Factory stories

Foxcoon suicides
Looking back to the year 2010, the most striking event wasn't the release of Iphone 4, either wasn't the Winter Olympic in Vancouver. It is the Foxconn suicides event. Throughout the whole year, up to 15 persons attempted suicides by falling from the building. In one short period of May, 7 persons committed suicides.  All year round, people discussed and argued about this event. What caused this bloody result? As Marx may argue, alienation should be the main cause of all. The current situation at that time was that, workers in Foxconn received low salaries for up to 12 hours work everyday. They were living under the strict management and in a poor condition. They were managed to wake up and go to bed at the exact time. Even if there were lots of people working together, doing the same activities everyday, everyone was still detached because they barely communicated with each other. Completing the repeating task numbed their nerve. They didn't enjoy much entertainment; even romantic relationship was forbidden. Are they still human? As Marx will possibly ask. They were deprived of the attention of themselves, of others.They were producing the most popular, high-tech and fancy electronic device, but they themselves cannot afford it. How ruthless and pathetic it is.    

The real toy story

Above is the link of a photo project by German -born photographer, Michael Wolf. He depicted people's lives in Chinese toy factory and the subtle relationship between toy and workers. Look at these pictures, in their hands these workers are holding the most playful and beautiful thing in the world, toys, the dream of all children, with a blank, rigid and detached look in their faces. Such a remarkable contrast! Here is the phone that shock me the most. Photo  What do you think they look like? Human? No, I believe a line of slave with a guardian seems to be a more appropriate way of describing. What's in their minds? I am curious.

As a lot of us may argue, accumulation of capitalism boosts the development of economic and science. It seems that socialism do no good to the whole society. However, I still wonder, when we actually are in the midstream of the water, enjoying the innovation, convenience and improvement by capitalism, what's the life in the downstream?

Gender Roles In Society

There is a saying which expresses the idea that both male and female genders are equally important for the success of our society: “The human race is like a bird with two wings, and if one wing is broken, no one can fly”. Last year, the famous actress Emma Watson launched her campaign #HeForShe with which she reminded us of the pending issues between genders and discussed possible solutions to the problems women are facing. The campaign is about gender equality and in order for it to work, both sexes must get involved with men standing up for women. Emma Watson has addressed issues with education, the work place, and the payment gap between men and women. What we don’t realize is that a lot of the potential in women is lost because they are not as encouraged as men are. However, another aspect of the problem between genders that Emma has talked about it that people don’t realize how much pressure is put on men’s masculinity. She shares her genuine concern that men can’t express themselves and that expressing ourselves is basically what makes us human.

In her work Justice, Gender, and the Family the political theorist Susan Okin addresses the issue that gender is the main factor used by people when determining someone’s role in society. This, in turn, explains why women are being ostracized from many fields that are regarded as male’s work. The questions that we should ask ourselves is why do we continue to base the construction of our society on gender and why are women still excluded to such a large extend from politics compared to men? In this flow of thoughts, why is it believed that if men express their feelings, they will be regarded as feminine? How do you think can we solve these pending issues between the two genders? According to Emma Watson, we can begin to ameliorate the situation simply by changing our definition of the term feminism – feminism is the idea that women are equal to men and the movement should not be connected with man hatred. The next steps would involve men standing up for women but also women standing up for themselves. 

Gender Neutrality for the Growing

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/09/04/gender-neutral-parenting-letting-kids-choose

This article from the U.S. News Health Magazine discusses the recent changes in perspective on gender roles (and the slow diminishment of them), including how large enterprises and stores such as Target have taken initiative on the hot topic of gender neutrality for growing children. The article pinpoints an emphasis on not only the environment portrayed in places such as schools, but most importantly in regards to how a child is raised within the family at home. Even more so, the growing debate over the increasing demand for "safe" spaces that are specifically gender-neutral, whether it be directed towards bathrooms or on a college campus, has gained even more prominence as a movement.

Susan Okin places similar importance on the issues of destroying gender roles at the supposed source: the family. Following the reasoning that infants are not born autonomous, but rather as humans in a state that are meant to be manipulated and developed by the family (in short, nurture over nature). Okin understands it to be the case that gender roles and the subsequent social constructs from these concepts can be unearthed in the political theories that carry us through life and through the deliberations of the federal government. The notion of including the "family" in the study of a political science curriculum was a subject spoken about in class, but this article surely drives home the need to study the ramifications of one's upbringing. As a result, should the idea of gender neutrality become a more substantial in the study of political science, a major that already adheres to a wide scope of issues in creating explanations and theories for understanding and improving society as we know it?

The Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was brought in front of the U.S. Senate in 1972, after passing the House.  The text of the amendment was as follows:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." (equalrightsamendment.org)

Sounds like a shoo-in, right? Unfortunately, it was anything but. Not only did the ERA never pass, but several states that had initially ratified the amendment actually rescinded their approval. The ERA has been introduced to every Congress since 1982 but has yet to be passed. 

What does this say about equality?

