chasing after the numb wind,
i uncover
the multipolar and parallel realities
that colour and underlie
the entirety of truth and existence.
the powering and dismembering ideals
that converge and diverge
as visions and faiths of utopia.
the stark contradictions
and bittersweet juxtapositions
transcending space and place and time
the unifying warmth
of humanity threaded
through the utilitarian beauty of DNA.
alternatively, the saving grace.
Add RNAi. Chop chop.
Showing posts with label Cogito Ergo Sum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cogito Ergo Sum. Show all posts
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Descartes joke
Descartes went to McDonalds and ordered a burger. The waiter asked him, "would you like fries too?" Descartes replied, "I think not"... and disappeared.
If you didn't get it: Descartes, the philosopher, said Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore i am). Therefore if he says he thinks not, then he is not.
If you didn't get it: Descartes, the philosopher, said Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore i am). Therefore if he says he thinks not, then he is not.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
epiphany
HUMANITIES: sociology, international relations, econs etc are core humanities through which society is modeled and predictions made. geog and hist are tools to study society, lenses through which we can learn about humanity. philo and lit are underlying skills.
(a similar comment about the sciences will earn me a lot of pokes... )
(a similar comment about the sciences will earn me a lot of pokes... )
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McImposition: The subservience of consumers to the commodified fast food culture (RA Geog Assg)
ABSTRACT
The continued popularity and growth of McDonalds in the age of SuperSize Me eludes intuition. It is the result of Mcdonalds’ exploitation of the consumer, and a microcosm of larger narratives in modern consumer society. This case study provides a basis from which to elucidate the power dynamics of consumption. I will analyze various scales of dialectics: (1) individual consumers’ subservience to fast food culture, (2) The Americanized fast food culture and its erosive hegemony over local postcolonial cultures, (3) plotting McDonalds on resultant sociocultural landscapes, and (4) possible recourses, hence showing how consumers and cultures are indeed subservient but not powerless in the face of the commodifed fast food culture.
INTRODUCTION
In the age of Supersize Me, the Class Action Lawsuit, and growing consumer health consciousness, it eludes intuition how McDonald’s maintains its grip on the more than 47 million customers (McDonald’s, 2007) it serves worldwide each day. Americans spend more on fast food than on PCs, cars, and college education (Schlosser, 2002); more than a third of British adults prefer a diet consisting mainly of fast food and beer (Pryer et al, 2001). In the developing world, 2000 McDonalds open each year.
Fast Food joints are reluctant to sell just food – they may go bankrupt – rather, they shove “extra value meals” of digestive and emotional gratification down the throats of unwitting consumers, carefully-engineered to program the consumer to come back for more. How does the fast food industry pull this off?
1. THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER’S SUBSERVIENCE TO FAST FOOD
Capitalism is widely perceived to be the dehumanizing antithesis of aesthetic interests, and yet, one defining feature of contemporary mature capitalism is the “convergence of the economic and the cultural” (Scott, 2000), where “cultural meanings are regularly appropriated for commercial ends, and human agency subordinated to the logic of capital” (Jackson, 2002). An emphasis on meaning, identity and representation does not trump the continued capitalistic salience of the economy.
Fast food is one instance of a commodified symbolic form (after Scott, 2000), where ‘commodifed’ in the Marxian sense denotes goods and services produced for capitalist profit, and ‘symbolic form’ denotes goods with significant emotional content. McDonalds is not in the business of selling food, more importantly; they sell customers the desire to consume their food. The means and relations of production have been revolutionized, such that fast food is masked in the materiality of the commodity (after Marx: commodity fetish) - i.e. severed from the social and spatial relations that structure its productions (Goss, 1993), and given artificial and hollow meanings and social place. This meaning and place is the construct of the mammoth fast food industry, and in its face consumers are subservient “passive and vulnerable victims of the force field which they don’t understand” (Goss, 1993), such that find food wrapped in McDonald’s wrappers better tasting than identical samples in generic wrappers (Robinson, 2007). I shall now elucidate the meaning and place of fast food, and how it is constructed.
For instance, consider how McDonalds takes pride in being ‘fast’ food, an inherently quick and easy food concept because little forward planning, waiting, or clearing up is required. While time poverty is the product of the post-modern capitalist sociocultural milleu, and not fast food per se, the Fast Food industry “understands, profit from, and encourages an occupation with haste” (Gleick, 1999). McDonalds relentlessly emphasizes its speed: it once gave out free apple pies if food was not ready in 60 seconds; advertisements have drawn parallels between Tennis champion Ivanisevic’s serve (216kph) and McDonalds quick burger assembly. With relentless subliminal messaging, McDonald’s (together with the rest of capitalist society) subtly imposes on consumers the perceived threat that time is in chronically short supply, Brewis (2005) concludes that “many of us could therefore be seen as cultural slaves to M-time – we lose a more organic and rhythmic sense of time as the natural context of life”.
Similarly, fast food branding tends to juxtapose vivid, recognizable symbols (e.g. the golden arches, Ronald McDonald, the burger) alongside the corporate images McDonalds’ seeks to portray: themes of youthful exuberance or being ‘cool’, healthy lifestyles, sheer enjoyment (e.g. smiles on children’s’ faces upon getting a Happy meal), and friendship (e.g. KFC’s buddy meal). (Also note caption on page 2). McDonalds creates lifestyle and culture built around it, shaping and exploiting the sociocultural landscape for profit (this will further discussed in part 3)
There are multiplicities of forces working against McDonalds: health concerns (championed by Supersize Me), the frequent consumer’s gastronomic boredom, and the “high-cultural disdain for conspicuous mass-consumption resulting from the legacy of a puritanical fear of the moral corruption inherent in commercialism and materialism” (Goss, 1993). I extend Goss (1993)’s argument against the fear of conspicuous con-sumption in shopping malls to address fast food: McDonalds assuages this collective fear and guilt over the evils of fast food by designing a fantasized disassociation from the act of consumption (i.e. you consume the lifestyle, not the burger) to distract consumers from the emptiness of the burger.
The sheer irony of fast food being promoted as ‘healthy’, and what was cheap American street food being divorced from its history and rebranded as ‘trendy’ expounds the muscle of the fast food industry holds over consumer perceptions. The caucus locus is the social power relations of production and consumption (Sack, 1988) – the capital and the brainpower of fast food giants acting from young on the individual mind, subordinating the individual to the postmodernist “consumption of artificial and hollow signs over and above material utilities” (Baudrillard, 1981). The world is not merely represented in commodifed images, but consists of such images – the image having more substantive effect than reality (Baudrillard, 1993). It’s all a lie – one that allows McDonalds to sidestep its replaceable material utility to create an irreplaceable image consumers flock towards.
The realist view sidesteps this to state that perception does not matter, because “a real world independent of human perception” exists (Unwin, 1992). And yet the consumer’s ‘choice’ – or lack thereof – whether or not to step into McDonalds is predicated upon perception and not higher ‘truths’ that are not privy to their decision making, even if such ‘truths’ exist.
This view may seem overly deterministic; power play and presiding influences restricting the field of human agency being restricted does not prove that this agency is itself dead. We may argue that it is ultimately the consumer’s sovereign choice to step into McDonalds.
Consider, however, how “consumption undoes contexts to create contexts, undoes social relation to create social relations, and undoes meaning to create meaning” (Sack, 1988). Whether or not truth is relative, in a world where interpretations are relative, such that the “interpretation that persists at a particular time is a function of power and not truth” (Nietzsche), we see the contexts and meanings of consumption being engineered by those at the profiteering end of consumption, such that the agency of the consumer exists only within the boundaries drawn by the mammoth industry; consumer sovereignty over the consumption of the irreplaceable images and identities constituted by McDonalds is not dead, but it is a limited and elusive ideal.
2. THE AMERICANIZED FAST FOOD CULTURE AND ITS EROSIVE HEGEMONY OVER LOCAL POSTCOLONIAL CULTURES
The global McDonalds presence is not just a product of post-Fordist economic globalization, but one of cultural globalization (Americanization); the exportation of fast food is not only that of commodity but also that of culture and lifestyle. Such a culture, of course, promotes consumption and hence profits.
In this section I shall focus on postcolonial societies. In contrast with other colonial powers, such societies bear little native commonality with American culture and hence exhibit marked cultural change. I deliberately exclude societies like China, as such societies were subject to imperial power but not formal colonies, and “the colonial epoch is not the defining feature of societies with longer historical trajectories. (Sidaway, 2000).”
Culture is of exceptional significance in postcolonial societies, in which contradictions between local cultures and colonial influences lead to defining tensions that mark a colonial present: “underlying all (postcolonial) economic, social, and political resistance is the struggle for representation” (McEwan, 2003). Arguably, culture, being a set of predominant attitudes and way of life shared by members of a society (Hofstede, 1997), is by definition organically grown. By logical extension, Americanization can only happen if a society willingly drifts in that direction.
Indeed this is to some extent the case. Layers of historical change and the lived experience of the colonial past have led to the subliminal acceptance of the superiority of the colonial masters and more generally the West. Hence “what is in the west is referred to modernity and progress” (McEwan, 2003). This is the universalizing knowledge produced by neoimperialist power. Hence the propagation of the fast food culture can be seen as an inevitable part in the larger currents the colonial present, not the doing of fast food companies.
And yet this fails to discount my core argument that consumers and cultures are subservient to the fast food culture. Indeed the propagation of the fast food culture is not merely McDonald’s doing, but a larger structural tug by Western influences; this, still, cannot absolve McDonald’s.
