Blog 10

Inayatullah’s statements are based on the fact that some states are not adequately prepared for the burden of globalism and globalization, and others who have been through an exceptional period of state building and economic recovery are secure enough to be major players in the global arena and acquire wealth. The use of the word fair is subjective, because regardless of if this scenario is fair (presumably unfair for the nations who find themselves without the “upper hand”), the societal system that exists will most likely continue. There are certain instances, surely, when one nation is blessed with an abundance of resources and cannot help but rise to economic high standing because of exceptional exploitation of those resources. However, when deliberate choices are made not to exploit those resources and assist the economy in substantial ways, it becomes time to examine what is fundamentally wrong that prevented a nation from becoming a major player.

Take, for instance, the much debated Middle East. The region is rich in certain resources and allows for definite manipulation of prices in order to further economic pursuits. However, an authoritarian government and a consistently stagnant economy begs the question of if it is fair that a nation that should technically be what we’d consider wealthy because of how highly demanded their resource is, is a nation that is struggling significantly in the global arena. Seen from this point of view, economic success, in some cases, is actually the responsibility of the proprietor nation. Failure to capitalize on certain resources and allot a certain amount of attention to building a stable economy can only be regarded as a failure on the state’s part, and this will unfortunately work to the benefit of the other nations involved in international trade. The notion that a nation is not “adequately prepared” for a transition into a position of power and international recognition is a fair assessment. There are some nations who have not had important historical events that can prepare them for working globally, such as a large industrial boom or a series of stable economic policies that allow for some period of fiscal dominance or erasure of extreme fragility. Those nations who have not had this opportunity are automatically at a disadvantage and cannot be as economically viable.

Life isn’t fair. It’s just fairer than death, that’s all. ~William Goldman.

Reflection #11

Despite the progress we made in our discussion of poverty and wealth in class on Thursday, there are a few points that continue to trouble me. One of the topics we examined was the subdued nature of wealth in America; despite the esteem we bestow upon the American Dream and the material affluence it represents, we are not comfortable publicizing or admitting our personal obtainment of that ideal. It seems to me, in the United States at least, that how one behaves following the acquirement of wealth is just as critical as the acquirement itself. For whatever reason, Americans value discretion and modesty based upon the number of figures in one's salary. Billionaires are expected to give back through philanthropic donations and toss around diffident ideas of "getting by," "having enough," and "living comfortably" as euphemisms that diminish their actual prosperity. I have to wonder if our caution regarding personal wealth is a product of our loyalty to democratic principles, such as those of equality. The founding of our nation fostered a nobility-less environment in which every (white, land-owning) man could pursue his own destiny, regardless of the station into which he was born. The contemporary U.S. preserves that notion, thanks to the editing of the above parameters to include minority demographics. However, the concept of wealth or "comfortable living" questions that premise. Do we offer fair opportunity to all? What does it mean when 12 million children risk going hungry in the U.S. every day? What does it mean when working three jobs doesn't guarantee a rent payment? Is the individual at fault, or are their overlaying forces at work? Americans display such timidity in the face of wealth because of the inequality it embodies. Inequality is not something we like to imagine exists in our modern, democratic, politically correct country. Yet it does. And perhaps if we allocated our time by trying to ameliorate that gap, rather than apologize for its existence, we could cause substantial change.

Reflection

One student brought up the point that the poverty in the post-industrial world (i.e. the Untied States and the Western world), was different then that of the “pre-industrial” nations. In this definition of industrialization a nation is gathering resources, utilizing them, capitalizing on goods, making scientific strides and finding new knowledge and processes with an overall focus on modernization. The goal of this modernization is to eliminate the vices within society and stride for a form of utopia. My argument would then be that our world has yet to see post-industrialization. If a country such as the United States is “post-industrial” then why do problems such as poverty run rampant? When is the last time that an individual has traveled to a major metropolitan area and neglects to see a food bank, a soup kitchen, homeless man? Its impossible. The issue of poverty isn’t solely focused in the urban but also the rural areas of this nation. If poverty exists in all forms and extremes in all areas, how has this nation utilized its resources? This country, much like the rest of the west and arguably the world, has failed to utilize its primary resources human capital.

Furthermore, through the existence of financial poverty in America and lacking any solution to the issue, our nation is becoming poor in another way, democratically. The Untied States is beginning to be poor in democratic principles. Our society upholds the idea of capitalism as synonym for patriotic America yet we are unable to alleviate the systems negative side effects. Why should one individual ultimately have more then another in a democratic society? If our country is founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in all just pursuits) all under the banner of cooperation, how can we truly be democratic if we are on such an unleveled playing field? Our society is becoming so economically fragmented from our societies sole focus on monetary gains, that we have lost sight on human gains. Our nation should turn to acts more meaningful. Instead of saving money we should save lives, instead of making financial investments we should invest in making new relationships, instead of competing for wages and profits we should compete for the love our neighbors.

