Last class the conversation revolved around celebrities and activism. I wasn't feeling very well during that morning, but I tried to pay attention as much as I could to write a good reflection post. Before the reading and Thursday's class, I had never paid that much attention to the relation between celebrities and world politics. Personally, I'm not a fan of having celebrity "role models" or "idols," considering that I don't know them personally (and really don't care about them). Regardless of these, many people do go as far as imitating the actions and style of top trending celebrities.
Famous people know that the trends they create, wether they are for a good cause, for more publicity or for money, have a direct impact on today's culture. What this means is that they have the ability to move masses towards a unified purpose, at least for a short period of time. Then, why should it matter if celebrities promoting activism are passionate or not about the topic? I'll rather have some famous "instagramer" talking about prevention for climate change or human trafficking than doing a stupid #challenge that revolves around the web with no purpose behind it. While both actions may have the same effect to the celebrity, expanding his follower base and wealth, the one inciting activism can change at least one life. Through "un-passionate" activism from celebrities, at least ONE passionate individual can be motivated to solve a local or global challenge. And if I have learned something from my short years of social work, is that service is about changing one life at a time.
0 Comments
How should the U.S. define the domestic content of automobiles, and why? The debate on what should the U.S. do about domestic content rules is one that varies depending on the scope. What is the goal? Long term economic revenue for the country, job demand increase, political leverage... Every objective changes not just the position, but the format of the conversation around it too.
For example, the post by Mimi, one that I enjoyed a lot, takes a position on the debate setting "a healthy and functioning diplomatic world" as the goal. With that goal in mind the arguments proposed are effective and even logical. But hat if the problem depends on the opinion of the every-day citizen? Then the arguments proposed by Mimi wouldn't be as relevant as other, more locally appealing, arguments such as the ones exposed by Blake. Blake's argument provides very good and logical points too, yet the aim is set at bringing Michigan some improvement rather than seeking world peace. I doubt some proposed home-runs would seem interesting to the Barcelona (Spain's best soccer team, and there is no debate or different scope possible here). What I mean by all of this is that sometimes, in order to win the game, it is necessary to understand what game is being played. Politics and policy stick very closely to this rule, especially in democratic societies where elected representatives need the vote of the people. Because while loosening the domestic content rules might bring economic progress and eventual world peace, it might not help you win the election in today's (which is prone to change soon) electoral environment. Machiavelli wouldn't be very happy with that decision... Liberal theory might have different opinions, and the debate goes on without something as "the best solution" ever coming into existence. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|