One of the reasons that legislators gave for not ratifying the ERA was the fear of women being forced into combat if they were declared equal to men. Another reason was that the fear that the ERA would lead to the collapse of the family unit, rampant abortions, and the legalization of homosexual unions. Now, in 2015, abortions and same-sex marriages are legal, but ERA has still not been put into place. Susan Moller Okin might attribute the inequality to justice within the family unit. In many households, the woman and man do not earn an equal amount of wages nor do an equal amount of housework or childcare. Okin believed that justice within the family would have to proceed justice in politics. However, I think that it is unlikely that either will bring out the other. Individuals might see the ERA as just words on the page and not make any move to improve justice and/or equality in their own homes. Alternatively, if justice in the family unit becomes more commonplace, Congress might claim that the ERA is not needed anymore because equality has been established without it.

I think that both the ERA and justice within the family/household are necessary if women are to truly be equal to men in this country.

ISIS, Tilly and Clausewitz

“ISIS Video Claims Beheading of Russian Spy Threatens Russian People” December 2nd 2015

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/middleeast/isis-russian-beheading-claim/

Today, it is reported that a Russian Spy is behaved by ISIS. ISIS claimed that it was a proper fight back to Putin administration’s air strike last month. So far Moscow has not made any comment about this incident. 

Reflection:

Although the US’s military was operating air strike in Syria and Iraq as the fight back to ISIS’s murder of American citizens and so did the Russians, ISIS’s terrorism tactic are not working with countries like China and Japan, after their citizens are behaved as well. NATO countries especially the USA asked China as the rising power, to take action on ISIS. However, even though China has not few interests including oil in Iraq and other Middle East area, China is not taking any actions. As Moscow took actions against ISIS last month, it is predictable that Moscow will do it again, using the murder of its citizen as an excuse.

Bringing Back:

Tilly states the idea that government is the criminal organization that can legally use violence, including waging war. Moreover, he mentions that initially groups that want to become the legitimate ruling institute have to use illegal violence to fight. When one of them come to power, the party would make everything it did before become legal and glorious. ISIS is an example. It uses illegal violence and organize war against current regimes. Supposed ISIS take over Iraq or even Syria in the future, their illegal violence would suddenly become the legal force of the state. 

Clausewitz’s notion that “war is politics by other means” make me think that either USA’s military action or China’s disregard is the result of the calculation in politics. War could never be waged without a purpose, usually a political one, and there is also a political goal when war is avoided by political actors.

Does War Demonstrate Power?

On Friday evening the internet was flooded with articles about the terrorist attack that happened in Paris. People began to post pictures with hashtag #PrayForParis and to raise awareness of the fact that one can never know if they will not be attacked by surprise. After two days of investigation it is announced that ISIS was responsible for the attack. ISIS itself proclaimed a World War. In the last months the terrorist organization has begun to wage attacks against different countries – for example, a month ago there was a terrorist attack in Ankara with more than 100 victims. ISIS is a declared caliphate with most power and influence in Syria and Iraq but as we can see this is gradually changing and today the world is not so safe anymore.

In the past month we have discussed the use of violence and if violence is necessary for leaders to maintain their rule as well as to acquire new power. Clauswitz’s text On War defines war as an “act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. We can see that this is a valid definition for the recent events, since ISIS wants to impose its religious beliefs on the whole world through the use of violence. The terrorist organization mercilessly kills innocent people and says that it will continue until it cleanses the world from those who do not accept their interpretation of the Koran. In class we also said that war is politics by other means. However, the question one must ask is if war is not a sign of weakness. When leaders begin a war this means that they did not manage to come to an agreement through the use of normal means. In the case of ISIS, the caliphate has never tried to reach an agreement via peaceful politics such as negotiations and compromises. From the very beginning it started seizing power with the use of violence. Just this fact should make us think if this doesn’t show that they have a weak strategy – can a terrorist organization like ISIS continue to increase its power and control in the world or are the US and Europe going to be able to eradicate it? And does any of the two sides has the right to kill in terms of human ethics? 

Machiavellian Guantánamo Bay

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/guantanamo-prison-revolt-driven-by-inmates-despair.html

This article deals with the increasing pressure towards the executive branch of the United States to take hold of the situation within Guantánamo Bay, and to ultimately result in the swift taking down of the system. With the recent hunger strike occurring within the prison, the subject of closing it down has become hotly argued. However, with sparring between the executive and legislative branches over the matter, the initiation of such a movement has unfortunately been put to the "back-burner."

 Machiavelli argues that the moral code and obligation of a person changes as the individual works up through the ladder of politics and power. While the article states how, in many ways, the continuance of Guantánamo is decidedly unethical and not necessarily imperative, the maintenance of the prison-at the expense of the prisoners' lives and freedom-must remain in operation because of both legal ramifications and potentially adverse reactions from the international community. Therefore, as Machiavelli would argue from his writings in The Prince, the comparatively small cost of keeping the detainees imprisoned, when contrasted with the many negative implications of freeing/repatriating them, can be said to be of necessity to reduce further discontentment on a grander scale in the future.