Reflection 11

The idea of “wealth” is hard to determine, certainly. Is one person wealthy because they have a big house, a nice car, and fancy clothes? There would probably not be much contention – they would be seen as wealthy. By the same token, a person who does not have these things is probably not seen as wealthy. Yet, this ideology is ultimately flawed. No one can ever truly determine wealth based on appearance alone. Many people choose to distribute their money differently – savings account deposits instead of new cars, investments instead of clothes. Even “hipsters” – who typically spend sizable portions of money in order to look like they don’t spend a lot of money – can be hard to classify as wealthy or poor.

The problem with defining classes in America is that not everything is black and white. True, there are some people that are blatantly rich, or upper class, and blatantly poor, or lower class. But these people do not make up the majority of America. Though it is obviously unfair to judge people based on appearance, most of the time that is all people have to go on. Additionally, classes intermingle now more than ever before. This all begs the question: do classes have any validity? Perhaps not validity, but any importance? The immediate answer for most people would probably be yes, but the more I think about it, the more I am not sure.

Reflection 11

I think the question of wealth is entirely relative. Circumstance, situation, and the surrounding people are entirely responsible for determining whether or not someone can classify himself as “wealthy” or “not wealthy”. Personally, I think that location is the most important factor of relativity. Internationally, surely incomes and definitions are subject to change to extreme degrees, but even domestically, the same thing fares true. The fact that there are so many Americans living below what we consider “the poverty line”, contrasts the issue of what we constitute poverty to be and what it may mean to someone who has grown up without any possibility of an education (public or otherwise) or has extremely limited prospects.

I recently began my new job of teaching with a company based out of Sacramento called Foundations for Education. When I got my handbook, the first rule they talked about revolved around incentives. It was really difficult to determine where the line was in terms of bribing kids and rewarding them for learning, but the first rule was to never, under any circumstances, reward the kids with any candy or food. However, the acceptable incentives that are legitimately allowed by my handbook revolve around tangible items like pencils and stickers. If that doesn’t speak of the materialism used to promote methods of education, I don’t know what will. Because I joined the program later, I became the unfortunate teacher who also doubles as Santa Claus. My kids rarely do any of the worksheets I assign if they don’t receive the promise of some amount of stickers or more break time during recess. Our kids are raised on a mantra of materialism, and a constant obsession with having more of anything, or more than the guy next door- without ever realizing that the wealth we’ve acquired is entirely dependent on the status of everyone around us.

Supernatural Integration

One of the things that the speaker said that stayed with me was “smaller states seek cooperation”. He used the analogy of the United States, and how because there are so many little states, we feel more unified; as opposed to having a large grouping of states together and seeking unity. It is undeniable that we are moving towards a more global society- everything and everyone is somehow connected to neighbors across the globe through technological advances and political agendas. However, integration through supernatural means is not a necessity. It can surely be a useful tool in creating cooperative work and allowing nations to establish common goals as economic markets expand and political missions begin to overlap, but I believe that nations can function as independent entities because they will most likely always seek to protect sovereign interests.

Although it is ideal that a global society would work cooperatively for the betterment of the entire group as a whole, I am not so naive to believe that most nations would sacrifice their best interests for the interests of others, and in many cases, I feel as though that is what supernatural integration would entail. Although economically and politically, nations will essentially be forced to work together as they are now as wars and markets fluctuate, I don’t believe that they will necessarily become integrated. In fact, I would think it would be somewhat abnormal if they did because of how antithetical it would be to a nation’s interest to bow sovereignty in order to work for a common good. The liberal theorist would hate me right now because of my seemingly negative perspective, but I truly believe that although we are moving towards an entirely global community, we may in fact seek to polarize ourselves against “common interests”. Regardless of how universal our world will become one day, I just can’t definitively state that the only way we’ll ever be able to exist as a global society would be through some means of supernatural integration.

Supernational Integration

I hold a "utopian ideal" that one day the world will work as one, meaning we will all live under the same umbrella in every instance- particularly government. Specifically each individual on Earth will be a part of the same civil society, actively partaking in the culture and society which they live in. For this to be accomplished it will take more then just supernational integration, but a destruction of the definition of separate states into one overarching state.

I do argue, however, that before we can reach this civil society there must be supernational integration. This integration brings about a human culture of cooperation, understanding, tolerance, and an overall "togetherness". Creating a pattern of united forces will bridge the gap between continents, cultures, and governments. With this pattern becoming customary, the transition to a unified state for the entire globe will be seamless.

The beasts our world faces with each new day grow in severity and complexity. It takes more then just one state or "benevolent hegemon" to conquer these beasts. Therefore it is absolutely necessary for state to state cooperation and integration in order to achieve large scale tasks, especially in the name of the citizens of the world. With this in mind, I see the unilateral evolution of humanity to be one under a single state.