We see today’s world order as one shaped by the economic and political clout of the first world, echoing Nietzche’s postmodernist view that the “interpretation that persists at a particular time is a function of power and not truth”. Capitalist paradigms, expounded by Ritzer’s (1998) tenets of McDonaldization (efficiency, control, calculability, predictability), and the hegemonic order of cultures have led to the convergence of cultures towards greater uniformity and the sacrifice of the “unique, personal, communal, spontaneous and free dimensions of human life” (Ram, 2004).
Ritzer (2003a) draw a dichotomy between two extremes of globalization: glocalization (the integration of the global and the local) and grobalization (the global consuming the local). My argument thus far has pointed towards grobalization, but there are also cases where the local survives to some extent. McDonalds offers localized fare, exploiting local culture to its benefit: McKebabs are served in Israel, McVeggie and McCurry Pans in India. Such surviving local flavours, however, seem merely superficial and symbolic, and in fact show how cultural meanings are appropriated for commercial ends. They in no way discount the structural uniformity of the fast food culture.
To some extent Americanized fast food culture creates new cultural space, providing a “surrogate identity for those who do not identify with their own” (Ram, 2004) (hence greater acceptance among youth). On the other hand, the appeal of McDonaldized efficiency has diminished that of slower-paced local cultures; “Attempting to defend traditional cultural forms against cheap consumerism while simultaneously encouraging market forces as the only logical arbiter of human emotion is a losing game” (Ram, 2004). McDonalds has shifted the goalposts of expectations. To compete, traditional food are often forced to McDonaldize i.e. implement the McDonaldization tenets to appeal to consumers (Ritzer, 1997). In Israel, street food like the traditional falafel, once an Israeli tourist symbol have “been rescued from parochialism and upgraded to a world standard-bearer of ‘Israeli fast food’, or as one observer put it, transformed from grub to bread” (Ram, 2004). French cafes have likewise “adopted the fast food formula” (Fantasia, 1995). Varieties of local cultural identities licensed under the uniform structure of global capitalist commercial expansion disguises the unified formula of capital, thereby fostering legitimacy or even sales (Ram, 2004).
McDonalds is not a death knell for local foods, but the McDonaldized culture and structural uniformity that prevails as truth in the age of Western hegemony, easily accepted by the capitalist soul, entails the erosion of old ways of life.
3. PLOTTING MCDONALDS ON URBAN SOCIOCULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Human behaviour is moulded by social forces and relations of production (after: Marx). McDonalds produces, simultaneously, “the objects of consumption and the social subjects to consume them” (Goss, 1993). Let us plot McDonalds on the sociocultural landscapes that it has taken over.
The pricing and ubiquity of McDonalds such that it is accessible to large sections of society has, in a way, made it a mass-market social leveler in most societies (except for the very rich or the very poor). Fast food is seen as a “ubiquitous point of assembly, if not worship” (Stephenson, 1989) simply because it is accessible and acceptable to almost all. In social contexts where fast food joints are the de-facto meeting place, individuals tend to conform to keep up with this norm of reputability (this parallels the conspicuous consumption in Veblen’s 1899 theory of the leisure class).
The power dynamics and ubiquity of McDonalds has led to a distinctive transformation of urban sociocultural landscapes. A geographical sense of place is not irrelevant from this discussion: localities are the totality of social structure and human agency in space – such place includes both the physical ‘real’ conception of urban space and the human ‘imaginary’ construct of consciousness of place. The actions of “mass consumption is among the most powerful and pervasive place-building processes in the world” (Sack, 1988), place it is the expression of cultural symbolism.
Fast food seems universally present across postmodern urban sociocultural landscapes. McDonalds has shaped a distinctive landscape designed to sell its products and “condition an emotional and behavioral response from those whom they see as their malleable customers” (Goss, 1993). Such a landscape is the resultant of the power logics of McDonalds and the fast food culture, and the subservience of consumers and local cultures, as elucidated in the previous sections. As Breen (1993) put it, it is not a personal, private act by the consumer, but a very social act wherein symbolic meanings, social codes and relationships are produced and reproduced. What defines such a landscape?
First, such as landscape is inherently postmodern, where the “perceived dependency on products and their claimed utilities wanes – no object has greater inherent value independent of the symbolic, and the illusionary separations between the real and the simulation dissolve” (Firat, 1995). As argued in section 1, the material utility of McDonalds is irreplaceable; rather, it thrives on the postmodern consumption of images and constituted identity. In many ways (e.g. through the long-standing “happy meal”) McDonalds’ has postured its selling point to be this identity and symbolism, not merely the product itself.
Ritzer (2003) would interpret the ubiquitous distribution of McDonalds (in fast food and in other McDonaldized institutions) as a “fantasy archipelago of consumption islands”, “isolated worlds of enchantment”, to which “there is a kind of magnetism”. Indeed this is best manifested by the 2003 thinly-veiled McDonalds tagline: I’m lovin’ it, where “it” unabashedly refers to the McDonalds lifestyle and culture, not the product per se. At the same time, Ritzer (2003) argues that McDonaldized islands are dead, in that they lead to a dull, boring, and routine form of existence, separated and alienated from the rest of society. Hence his description of the social geography of McDonalds as ‘Islands of the living dead” (2003).
Such imagery hints at the distribution of McDonalds on our postmodern sociocultural landscape, but beneath it lies severe flaws. First, Ritzer did not reconcile the obvious contradiction between McDonaldized islands simultaneously being both of two extremes: living and dead. If these were a thesis-antithesis pair, a synthesis is lacking. Furthermore, Ritzer portrays fast food as islands isolated from the rest of society, neither as part of larger currents in society, nor having any Marxist influence they have on it.
I would see the ubiquitous McDonalds islands of attraction in our sociocultural urbanscape as plums in a pudding – randomly located in the pudding’s deep-seated structural uniformity, embodying the quintessence of the constituted identity of postmodern consumer culture, and at the same time representing the concentration of hegemonic power over consumers and cultures through which such identity and symbolism are carved, yet part of a greater whole and never divorced from the rest of society. This is how I would plot Mcdonalds on the larger sociocultural landscape – Marxist plums in a postmodern pudding.
4. POSSIBLE RECOURSES (INCL. CRITIQUE OF APPROACH)
The critical analysis in this paper may seem to lack rigor, schematic methodology, and hence cannot give any conclusive proof. Postcolonialism operates on many assumptions (that colonial masters treat colonies and shape their society in a particular way, and such influence is long-lasting) that may not be justified. Postmodernism, where anything can be correct, can cut dangerously close to being truistic (e.g. “Mcdonalds creates meaning”).
But such is the nature of anti-positivist discourse. Postmodernism itself acknowledges versions of the truth, none of which is more correct than the other, such that it is futile to prove one as a positivist singular truth. Critique analyzes phenomena’s and illuminates the human condition, offers perspectives and creates constructive discourse. Hence critical analysis serves as a means of self-reflection and the “conscience of society” (Unwin, 1992).
The above discourse on Marxist power dynamics may border on being overly static and deterministic. Structuration (after: Giddens, 1981:27-30) offers an optimistic counterthesis: like Marxism, it accepts power logics as an inevitable fact of life, but argues that the fate of agents is not just the deterministic product of ain imposed structure, but that of a 2-way dialectic in which actors can effect change to the structure. Hence structuration would give greater credit to the agency and power of the consumer, without the violent radicalism of Marx.
Indeed the consumer has several possible recourses to retrieve the commodifed identities and sociocultural space shaped by McDonalds from calculated control: to “expose the fetishism of the commodity and the re-problematization of the relations of consumption” (Goss, 1993). We have seen this in consumer activism, Supersize Me and class action lawsuits being the most seminal examples. Given sufficient momentum, the collective action by a group of actors will force the profit logics of fast food giants to make progressive changes (e.g. McDonalds already publishes nutritional infon and offers salads), brought about by the notion of corporate social responsibility (staying credible to stay profitable).
I therefore conclude that consumers and cultures are subservient but not powerless in the face of the commodifed fast food culture.
The continued popularity and growth of McDonalds in the age of SuperSize Me eludes intuition. It is the result of Mcdonalds’ exploitation of the consumer, and a microcosm of larger narratives in modern consumer society. This case study provides a basis from which to elucidate the power dynamics of consumption. I will analyze various scales of dialectics: (1) individual consumers’ subservience to fast food culture, (2) The Americanized fast food culture and its erosive hegemony over local postcolonial cultures, (3) plotting McDonalds on resultant sociocultural landscapes, and (4) possible recourses, hence showing how consumers and cultures are indeed subservient but not powerless in the face of the commodifed fast food culture.
INTRODUCTION
In the age of Supersize Me, the Class Action Lawsuit, and growing consumer health consciousness, it eludes intuition how McDonald’s maintains its grip on the more than 47 million customers (McDonald’s, 2007) it serves worldwide each day. Americans spend more on fast food than on PCs, cars, and college education (Schlosser, 2002); more than a third of British adults prefer a diet consisting mainly of fast food and beer (Pryer et al, 2001). In the developing world, 2000 McDonalds open each year.
Fast Food joints are reluctant to sell just food – they may go bankrupt – rather, they shove “extra value meals” of digestive and emotional gratification down the throats of unwitting consumers, carefully-engineered to program the consumer to come back for more. How does the fast food industry pull this off?
1. THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER’S SUBSERVIENCE TO FAST FOOD
Capitalism is widely perceived to be the dehumanizing antithesis of aesthetic interests, and yet, one defining feature of contemporary mature capitalism is the “convergence of the economic and the cultural” (Scott, 2000), where “cultural meanings are regularly appropriated for commercial ends, and human agency subordinated to the logic of capital” (Jackson, 2002). An emphasis on meaning, identity and representation does not trump the continued capitalistic salience of the economy.
