be impossible to completely eradicate conflict, just as it is impossible with poverty.
I think the best that world leaders could do would be to promote understanding between different groups and individuals. It will be damn near impossible, but I think that this alongside tolerance, if not acceptance, would be the best key to minimizing conflict.
If everyone in the world could just be made to understand that there will always be differences between people, and that each should respect another's beliefs and manners (so long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's right to decide for himself)... And that one individual's way may not necessarily be the way for everyone else, because it is not necessarily absolutely correct, then perhaps there is a chance that people would not be led into conflicts with their fellow man.
That if every person would understand COMPLETELY the concept of free will, and the right his own opinion, and the right to choose, without double standards, people might be able to live alongside one another without unnecessary conflict.
I think guiding people and helping them to understand this would be one of the best things that world leaders could do to minimize global conflict. Of course, aside from education, this also includes leading by example. (Which should be enough of a challenge for any one person -- "Practice what you preach.")
(ML) Why Do Some People Think They Know What Is Good For Others
Today, in class, two perspectives on human nature were presented. That of Mencius and that of Sun Tzu. Mencius thought that humans are naturally good, and acts of the opposite nature are caused by the lack of positive influence. Sun Tzu, on the other hand, thought that humans are naturally evil, and acts of goodness are intentional and thought through.
Well, how do you KNOW that man is inherently good or evil?
I think that both are present and it just depends on the individual which nature they act on.
It's just like any other decision in life. There may be two options that you have to choose from, but they both exist no matter which you choose. The fact remains, that two, perhaps opposite, options are BOTH present. And the nature of the actions of an individual are dependent on the choices and character of that person.
Person A may want and put his mind to doing something good, so he should, by all means, be able to do so. On the other hand, if it seems more appealing to him, then he may also decide to do something evil.
Sure, many people may attribute the "goodness" or "badness" of a Person A to his background, surroundings, or situation. And that may be true. But, if you really think about it, with a strong sense of character, even this should not pose as a limitation for what kind of person Person A wants to become.
My reason for this assumption? Look at all of these stories of people who come from backgrounds of poverty, of abuse, of violence, of unfortunate circumstance and turn out doing works that benefit a greater portion of humanity, even through simple inspiration. People like Nelson Mandela, Hunter "Patch" Adams, Ray Charles Robinson, Anne Frank, and even Johnny Cash and Christina Aguilera.
Then look at the people, who by all intents and purposes, grew up with a good life... privileged, with a good home, and parents who cared about them... and then turned out as criminals, as people who contribute nothing good, if anything at all, to society. And the sad fact is that many people, hardly contribute anything to society for most of their lives.
Take, for example, the sad fact that a LARGE number of people are living without access to safe drinking water. You know WHY this is so? Because so MANY people pollute every source they can find by the vast amount of waste that society produces every day and the sheer neglect of proper waste management. For a large part, THAT is why.
Humans must be liable for their own actions. This is, unfortunately, not frequently practices, and people often wind up blaming other people for the mistakes and misdemeanors that they decide to act on. The blame gets passed on to anyone from a parent to peers, to the devil himself. But I this is a gross injustice to those who receive the blame, because no one can really force you to do anything except for yourself.
Well, how do you KNOW that man is inherently good or evil?
I think that both are present and it just depends on the individual which nature they act on.
It's just like any other decision in life. There may be two options that you have to choose from, but they both exist no matter which you choose. The fact remains, that two, perhaps opposite, options are BOTH present. And the nature of the actions of an individual are dependent on the choices and character of that person.
Person A may want and put his mind to doing something good, so he should, by all means, be able to do so. On the other hand, if it seems more appealing to him, then he may also decide to do something evil.
Sure, many people may attribute the "goodness" or "badness" of a Person A to his background, surroundings, or situation. And that may be true. But, if you really think about it, with a strong sense of character, even this should not pose as a limitation for what kind of person Person A wants to become.
My reason for this assumption? Look at all of these stories of people who come from backgrounds of poverty, of abuse, of violence, of unfortunate circumstance and turn out doing works that benefit a greater portion of humanity, even through simple inspiration. People like Nelson Mandela, Hunter "Patch" Adams, Ray Charles Robinson, Anne Frank, and even Johnny Cash and Christina Aguilera.
Then look at the people, who by all intents and purposes, grew up with a good life... privileged, with a good home, and parents who cared about them... and then turned out as criminals, as people who contribute nothing good, if anything at all, to society. And the sad fact is that many people, hardly contribute anything to society for most of their lives.
Take, for example, the sad fact that a LARGE number of people are living without access to safe drinking water. You know WHY this is so? Because so MANY people pollute every source they can find by the vast amount of waste that society produces every day and the sheer neglect of proper waste management. For a large part, THAT is why.
Humans must be liable for their own actions. This is, unfortunately, not frequently practices, and people often wind up blaming other people for the mistakes and misdemeanors that they decide to act on. The blame gets passed on to anyone from a parent to peers, to the devil himself. But I this is a gross injustice to those who receive the blame, because no one can really force you to do anything except for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)