Fast food is one instance of a commodified symbolic form (after Scott, 2000), where ‘commodifed’ in the Marxian sense denotes goods and services produced for capitalist profit, and ‘symbolic form’ denotes goods with significant emotional content. McDonalds is not in the business of selling food, more importantly; they sell customers the desire to consume their food. The means and relations of production have been revolutionized, such that fast food is masked in the materiality of the commodity (after Marx: commodity fetish) - i.e. severed from the social and spatial relations that structure its productions (Goss, 1993), and given artificial and hollow meanings and social place. This meaning and place is the construct of the mammoth fast food industry, and in its face consumers are subservient “passive and vulnerable victims of the force field which they don’t understand” (Goss, 1993), such that find food wrapped in McDonald’s wrappers better tasting than identical samples in generic wrappers (Robinson, 2007). I shall now elucidate the meaning and place of fast food, and how it is constructed.
For instance, consider how McDonalds takes pride in being ‘fast’ food, an inherently quick and easy food concept because little forward planning, waiting, or clearing up is required. While time poverty is the product of the post-modern capitalist sociocultural milleu, and not fast food per se, the Fast Food industry “understands, profit from, and encourages an occupation with haste” (Gleick, 1999). McDonalds relentlessly emphasizes its speed: it once gave out free apple pies if food was not ready in 60 seconds; advertisements have drawn parallels between Tennis champion Ivanisevic’s serve (216kph) and McDonalds quick burger assembly. With relentless subliminal messaging, McDonald’s (together with the rest of capitalist society) subtly imposes on consumers the perceived threat that time is in chronically short supply, Brewis (2005) concludes that “many of us could therefore be seen as cultural slaves to M-time – we lose a more organic and rhythmic sense of time as the natural context of life”.
Similarly, fast food branding tends to juxtapose vivid, recognizable symbols (e.g. the golden arches, Ronald McDonald, the burger) alongside the corporate images McDonalds’ seeks to portray: themes of youthful exuberance or being ‘cool’, healthy lifestyles, sheer enjoyment (e.g. smiles on children’s’ faces upon getting a Happy meal), and friendship (e.g. KFC’s buddy meal). (Also note caption on page 2). McDonalds creates lifestyle and culture built around it, shaping and exploiting the sociocultural landscape for profit (this will further discussed in part 3)
There are multiplicities of forces working against McDonalds: health concerns (championed by Supersize Me), the frequent consumer’s gastronomic boredom, and the “high-cultural disdain for conspicuous mass-consumption resulting from the legacy of a puritanical fear of the moral corruption inherent in commercialism and materialism” (Goss, 1993). I extend Goss (1993)’s argument against the fear of conspicuous con-sumption in shopping malls to address fast food: McDonalds assuages this collective fear and guilt over the evils of fast food by designing a fantasized disassociation from the act of consumption (i.e. you consume the lifestyle, not the burger) to distract consumers from the emptiness of the burger.
The sheer irony of fast food being promoted as ‘healthy’, and what was cheap American street food being divorced from its history and rebranded as ‘trendy’ expounds the muscle of the fast food industry holds over consumer perceptions. The caucus locus is the social power relations of production and consumption (Sack, 1988) – the capital and the brainpower of fast food giants acting from young on the individual mind, subordinating the individual to the postmodernist “consumption of artificial and hollow signs over and above material utilities” (Baudrillard, 1981). The world is not merely represented in commodifed images, but consists of such images – the image having more substantive effect than reality (Baudrillard, 1993). It’s all a lie – one that allows McDonalds to sidestep its replaceable material utility to create an irreplaceable image consumers flock towards.
The realist view sidesteps this to state that perception does not matter, because “a real world independent of human perception” exists (Unwin, 1992). And yet the consumer’s ‘choice’ – or lack thereof – whether or not to step into McDonalds is predicated upon perception and not higher ‘truths’ that are not privy to their decision making, even if such ‘truths’ exist.
This view may seem overly deterministic; power play and presiding influences restricting the field of human agency being restricted does not prove that this agency is itself dead. We may argue that it is ultimately the consumer’s sovereign choice to step into McDonalds.
Consider, however, how “consumption undoes contexts to create contexts, undoes social relation to create social relations, and undoes meaning to create meaning” (Sack, 1988). Whether or not truth is relative, in a world where interpretations are relative, such that the “interpretation that persists at a particular time is a function of power and not truth” (Nietzsche), we see the contexts and meanings of consumption being engineered by those at the profiteering end of consumption, such that the agency of the consumer exists only within the boundaries drawn by the mammoth industry; consumer sovereignty over the consumption of the irreplaceable images and identities constituted by McDonalds is not dead, but it is a limited and elusive ideal.
2. THE AMERICANIZED FAST FOOD CULTURE AND ITS EROSIVE HEGEMONY OVER LOCAL POSTCOLONIAL CULTURES
The global McDonalds presence is not just a product of post-Fordist economic globalization, but one of cultural globalization (Americanization); the exportation of fast food is not only that of commodity but also that of culture and lifestyle. Such a culture, of course, promotes consumption and hence profits.
In this section I shall focus on postcolonial societies. In contrast with other colonial powers, such societies bear little native commonality with American culture and hence exhibit marked cultural change. I deliberately exclude societies like China, as such societies were subject to imperial power but not formal colonies, and “the colonial epoch is not the defining feature of societies with longer historical trajectories. (Sidaway, 2000).”
Culture is of exceptional significance in postcolonial societies, in which contradictions between local cultures and colonial influences lead to defining tensions that mark a colonial present: “underlying all (postcolonial) economic, social, and political resistance is the struggle for representation” (McEwan, 2003). Arguably, culture, being a set of predominant attitudes and way of life shared by members of a society (Hofstede, 1997), is by definition organically grown. By logical extension, Americanization can only happen if a society willingly drifts in that direction.
Indeed this is to some extent the case. Layers of historical change and the lived experience of the colonial past have led to the subliminal acceptance of the superiority of the colonial masters and more generally the West. Hence “what is in the west is referred to modernity and progress” (McEwan, 2003). This is the universalizing knowledge produced by neoimperialist power. Hence the propagation of the fast food culture can be seen as an inevitable part in the larger currents the colonial present, not the doing of fast food companies.
And yet this fails to discount my core argument that consumers and cultures are subservient to the fast food culture. Indeed the propagation of the fast food culture is not merely McDonald’s doing, but a larger structural tug by Western influences; this, still, cannot absolve McDonald’s.
We see today’s world order as one shaped by the economic and political clout of the first world, echoing Nietzche’s postmodernist view that the “interpretation that persists at a particular time is a function of power and not truth”. Capitalist paradigms, expounded by Ritzer’s (1998) tenets of McDonaldization (efficiency, control, calculability, predictability), and the hegemonic order of cultures have led to the convergence of cultures towards greater uniformity and the sacrifice of the “unique, personal, communal, spontaneous and free dimensions of human life” (Ram, 2004).
Ritzer (2003a) draw a dichotomy between two extremes of globalization: glocalization (the integration of the global and the local) and grobalization (the global consuming the local). My argument thus far has pointed towards grobalization, but there are also cases where the local survives to some extent. McDonalds offers localized fare, exploiting local culture to its benefit: McKebabs are served in Israel, McVeggie and McCurry Pans in India. Such surviving local flavours, however, seem merely superficial and symbolic, and in fact show how cultural meanings are appropriated for commercial ends. They in no way discount the structural uniformity of the fast food culture.
To some extent Americanized fast food culture creates new cultural space, providing a “surrogate identity for those who do not identify with their own” (Ram, 2004) (hence greater acceptance among youth). On the other hand, the appeal of McDonaldized efficiency has diminished that of slower-paced local cultures; “Attempting to defend traditional cultural forms against cheap consumerism while simultaneously encouraging market forces as the only logical arbiter of human emotion is a losing game” (Ram, 2004). McDonalds has shifted the goalposts of expectations. To compete, traditional food are often forced to McDonaldize i.e. implement the McDonaldization tenets to appeal to consumers (Ritzer, 1997). In Israel, street food like the traditional falafel, once an Israeli tourist symbol have “been rescued from parochialism and upgraded to a world standard-bearer of ‘Israeli fast food’, or as one observer put it, transformed from grub to bread” (Ram, 2004). French cafes have likewise “adopted the fast food formula” (Fantasia, 1995). Varieties of local cultural identities licensed under the uniform structure of global capitalist commercial expansion disguises the unified formula of capital, thereby fostering legitimacy or even sales (Ram, 2004).
McDonalds is not a death knell for local foods, but the McDonaldized culture and structural uniformity that prevails as truth in the age of Western hegemony, easily accepted by the capitalist soul, entails the erosion of old ways of life.
3. PLOTTING MCDONALDS ON URBAN SOCIOCULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Human behaviour is moulded by social forces and relations of production (after: Marx). McDonalds produces, simultaneously, “the objects of consumption and the social subjects to consume them” (Goss, 1993). Let us plot McDonalds on the sociocultural landscapes that it has taken over.
The pricing and ubiquity of McDonalds such that it is accessible to large sections of society has, in a way, made it a mass-market social leveler in most societies (except for the very rich or the very poor). Fast food is seen as a “ubiquitous point of assembly, if not worship” (Stephenson, 1989) simply because it is accessible and acceptable to almost all. In social contexts where fast food joints are the de-facto meeting place, individuals tend to conform to keep up with this norm of reputability (this parallels the conspicuous consumption in Veblen’s 1899 theory of the leisure class).
The power dynamics and ubiquity of McDonalds has led to a distinctive transformation of urban sociocultural landscapes. A geographical sense of place is not irrelevant from this discussion: localities are the totality of social structure and human agency in space – such place includes both the physical ‘real’ conception of urban space and the human ‘imaginary’ construct of consciousness of place. The actions of “mass consumption is among the most powerful and pervasive place-building processes in the world” (Sack, 1988), place it is the expression of cultural symbolism.
Fast food seems universally present across postmodern urban sociocultural landscapes. McDonalds has shaped a distinctive landscape designed to sell its products and “condition an emotional and behavioral response from those whom they see as their malleable customers” (Goss, 1993). Such a landscape is the resultant of the power logics of McDonalds and the fast food culture, and the subservience of consumers and local cultures, as elucidated in the previous sections. As Breen (1993) put it, it is not a personal, private act by the consumer, but a very social act wherein symbolic meanings, social codes and relationships are produced and reproduced. What defines such a landscape?
First, such as landscape is inherently postmodern, where the “perceived dependency on products and their claimed utilities wanes – no object has greater inherent value independent of the symbolic, and the illusionary separations between the real and the simulation dissolve” (Firat, 1995). As argued in section 1, the material utility of McDonalds is irreplaceable; rather, it thrives on the postmodern consumption of images and constituted identity. In many ways (e.g. through the long-standing “happy meal”) McDonalds’ has postured its selling point to be this identity and symbolism, not merely the product itself.
Ritzer (2003) would interpret the ubiquitous distribution of McDonalds (in fast food and in other McDonaldized institutions) as a “fantasy archipelago of consumption islands”, “isolated worlds of enchantment”, to which “there is a kind of magnetism”. Indeed this is best manifested by the 2003 thinly-veiled McDonalds tagline: I’m lovin’ it, where “it” unabashedly refers to the McDonalds lifestyle and culture, not the product per se. At the same time, Ritzer (2003) argues that McDonaldized islands are dead, in that they lead to a dull, boring, and routine form of existence, separated and alienated from the rest of society. Hence his description of the social geography of McDonalds as ‘Islands of the living dead” (2003).
Such imagery hints at the distribution of McDonalds on our postmodern sociocultural landscape, but beneath it lies severe flaws. First, Ritzer did not reconcile the obvious contradiction between McDonaldized islands simultaneously being both of two extremes: living and dead. If these were a thesis-antithesis pair, a synthesis is lacking. Furthermore, Ritzer portrays fast food as islands isolated from the rest of society, neither as part of larger currents in society, nor having any Marxist influence they have on it.
I would see the ubiquitous McDonalds islands of attraction in our sociocultural urbanscape as plums in a pudding – randomly located in the pudding’s deep-seated structural uniformity, embodying the quintessence of the constituted identity of postmodern consumer culture, and at the same time representing the concentration of hegemonic power over consumers and cultures through which such identity and symbolism are carved, yet part of a greater whole and never divorced from the rest of society. This is how I would plot Mcdonalds on the larger sociocultural landscape – Marxist plums in a postmodern pudding.
4. POSSIBLE RECOURSES (INCL. CRITIQUE OF APPROACH)
The critical analysis in this paper may seem to lack rigor, schematic methodology, and hence cannot give any conclusive proof. Postcolonialism operates on many assumptions (that colonial masters treat colonies and shape their society in a particular way, and such influence is long-lasting) that may not be justified. Postmodernism, where anything can be correct, can cut dangerously close to being truistic (e.g. “Mcdonalds creates meaning”).
But such is the nature of anti-positivist discourse. Postmodernism itself acknowledges versions of the truth, none of which is more correct than the other, such that it is futile to prove one as a positivist singular truth. Critique analyzes phenomena’s and illuminates the human condition, offers perspectives and creates constructive discourse. Hence critical analysis serves as a means of self-reflection and the “conscience of society” (Unwin, 1992).
The above discourse on Marxist power dynamics may border on being overly static and deterministic. Structuration (after: Giddens, 1981:27-30) offers an optimistic counterthesis: like Marxism, it accepts power logics as an inevitable fact of life, but argues that the fate of agents is not just the deterministic product of ain imposed structure, but that of a 2-way dialectic in which actors can effect change to the structure. Hence structuration would give greater credit to the agency and power of the consumer, without the violent radicalism of Marx.
Indeed the consumer has several possible recourses to retrieve the commodifed identities and sociocultural space shaped by McDonalds from calculated control: to “expose the fetishism of the commodity and the re-problematization of the relations of consumption” (Goss, 1993). We have seen this in consumer activism, Supersize Me and class action lawsuits being the most seminal examples. Given sufficient momentum, the collective action by a group of actors will force the profit logics of fast food giants to make progressive changes (e.g. McDonalds already publishes nutritional infon and offers salads), brought about by the notion of corporate social responsibility (staying credible to stay profitable).
I therefore conclude that consumers and cultures are subservient but not powerless in the face of the commodifed fast food culture.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Flower macro
Artist's statement for visitor's lounge:
The quintessence of the flower macro is peace. It is a subtractive process, about choosing to ignore the superfluous distractions of the world, and focus on nature's intricate beauty. It is a moment in time - the moment in which the flower is in its full glory. It is escapist and idealistic - the search for an island of beautiful tranquility in a sea of ugly chaos. In a world where truth is relative, and the truth that prevails at a particular time is a function of power, the flower macro carries absolute, refreshing, inalienable meaning.
The quintessence of the flower macro is peace. It is a subtractive process, about choosing to ignore the superfluous distractions of the world, and focus on nature's intricate beauty. It is a moment in time - the moment in which the flower is in its full glory. It is escapist and idealistic - the search for an island of beautiful tranquility in a sea of ugly chaos. In a world where truth is relative, and the truth that prevails at a particular time is a function of power, the flower macro carries absolute, refreshing, inalienable meaning.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Scarcity in abundance: The parable of the water tank
The parable of the water tank / Edward Bellamy
There was a certain very dry land, the people whereof were in sore need of water. And they did nothing but seek after water from morning until night, and many perished because they could not find it.
Howbeit, there were certain men in that land who were more crafty and diligent than the rest, and these had gathered stores of water where others could find none, and these men were called capitalists. And it came to pass that the people of the land came unto the capitalists and prayed them that they would give them of the water they had gathered that they might drink, for their need was sore. But the capitalists answered them and said:
"Go to, ye silly people! Why should we give you of the water we have gathered, for then should we become as ye are, and perish with you. But behold what we will do unto you. Be ye our servants, and ye shall have water."
And the people said, "Only give us to drink, and we will be your servants, we and our children." And it was so.
Now, the capitalists were men of understanding, and wise in their generation. They ordered the people who were their servants in bands, with captains and officers, and some they put at the springs to dip, and others did they make to carry the water, and others did they cause to seek for new springs. And all the water was brought together in one place, and there did the capitalists make a great tank for to hold it, and the tank was called the Market, for it was there that the people, even the servants of the capitalists, came to get water. And the capitalists said unto the people:
"For every bucket of water that ye bring to us, that we may pour it into the tank, which is the Market, behold we will give you a penny; but for every bucket that we shall draw forth to give unto you that you may drink of it, ye and your wives and your children, ye shall give to us two pennies, and the difference shall be our profit, seeing that if it were not for this profit we would not do this thing for you, but ye should all perish."
And it was good in the people's eyes for they were dull of understanding, and they diligently brought water unto the tank for many days, and for every bucket which they did bring, the capitalists gave them every man a penny; but for every bucket that the capitalists drew forth from the tank to give again unto the people, behold, the people rendered to the capitalists two pennies.
And after many days the water-tank, which was the Market, overflowed at the top, seeing that for every bucket the people poured in they received only so much as would buy again half-a-bucket. And because of the excess that was left to every bucket, did the tank overflow, for the people were many, but the capitalists were few, and could drink no more than others. Therefore did the tank overflow.
And when the capitalists saw that the water overflowed, they said to the people "See ye not the tank, which is the Market, doth overflow? Sit ye down, therefore, and be patient, for ye shall bring us no more water till the tank be empty."
But when the people no more received the pennies of the capitalists for the water they brought, they could buy no more water from the capitalists, having naught wherewith to buy. And when the capitalist saw that they had no more profit because no man bought water of them, they were troubled. And they sent forth men into the highways, the byways, and the hedges, crying, "If any thirst let him come to the tank and buy water of us, for it doth overflow." For they said among themselves, "Behold, the times are dull; we must advertise."
But the people answered, saying, "How can we buy unless ye hire us, for how else shall we have wherewithal to buy? Hire ye us, therefore, as before, and we will gladly buy water, for we thirst, and ye will have no need to advertise." But the capitalists said to the people: "Shall we hire you to bring water when the tank, which is the Market, doth already overflow? Buy ye, therefore, first water, and when the tank is empty through your buying, we will hire you again."
And so it was because the capitalists hired them no more to bring water that the people could not buy the water they had brought already, and because the people could not buy the water they had brought already, the capitalists no more hired them to bring water.
And the saying went abroad, "It is a crisis."
And the thirst of the people was great, for it was not now as it had been in the days of their fathers, when the land was open before them for everyone to seek water for himself, seeing that the capitalists had taken all the springs, and the wells, and the water-wheels, and the vessels, and the buckets, so that no man might come by water save from the tank, which was the Market. And the people murmured against the capitalists and said: "Behold, the tank runneth over, and we die of thirst. Give us therefore of the water, that we perish not."
But the capitalists answered, "Not so. The water is ours. Ye shall not drink thereof unless ye buy it of us with pennies." And they confirmed it with an oath, saying, after their manner, "Business is business."
But the capitalists were disquieted that the people bought no more water, whereby they had no more profits, and they spake to one another saying, "It seemeth that our profits have stopped our profits, and by reason of the profits we have made we can make no more profits. How is it that our profits are become unprofitable to us, and our gains do make us poor? Let us therefore send for the soothsayers, that they may interpret this thing unto us." And they sent for them.
Now the soothsayers were men learned in dark sayings, who joined themselves to the capitalists by reason of the water of the capitalists, that they might have thereof and live, they and their children. And they spake for the capitalists unto the people, and did their embassies for them, seeing that the capitalists were not a folk quick of understanding, neither ready of speech.
And the capitalists demanded of the soothsayers that they should interpret this thing unto them, wherefore it was that the people bought no more water of them, although the tank was full. And certain of the soothsayers answered and said, "It is by reason of overproduction." And some said, "It is glut." But the signification of the two words is the same. And others said, "Nay, but this thing is by reason of of the spots on the sun." And yet others answered, saying, "It is neither by reason of glut, nor yet of spots on the sun, that the evil hath come to pass, but because of lack of confidence."
And while the soothsayers contended among themselves according to their manner, the men of profit did slumber and sleep, and when they awoke they said to the soothsayers, "It is enough. Ye have spoken comfortably unto us. Now go forth and speak comfortably unto the people, so that they be at rest and leave us also in peace."
But the soothsayers, even the men of the dismal science - for so they were named by some - were loath to go forth to the people lest they should be stoned, for the people loved them not. And they said to the capitalists:
"Masters, it is a mystery of our craft that if men be full and thirst not, but be at rest, then shall they find comfort in our speech, even as ye. Yet if they thirst and be empty, find they no comfort therein, but rather mock at us, for it seemeth that unless a man be full, our wisdom appeareth unto him but emptiness."
But the capitalists said, "Go ye forth. Are ye not our men to do our embassies?"
And the soothsayers went forth to the people and expounded to them the mystery of over production, and how it was that they needs must perish of thirst because there was overmuch water, and how there could not be enough because there was too much. And likewise spoke they unto the people concerning the sun-spots, and also wherefore it was that these things had come upon them them by reason of lack of confidence. And it was even as the soothsayers had said, for to the people their wisdom seemed emptiness. And the people reviled them saying, "Go up, ye bald-heads! Will ye mock us? Doth plenty breed famine? Doth nothing come out of much?" And they took up stones to stone them.
And when the capitalists saw that the people still murmured, and would not give ear to the soothsayers, and because also they feared lest they should come upon the tank and take of the water by force, they brought forth to them certain holy men (but they were false priests), who spake unto the people that they should be quiet and trouble not the capitalists because they thirsted. And these holy men, who were false priests, testified to the people that this affliction was sent to them of God for the healing of their souls, and if they should bear it in patience and lust not after the water, neither trouble the capitalists, it would come to pass that after they had given up the ghost they would come to a country where there should be no capitalists, but an abundance of water. Howbeit, there were certain true prophets of God also, and would not prophesy for the capitalists, but rather spake constantly against them.
Now, when the capitalists saw that the people still murmured and would not be still, neither for the words of the soothsayers nor of the false priests, they came forth themselves unto them, and put the ends of their fingers in the water that overflowed in the tank and wet the tips thereof, and they scattered the drops from the tips of their fingers abroad upon the people who thronged the tank, and the name of the drops of water was charity, and they were exceeding bitter.
And when the capitalists saw yet again that neither for the words of the soothsayers, nor of the holy men who were false priests, nor yet for the drops that were called charity, would the people be still, but raged the more, and crowded upon the tank as if they would take it by force, then they took council together and sent men privily forth among the people and all who had skill in war, and took them apart and spake craftily with them saying:
"Come, now, why cast ye not your lot in with the capitalists? If ye will be their men and serve them against the people, that they break not in upon the tank, then shall ye have abundance of water, that ye perish not, ye and your children."
And the mighty men and they who were skilled in war hearkened unto this speech, and suffered themselves to be persuaded, for their thirst constrained them, and they went within unto the capitalists, and became their men, and staves and swords were put into their hands, and they became a defense unto the capitalists, and smote the people when they thronged upon the tank.
And after many days the water was low in the tank, for the capitalists did make fountains and fishponds of the water thereof, and did bathe therein, they and their wives and their children, and did waste the water for their pleasure.
And when the capitalists saw that the tank was empty, they said, "The crisis is ended": and they sent forth and hired the people that they should bring water and fill it again. And for the water that the people brought to the tank they received for every bucket a penny, but for the water which the capitalists drew forth from the tank to give again to the people they received two pennies, that they might have their profit. And after a time did the tank again overflow even as before.
And now, when many times the people had filled the tank until it overflowed, and had thirsted till the water therein had been wasted by the capitalists, it came to pass that their arose in the land certain men who were called agitators for that they did stir up the people. And they spake unto the people, saying that they should associate, and then they would have no need to be servants of the capitalists, and should thirst no more for water. And in the eyes of the capitalists were the agitators pestilent fellows, and they would fain have crucified them, but durst not for fear of the people.
And the words of the agitators which they spake to the people were on this wise:
"Ye foolish people, how long will ye deceived by a lie, and believe to your hurt that which is not? For behold, all these things which have been said unto you, by the capitalists and the soothsayers are cunningly devised fables. And likewise the holy men, who say that it is the will of God that you should always be poor and miserable and athirst, behold, they do blaspheme God and are liars, whom He will bitterly judge, though He forgive all others. How cometh it that ye may not come by the water in the tank? Is it not because you have no money? And why have ye no money? Is it not because ye receive but one penny for every bucket that ye bring to the tank, which is the Market, but must render two pennies for every bucket ye take out, so that the capitalists may have their profit? See ye not how by this means the tank must overflow, being filled by that ye lack and made to abound out of your emptiness? See ye not also that the harder ye toil and the more diligently ye seek and bring the water, the worse and not the better it shall be for you by reason of the profit, and that forever?"
After this manner spake the agitators for many days unto the people and none heeded them, but it was so that after a time the people hearkened. And they answered and said unto the agitators:
"Ye say truth. It is because of the capitalists and of their profits we may by no means come by the fruits of our labour, so that our labour is in vain, and the more we toil to fill the tank the sooner doth it overflow, and we may receive nothing because there is too much, according to the words of the soothsayers. But behold the capitalists are hard men, and their tender mercies are cruel. Tell us if ye know any way whereby we may deliver ourselves out of our bondage unto them. But if you know of no certain way of deliverance, we beseech you to hold your peace, and let us alone, that we may forget our misery."
And the agitators answered and said "We know a way."
And the people said: "Deceive us not, for this thing hath been from the beginning, and none hath found a way of deliverance till now, though many have sought it carefully with tears. But if ye know a way, speak unto us quickly."
Then the agitators spake unto the people of the way. And they said:
"Behold, what need have ye at all of these capitalists, that you should yield them profits upon your labor? What great things do they wherefore ye render them this tribute? Lo! it is only because they do order you in bands and lead you out and in and set you tasks, and afterwards give you a little of the water yourselves have brought and not they. Now, behold the way out of this bondage! Do ye for yourselves that which is done by the capitalists - namely, the ordering of your labor and the marshaling of your bands, and the dividing of your tasks. So shall ye have no need at all of the capitalists, and no more yield them any profit, but all the fruit of your labor shall ye share as brethren, everyone having the same; and so shall the tank never overflow until every man is full, and would not wag the tongue for more, and afterwards shall ye with the overflow make pleasant fountains and fishponds to delight yourselves withal, even as did the capitalists: but these shall be for the delight of all."
And the people answered: "How shall we go about to do this thing, for it seemeth good to us?" And the agitators answered:
"Choose ye discreet men to go in and out before you and marshal your bands and order your labor, and these men shall be as capitalists were; but behold they shall not be your masters as the capitalists are, but your brethren and officers who will do your will, and they shall not take any profits, but every man his share like the others, and there may be no more masters and servants among you, but brethren only. And from time to time, as ye see fit, ye shall choose other discreet men in place of the first to order the labour."
And the people hearkened, and said the thing was very good to them. Likewise it seemed not a hard thing. And with one voice they cried out, "So let it be as ye have said, for we will do it!"
And the capitalists heard the noise of shouting, and what the people said, and the soothsayers heard it also, and likewise the false priests and the mighty men of war, who were a defense unto the capitalists; and when they heard they trembled exceedingly, so that their knees smote together, and they said one to another, "It is the end of us!"
Howbeit, there were certain true priests of the living God who would not prophesy for the capitalists, but had compassion on the people; and when they heard the shouting of the people and what they said, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy, and gave thanks to God because of the deliverance.
And the people went and did all the things that were told them of the agitators to do. And it came to pass as the agitators had said, even according to all their words. And there was no more any thirst in that land, neither any that was a-hungered, not naked, nor cold, nor in any manner of want; and every man man said unto his fellow, "My brother," and every woman said unto her companion, "My sister," for so were they with one another as brethren and sisters which do dwell together in unity. And the blessing of God rested upon that land for ever.
There was a certain very dry land, the people whereof were in sore need of water. And they did nothing but seek after water from morning until night, and many perished because they could not find it.
Howbeit, there were certain men in that land who were more crafty and diligent than the rest, and these had gathered stores of water where others could find none, and these men were called capitalists. And it came to pass that the people of the land came unto the capitalists and prayed them that they would give them of the water they had gathered that they might drink, for their need was sore. But the capitalists answered them and said:
"Go to, ye silly people! Why should we give you of the water we have gathered, for then should we become as ye are, and perish with you. But behold what we will do unto you. Be ye our servants, and ye shall have water."
And the people said, "Only give us to drink, and we will be your servants, we and our children." And it was so.
Now, the capitalists were men of understanding, and wise in their generation. They ordered the people who were their servants in bands, with captains and officers, and some they put at the springs to dip, and others did they make to carry the water, and others did they cause to seek for new springs. And all the water was brought together in one place, and there did the capitalists make a great tank for to hold it, and the tank was called the Market, for it was there that the people, even the servants of the capitalists, came to get water. And the capitalists said unto the people:
"For every bucket of water that ye bring to us, that we may pour it into the tank, which is the Market, behold we will give you a penny; but for every bucket that we shall draw forth to give unto you that you may drink of it, ye and your wives and your children, ye shall give to us two pennies, and the difference shall be our profit, seeing that if it were not for this profit we would not do this thing for you, but ye should all perish."
And it was good in the people's eyes for they were dull of understanding, and they diligently brought water unto the tank for many days, and for every bucket which they did bring, the capitalists gave them every man a penny; but for every bucket that the capitalists drew forth from the tank to give again unto the people, behold, the people rendered to the capitalists two pennies.
And after many days the water-tank, which was the Market, overflowed at the top, seeing that for every bucket the people poured in they received only so much as would buy again half-a-bucket. And because of the excess that was left to every bucket, did the tank overflow, for the people were many, but the capitalists were few, and could drink no more than others. Therefore did the tank overflow.
And when the capitalists saw that the water overflowed, they said to the people "See ye not the tank, which is the Market, doth overflow? Sit ye down, therefore, and be patient, for ye shall bring us no more water till the tank be empty."
But when the people no more received the pennies of the capitalists for the water they brought, they could buy no more water from the capitalists, having naught wherewith to buy. And when the capitalist saw that they had no more profit because no man bought water of them, they were troubled. And they sent forth men into the highways, the byways, and the hedges, crying, "If any thirst let him come to the tank and buy water of us, for it doth overflow." For they said among themselves, "Behold, the times are dull; we must advertise."
But the people answered, saying, "How can we buy unless ye hire us, for how else shall we have wherewithal to buy? Hire ye us, therefore, as before, and we will gladly buy water, for we thirst, and ye will have no need to advertise." But the capitalists said to the people: "Shall we hire you to bring water when the tank, which is the Market, doth already overflow? Buy ye, therefore, first water, and when the tank is empty through your buying, we will hire you again."
And so it was because the capitalists hired them no more to bring water that the people could not buy the water they had brought already, and because the people could not buy the water they had brought already, the capitalists no more hired them to bring water.
And the saying went abroad, "It is a crisis."
And the thirst of the people was great, for it was not now as it had been in the days of their fathers, when the land was open before them for everyone to seek water for himself, seeing that the capitalists had taken all the springs, and the wells, and the water-wheels, and the vessels, and the buckets, so that no man might come by water save from the tank, which was the Market. And the people murmured against the capitalists and said: "Behold, the tank runneth over, and we die of thirst. Give us therefore of the water, that we perish not."
But the capitalists answered, "Not so. The water is ours. Ye shall not drink thereof unless ye buy it of us with pennies." And they confirmed it with an oath, saying, after their manner, "Business is business."
But the capitalists were disquieted that the people bought no more water, whereby they had no more profits, and they spake to one another saying, "It seemeth that our profits have stopped our profits, and by reason of the profits we have made we can make no more profits. How is it that our profits are become unprofitable to us, and our gains do make us poor? Let us therefore send for the soothsayers, that they may interpret this thing unto us." And they sent for them.
Now the soothsayers were men learned in dark sayings, who joined themselves to the capitalists by reason of the water of the capitalists, that they might have thereof and live, they and their children. And they spake for the capitalists unto the people, and did their embassies for them, seeing that the capitalists were not a folk quick of understanding, neither ready of speech.
And the capitalists demanded of the soothsayers that they should interpret this thing unto them, wherefore it was that the people bought no more water of them, although the tank was full. And certain of the soothsayers answered and said, "It is by reason of overproduction." And some said, "It is glut." But the signification of the two words is the same. And others said, "Nay, but this thing is by reason of of the spots on the sun." And yet others answered, saying, "It is neither by reason of glut, nor yet of spots on the sun, that the evil hath come to pass, but because of lack of confidence."
And while the soothsayers contended among themselves according to their manner, the men of profit did slumber and sleep, and when they awoke they said to the soothsayers, "It is enough. Ye have spoken comfortably unto us. Now go forth and speak comfortably unto the people, so that they be at rest and leave us also in peace."
But the soothsayers, even the men of the dismal science - for so they were named by some - were loath to go forth to the people lest they should be stoned, for the people loved them not. And they said to the capitalists:
"Masters, it is a mystery of our craft that if men be full and thirst not, but be at rest, then shall they find comfort in our speech, even as ye. Yet if they thirst and be empty, find they no comfort therein, but rather mock at us, for it seemeth that unless a man be full, our wisdom appeareth unto him but emptiness."
But the capitalists said, "Go ye forth. Are ye not our men to do our embassies?"
And the soothsayers went forth to the people and expounded to them the mystery of over production, and how it was that they needs must perish of thirst because there was overmuch water, and how there could not be enough because there was too much. And likewise spoke they unto the people concerning the sun-spots, and also wherefore it was that these things had come upon them them by reason of lack of confidence. And it was even as the soothsayers had said, for to the people their wisdom seemed emptiness. And the people reviled them saying, "Go up, ye bald-heads! Will ye mock us? Doth plenty breed famine? Doth nothing come out of much?" And they took up stones to stone them.
And when the capitalists saw that the people still murmured, and would not give ear to the soothsayers, and because also they feared lest they should come upon the tank and take of the water by force, they brought forth to them certain holy men (but they were false priests), who spake unto the people that they should be quiet and trouble not the capitalists because they thirsted. And these holy men, who were false priests, testified to the people that this affliction was sent to them of God for the healing of their souls, and if they should bear it in patience and lust not after the water, neither trouble the capitalists, it would come to pass that after they had given up the ghost they would come to a country where there should be no capitalists, but an abundance of water. Howbeit, there were certain true prophets of God also, and would not prophesy for the capitalists, but rather spake constantly against them.
Now, when the capitalists saw that the people still murmured and would not be still, neither for the words of the soothsayers nor of the false priests, they came forth themselves unto them, and put the ends of their fingers in the water that overflowed in the tank and wet the tips thereof, and they scattered the drops from the tips of their fingers abroad upon the people who thronged the tank, and the name of the drops of water was charity, and they were exceeding bitter.
And when the capitalists saw yet again that neither for the words of the soothsayers, nor of the holy men who were false priests, nor yet for the drops that were called charity, would the people be still, but raged the more, and crowded upon the tank as if they would take it by force, then they took council together and sent men privily forth among the people and all who had skill in war, and took them apart and spake craftily with them saying:
"Come, now, why cast ye not your lot in with the capitalists? If ye will be their men and serve them against the people, that they break not in upon the tank, then shall ye have abundance of water, that ye perish not, ye and your children."
And the mighty men and they who were skilled in war hearkened unto this speech, and suffered themselves to be persuaded, for their thirst constrained them, and they went within unto the capitalists, and became their men, and staves and swords were put into their hands, and they became a defense unto the capitalists, and smote the people when they thronged upon the tank.
And after many days the water was low in the tank, for the capitalists did make fountains and fishponds of the water thereof, and did bathe therein, they and their wives and their children, and did waste the water for their pleasure.
And when the capitalists saw that the tank was empty, they said, "The crisis is ended": and they sent forth and hired the people that they should bring water and fill it again. And for the water that the people brought to the tank they received for every bucket a penny, but for the water which the capitalists drew forth from the tank to give again to the people they received two pennies, that they might have their profit. And after a time did the tank again overflow even as before.
And now, when many times the people had filled the tank until it overflowed, and had thirsted till the water therein had been wasted by the capitalists, it came to pass that their arose in the land certain men who were called agitators for that they did stir up the people. And they spake unto the people, saying that they should associate, and then they would have no need to be servants of the capitalists, and should thirst no more for water. And in the eyes of the capitalists were the agitators pestilent fellows, and they would fain have crucified them, but durst not for fear of the people.
And the words of the agitators which they spake to the people were on this wise:
"Ye foolish people, how long will ye deceived by a lie, and believe to your hurt that which is not? For behold, all these things which have been said unto you, by the capitalists and the soothsayers are cunningly devised fables. And likewise the holy men, who say that it is the will of God that you should always be poor and miserable and athirst, behold, they do blaspheme God and are liars, whom He will bitterly judge, though He forgive all others. How cometh it that ye may not come by the water in the tank? Is it not because you have no money? And why have ye no money? Is it not because ye receive but one penny for every bucket that ye bring to the tank, which is the Market, but must render two pennies for every bucket ye take out, so that the capitalists may have their profit? See ye not how by this means the tank must overflow, being filled by that ye lack and made to abound out of your emptiness? See ye not also that the harder ye toil and the more diligently ye seek and bring the water, the worse and not the better it shall be for you by reason of the profit, and that forever?"
After this manner spake the agitators for many days unto the people and none heeded them, but it was so that after a time the people hearkened. And they answered and said unto the agitators:
"Ye say truth. It is because of the capitalists and of their profits we may by no means come by the fruits of our labour, so that our labour is in vain, and the more we toil to fill the tank the sooner doth it overflow, and we may receive nothing because there is too much, according to the words of the soothsayers. But behold the capitalists are hard men, and their tender mercies are cruel. Tell us if ye know any way whereby we may deliver ourselves out of our bondage unto them. But if you know of no certain way of deliverance, we beseech you to hold your peace, and let us alone, that we may forget our misery."
And the agitators answered and said "We know a way."
And the people said: "Deceive us not, for this thing hath been from the beginning, and none hath found a way of deliverance till now, though many have sought it carefully with tears. But if ye know a way, speak unto us quickly."
Then the agitators spake unto the people of the way. And they said:
"Behold, what need have ye at all of these capitalists, that you should yield them profits upon your labor? What great things do they wherefore ye render them this tribute? Lo! it is only because they do order you in bands and lead you out and in and set you tasks, and afterwards give you a little of the water yourselves have brought and not they. Now, behold the way out of this bondage! Do ye for yourselves that which is done by the capitalists - namely, the ordering of your labor and the marshaling of your bands, and the dividing of your tasks. So shall ye have no need at all of the capitalists, and no more yield them any profit, but all the fruit of your labor shall ye share as brethren, everyone having the same; and so shall the tank never overflow until every man is full, and would not wag the tongue for more, and afterwards shall ye with the overflow make pleasant fountains and fishponds to delight yourselves withal, even as did the capitalists: but these shall be for the delight of all."
And the people answered: "How shall we go about to do this thing, for it seemeth good to us?" And the agitators answered:
"Choose ye discreet men to go in and out before you and marshal your bands and order your labor, and these men shall be as capitalists were; but behold they shall not be your masters as the capitalists are, but your brethren and officers who will do your will, and they shall not take any profits, but every man his share like the others, and there may be no more masters and servants among you, but brethren only. And from time to time, as ye see fit, ye shall choose other discreet men in place of the first to order the labour."
And the people hearkened, and said the thing was very good to them. Likewise it seemed not a hard thing. And with one voice they cried out, "So let it be as ye have said, for we will do it!"
And the capitalists heard the noise of shouting, and what the people said, and the soothsayers heard it also, and likewise the false priests and the mighty men of war, who were a defense unto the capitalists; and when they heard they trembled exceedingly, so that their knees smote together, and they said one to another, "It is the end of us!"
Howbeit, there were certain true priests of the living God who would not prophesy for the capitalists, but had compassion on the people; and when they heard the shouting of the people and what they said, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy, and gave thanks to God because of the deliverance.
And the people went and did all the things that were told them of the agitators to do. And it came to pass as the agitators had said, even according to all their words. And there was no more any thirst in that land, neither any that was a-hungered, not naked, nor cold, nor in any manner of want; and every man man said unto his fellow, "My brother," and every woman said unto her companion, "My sister," for so were they with one another as brethren and sisters which do dwell together in unity. And the blessing of God rested upon that land for ever.
Monday, March 17, 2008
.png)
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The place for debate
To the debaters:
Extrapolate typical debate motions... you'll see how the ultimate purpose of debate is a very noble political one: it is about ensuring the welfare of a society. Why debate about writing off third world debt, or fighting AIDS, or fighting unfair trade? Because these issues affect people! Every debate is grounded in a real world issue.
The root of debate is political discourse (hence the terms "parlimentary debate", "government", "opposition") - the exchange of theses ("substantives/policies") and antitheses ("rebuttals/countersubstantives"), with which a synthesis is developed (read up on eg "hegel dialectic" or even locke's democracy). Through this process, social issues are discussed, policies are refined, and the opinions of society are duly considered - such that the outcome is the best possible.
Debate is not merely about "armchair debating", distanced from the real issues out there. If you are only willing to debate from an armchair for the sake of winning trophies, then don't even bother. You have a role, and a stake in the larger society. You must have a heart, with which you debate and advocate for the betterment of society - whatever the size of this society. Undoubtedly in a competition you have to argue the side you are allocated - but take your own personal stand, armed with the skills to evaluate all the actors and incentives and arguments for a particular issue.
Do not underestimate the power of debate. Ultimately, remember that you are the ones best armed with the power of argument, with which you can change society for the better - or for the worse (just look at Hitler: he was such a great orator). Great power cannot be divorced from great responsibility - do not derelict this duty you have as a fine debater to society, and be willing to stand up for what you believe in.
Extrapolate typical debate motions... you'll see how the ultimate purpose of debate is a very noble political one: it is about ensuring the welfare of a society. Why debate about writing off third world debt, or fighting AIDS, or fighting unfair trade? Because these issues affect people! Every debate is grounded in a real world issue.
The root of debate is political discourse (hence the terms "parlimentary debate", "government", "opposition") - the exchange of theses ("substantives/policies") and antitheses ("rebuttals/countersubstantives"), with which a synthesis is developed (read up on eg "hegel dialectic" or even locke's democracy). Through this process, social issues are discussed, policies are refined, and the opinions of society are duly considered - such that the outcome is the best possible.
Debate is not merely about "armchair debating", distanced from the real issues out there. If you are only willing to debate from an armchair for the sake of winning trophies, then don't even bother. You have a role, and a stake in the larger society. You must have a heart, with which you debate and advocate for the betterment of society - whatever the size of this society. Undoubtedly in a competition you have to argue the side you are allocated - but take your own personal stand, armed with the skills to evaluate all the actors and incentives and arguments for a particular issue.
Do not underestimate the power of debate. Ultimately, remember that you are the ones best armed with the power of argument, with which you can change society for the better - or for the worse (just look at Hitler: he was such a great orator). Great power cannot be divorced from great responsibility - do not derelict this duty you have as a fine debater to society, and be willing to stand up for what you believe in.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Intriguing points from a discussion of Plato's Republic
click for (source)
Plato - Allegory of the cave - on knowledge and truth
Plato says that we are all like prisoners chained up on the floor of a cave. We are so restricted that we can only look in one direction, and there we see shadows on the wall that seem to talk and move around. We and our fellow prisoners observe, discuss, and remember what these shadows do or say. But, what happens if we happen to be released from our chains? We stand up and look around, and we see a fire burning at the back of the cave. In front of the fire is a low wall, and on the wall puppets are manipulated, which cast the shadows that are all we have ever seen. So suddenly we realize that all the things we have ever known all our lives were not the true reality at all, but just shadows [skiai -- significantly the same word that occurs at the end of the Meno, when Plato says that the statesman who can teach his virtue and make another into a statesman will be like the only true reality compared with shadows (100a)]. But there is more. There is an exit from the cave, which leads up to the surface. There we are at first blinded, but then begin to see trees, animals, etc. which in the cave were only represented by puppets. Eventually we notice that all those things exist and are knowable because of the sun. Returning to the cave, we would at first be blinded by the darkness, and our fellow prisoners would have no idea what we were doing or saying -- they would probably regard us as insane -- but we could not, of course, take them seriously for an instant.
On the good
Plato's actual argument for why we should be just suffers from a fundamental misconception. He is always recommending justice from prudential considerations, i.e. we should be just because of our own best interest, either to be happy (the main argument) or to avoid the punishment of the gods (in the Myth of Er). If there is a difference between moral and merely prudent action, however, Plato has misdirected us. Instead, morality may require actions that are not in our self-interest. This is agreed upon by Immanuel Kant, Confucius, and even the Bhagavad Gita. Thus, Confucius holds that righteouness, , is to do what is right, regardless of the consequences. That is how Kant defined the "categorical imperative," the moral command (the imperative) that is to no ulterior purpose (i.e. it is categorical).
Plato - Allegory of the cave - on knowledge and truth
Plato says that we are all like prisoners chained up on the floor of a cave. We are so restricted that we can only look in one direction, and there we see shadows on the wall that seem to talk and move around. We and our fellow prisoners observe, discuss, and remember what these shadows do or say. But, what happens if we happen to be released from our chains? We stand up and look around, and we see a fire burning at the back of the cave. In front of the fire is a low wall, and on the wall puppets are manipulated, which cast the shadows that are all we have ever seen. So suddenly we realize that all the things we have ever known all our lives were not the true reality at all, but just shadows [skiai -- significantly the same word that occurs at the end of the Meno, when Plato says that the statesman who can teach his virtue and make another into a statesman will be like the only true reality compared with shadows (100a)]. But there is more. There is an exit from the cave, which leads up to the surface. There we are at first blinded, but then begin to see trees, animals, etc. which in the cave were only represented by puppets. Eventually we notice that all those things exist and are knowable because of the sun. Returning to the cave, we would at first be blinded by the darkness, and our fellow prisoners would have no idea what we were doing or saying -- they would probably regard us as insane -- but we could not, of course, take them seriously for an instant.
On the good
Plato's actual argument for why we should be just suffers from a fundamental misconception. He is always recommending justice from prudential considerations, i.e. we should be just because of our own best interest, either to be happy (the main argument) or to avoid the punishment of the gods (in the Myth of Er). If there is a difference between moral and merely prudent action, however, Plato has misdirected us. Instead, morality may require actions that are not in our self-interest. This is agreed upon by Immanuel Kant, Confucius, and even the Bhagavad Gita. Thus, Confucius holds that righteouness, , is to do what is right, regardless of the consequences. That is how Kant defined the "categorical imperative," the moral command (the imperative) that is to no ulterior purpose (i.e. it is categorical).
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Gerdanken #2: Schrodinger's cat
Schrodinger's thought experiment (in his own words):
A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem.
The Copenhagen intepretation:
A system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
Ok I won't go too far for this one. The basic idea is that measuring a system changes it. If you measure the momentum of a particle, you will change its position. If you measure the position of a particle, you will change its momentum.
Therefore,given a particle, the uncertainty in momentum (Δp) times the uncertainty in position (Δx) is greater than or equal to the reduced planck's constant (or div 2??? some sources say div 2...).
ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2
Welcome to quantumland
mostly lifted from wiki
A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem.
The Copenhagen intepretation:
A system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
Ok I won't go too far for this one. The basic idea is that measuring a system changes it. If you measure the momentum of a particle, you will change its position. If you measure the position of a particle, you will change its momentum.
Therefore,given a particle, the uncertainty in momentum (Δp) times the uncertainty in position (Δx) is greater than or equal to the reduced planck's constant (or div 2??? some sources say div 2...).
ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2
Welcome to quantumland
mostly lifted from wiki
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Virginia Tech: a reflection on society and morality
On April 16th this year, a deranged Virginia Tech student, Cho Seung-Hui from Korea, went on a shooting rampage, cutting short 33 young lives, including his own.
---Original articles---
General overview: US university shooting kills 33 [BBC]
More detail on Cho Seung-Hui, the deranged murderer: Killer’s manifesto: You forced me into a corner [CNN]
---On Cho Seung Hui: videos and quotes---
“You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," Cho said in one of the videos that aired Wednesday night on NBC. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.” –Cho
Cho's "video confession"
Two disturbing plays Cho wrote: Richard McBeef and Mr Brownstone
---Background information: A state of nature and the social contract---
In Leviathan , the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once put forth the idea of a state of nature: Before the emergence of organised society and restrictions on free action, man existed in a state of nature. In such a state of nature, man, being selfish, did anything, including harming others, to benefit himself. The result, according to Hobbes, is "a war of all against all", and a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life.
Society has evolved to formulate a social contract, however, that seeks to prevent society from descending into a state of nature. Individual freedoms have been curtailed whenever they infringe on the basic rights of others. The rule of law, a universal moral code, enforces this, giving a state of peace and guaranteeing the security of the individual.
Further reading
---Personal reflection---
Life is amazing and beautiful. But it is incredibly fragile. I am stunned how such a terrible thing could happen in a school, where students study in the knowledge that they are shielded from the dangers of the outside world. How could a student, with such a promising future, suddenly decide to end his life, and take 32 others with him? There are a surfeit of questions, but few answers.
First, and foremost, this is a sad reflection of the human condition, of how a man's vicious anger and frustrations can interplay to produce horrendous actions and the most heartbreaking consequences. Why are we - even the best and the brightest in universities - capable of blatantly disregarding the rights and happiness of others, and harming them, for self-interest, revenge, or otherwise?
The shaken notion of a civil society
We often pride ourselves on having built a civil society, by enacting laws as a moral code, and inculcating in our young the values that build such a society, such that indivduals no longer act purely in self-interest and harm others, but are considerate, making for more pleasant lives for everyone.
But this notion of a civil society has been shaken time and again, by murders like Cho, and by fanatical terrorists.
Is this the sad state of morality today's "civil" society has bred? Or has today's society merely evolved such that Hobbes' "state of nature" and "war of all against all" merely superficially suppressed but not overcome, such that it is ready to rear its ugly head and guarantee misery for all and sundry once triggered?
A more caring society, please?
Cho's machine-gun rampage seems to be as much his fault as it is society's. It turns out that he has few friends, and does not fit into society. His anger and discontent with society, as well as his violent tendencies were well-known - in fact, he was once admitted into a mental hospital. Why didn't anyone do anything, such that Cho can say "you forced me into a corner"?
Similarly, the Muslim terrorists that blew themselves up on crowded Tube trains in July 2005 came from a marginalized and poor group of society. Honestly, it is impossible for me to understand their feelings and point of view, but I don't blame them for being disillusioned with society, when society treats them so badly.
It is these outcrops of society that are discontentd with society and such horrific disasters are bred. I say, we should care a lot more about such outcrops of society, e.g. by reaching out to people like Cho and seeking to integrate them into society, and in the case of the terrorists, providing their communities with good education and equal opportunities.
Before our society can claim to be civil, it must first be caring. Otherwise, a "state of nature", and the lawless anarchy and misery it guarantees, may not be so far away. All it takes is one nuclear-armed terrorist to blow a city to smithereens.
(499 words)
---Original articles---
General overview: US university shooting kills 33 [BBC]
More detail on Cho Seung-Hui, the deranged murderer: Killer’s manifesto: You forced me into a corner [CNN]
---On Cho Seung Hui: videos and quotes---
“You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," Cho said in one of the videos that aired Wednesday night on NBC. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.” –Cho
Cho's "video confession"
Two disturbing plays Cho wrote: Richard McBeef and Mr Brownstone
---Background information: A state of nature and the social contract---
In Leviathan , the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once put forth the idea of a state of nature: Before the emergence of organised society and restrictions on free action, man existed in a state of nature. In such a state of nature, man, being selfish, did anything, including harming others, to benefit himself. The result, according to Hobbes, is "a war of all against all", and a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life.
Society has evolved to formulate a social contract, however, that seeks to prevent society from descending into a state of nature. Individual freedoms have been curtailed whenever they infringe on the basic rights of others. The rule of law, a universal moral code, enforces this, giving a state of peace and guaranteeing the security of the individual.
Further reading
---Personal reflection---
Life is amazing and beautiful. But it is incredibly fragile. I am stunned how such a terrible thing could happen in a school, where students study in the knowledge that they are shielded from the dangers of the outside world. How could a student, with such a promising future, suddenly decide to end his life, and take 32 others with him? There are a surfeit of questions, but few answers.
First, and foremost, this is a sad reflection of the human condition, of how a man's vicious anger and frustrations can interplay to produce horrendous actions and the most heartbreaking consequences. Why are we - even the best and the brightest in universities - capable of blatantly disregarding the rights and happiness of others, and harming them, for self-interest, revenge, or otherwise?
The shaken notion of a civil society
We often pride ourselves on having built a civil society, by enacting laws as a moral code, and inculcating in our young the values that build such a society, such that indivduals no longer act purely in self-interest and harm others, but are considerate, making for more pleasant lives for everyone.
But this notion of a civil society has been shaken time and again, by murders like Cho, and by fanatical terrorists.
Is this the sad state of morality today's "civil" society has bred? Or has today's society merely evolved such that Hobbes' "state of nature" and "war of all against all" merely superficially suppressed but not overcome, such that it is ready to rear its ugly head and guarantee misery for all and sundry once triggered?
A more caring society, please?
Cho's machine-gun rampage seems to be as much his fault as it is society's. It turns out that he has few friends, and does not fit into society. His anger and discontent with society, as well as his violent tendencies were well-known - in fact, he was once admitted into a mental hospital. Why didn't anyone do anything, such that Cho can say "you forced me into a corner"?
Similarly, the Muslim terrorists that blew themselves up on crowded Tube trains in July 2005 came from a marginalized and poor group of society. Honestly, it is impossible for me to understand their feelings and point of view, but I don't blame them for being disillusioned with society, when society treats them so badly.
It is these outcrops of society that are discontentd with society and such horrific disasters are bred. I say, we should care a lot more about such outcrops of society, e.g. by reaching out to people like Cho and seeking to integrate them into society, and in the case of the terrorists, providing their communities with good education and equal opportunities.
Before our society can claim to be civil, it must first be caring. Otherwise, a "state of nature", and the lawless anarchy and misery it guarantees, may not be so far away. All it takes is one nuclear-armed terrorist to blow a city to smithereens.
(499 words)
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Gerdanken #1: The last man argument and the intrinsic value of nature
Imagine...
(1) You are the very last man left on Earth, and you will die in 1 min. After you die, the human race will be extinct; only wildlife will be left.
(2) A system of nuclear explosives, able to blow the whole Earth (with all its wildlife) up, has been set up.
(3) If you press the button and activate those explosives, it would blow the Earth up, but only after you die. Because there would be no more humans left on Earth, no humans would be killed, rather, only the Earth's nature and wildlife would be blown up forever.
Stop and think. Will you press the button? You would not kill any humans but only plants and animals. Does it even matter to you after you die? So would you press the button?
-------------------
Most people would not. A "no" answer lends credence to the intrinsic value of nature. It is an acknowledgement that nature and its wildlife does not only have a purely utilitarian value, but rather, also an intrinsic one i.e. nature does not exist purely to serve humans.
This has far-reaching implications on environmentalism and human responsibilities. Chew on it.
(1) You are the very last man left on Earth, and you will die in 1 min. After you die, the human race will be extinct; only wildlife will be left.
(2) A system of nuclear explosives, able to blow the whole Earth (with all its wildlife) up, has been set up.
(3) If you press the button and activate those explosives, it would blow the Earth up, but only after you die. Because there would be no more humans left on Earth, no humans would be killed, rather, only the Earth's nature and wildlife would be blown up forever.
Stop and think. Will you press the button? You would not kill any humans but only plants and animals. Does it even matter to you after you die? So would you press the button?
-------------------
Most people would not. A "no" answer lends credence to the intrinsic value of nature. It is an acknowledgement that nature and its wildlife does not only have a purely utilitarian value, but rather, also an intrinsic one i.e. nature does not exist purely to serve humans.
This has far-reaching implications on environmentalism and human responsibilities. Chew on it.
Monday, March 19, 2007
What defines humanity
"Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) may be the words of Descartes. Indeed he is not wrong.
But the greater dichotomy between man and beast, that allows us to juxtapose ourselves against the rest of the animal kingdom as a higher organism is probably the capacity to feel and to empathise, and in goodness and in love, act on this empathy, such that we edify the lives of others.
Go figure.
But the greater dichotomy between man and beast, that allows us to juxtapose ourselves against the rest of the animal kingdom as a higher organism is probably the capacity to feel and to empathise, and in goodness and in love, act on this empathy, such that we edify the lives of others.
Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
