Wow, coming down from Midterm Month and this past week seemed to go on forever. We covered a lot of ground in class this week, from finishing up our Domestic Content Rules discussion on Monday to talking about celebrity activism on Thursday. One theme that I found repeated throughout the week was the idea of “supply and demand” and how consumer interests and choices help to create a repeating cycle of supply generating demand, and demand generating interest which then generates more demand and supply. People want cars, companies make more cars, companies make advertisements for cars which encourage people to want cars, people then buy more cars, companies make more cars, etc. Or celebrities engage in activism, companies begin engaging more celebrity activists, the public begins to expect celebrity activism, more celebrities engage in activism, etc. Both of these examples engage in the same consumerist mindset.
Regarding celebrity activism, I was reminded of a ranking supported by the Chinese government called the China Film and Television Star Social Responsibility Report. In it, stars were given scores of 0 to 100 based on how much they uphold and encourage “positive social values” (as defined by the Chinese Communist Party), their philanthropy, and their recent body of work. A score of 60 was required to pass, and of the 100 celebrities analyzed, only 9 were “socially responsible enough”, with the highest score coming in at just 78.09. In class on Thursday there seemed to be a general agreement that a lot of celebrity activism is purely superficial; this article reminded me that no matter how vacuous we may consider celebrity activism, in other places the influence of celebrities is held in high regard and considered a part of state power. This study really demonstrated the extreme side of when the public expects celebrities to be activists, role models, and spokespeople. This brings me to my main question on the whole significance of celebrity activism: does the causal force propelling celebrity activism (capitalist corporate social responsibility/public image vs political motivations) matter when judging the “value” of such activism? Or in Machiavellian terms, do the ends justify the means?* Personally, I feel like the ends could justify the means, except often the “ends” of celebrity activism are without any meaningful, systematic change. Celebrities can influence a greater number of people in a shorter amount of time, however celebrities are also under informed or misinformed, leading to incorrect or highly simplified information being circulated, such as in the case of the celebrity advocating for vaccines causing autism. The hope is that people who are so inclined might be inspired by celebrities to go out and research more on the subject and get more involved by themselves, however I think a lot of times celebrity activism results in feelings of false complacency. We want everyone to be politically active and socially conscious, and that results in lowering the bar to the point that buying a certain brand (such as Nike) is by itself a form of activism, literally buying into “consumerism as activism”. Looking forward to this week I’m excited to discuss the issue of “national security”, specifically as it relates to a State Department program I participated in called the “National Security Language Initiative for Youth” (NSLI-Y). *Regarding Machiavelli, I really enjoyed Hannah’s discussion of Kim K using the Machiavellian method of appearing to have all the virtues. I think celebrity activism is both a cause and effect of society in which virtues are equated with social activism and “social responsibility”. Celebrity activism has become a way of showing whether one is virtuous or not, and thus becomes necessary to stay in favor, even to the point of being codified and approved by the government as in China’s Star Social Responsibility Report.
0 Comments
For the simulation I was part of the team representing Ford. Increasing globalization is an inevitable part of where the world is going. As Anneli discussed in her reflection last week, all policies that countries put in place and choices that individual consumers make work together to shape global demand trends which companies then work to supply. Given this, it is impossible to have strict isolationist policy that works to benefit only one country. The pro-nationalist, America-first rhetoric and policies supported by Ford and the President, though attractive on paper and politically sellable, fail to acknowledge the dependencies that exist in international business and international relations. While they may be profitable in the short-term and garner temporary political support, the inefficiencies in these policies will slowly be exposed, and that will eventually result in loss of support and loss of power for the current party.
The current economic policies put forth in the trade war is not realist in that they ignores the reality of globalization, it goes against the basic principles of economic liberalism (using trade as a way to strengthen relationships between countries), and it is not constructivist in that it fails to holistically account for varied economic interests within the US and worldwide. In other words, our current economic policy is ridiculous, unfounded, and unsustainable. In this America-first trade war aimed at making American goods more competitive it is American companies and American workers that are hit the hardest. With this trade war, the US has knocked out a lot of competition from China and other countries, but now has nowhere to sell to, making the “competitive advantage” moot anyway. As was brought up by the consumer group and foreign auto workers during presentations, the US is a leading car manufacturer, but we are not the leading car purchaser. Strengthening domestic content laws would make US companies like Ford more competitive in the US, but they would end up unable to sell and losing money in foreign markets (where the majority of sales occur anyway) leading to a net loss in profits. This decreased demand would eventually lead to less jobs in the US from Ford and other companies, in addition to the expected layoffs from foreign companies leaving the US. The current system of 50% domestic content to be considered “Made in America” is not perfect, but I think it is sustainable for now and shouldn’t be tampered with. The US domestic auto market is already relatively strong (it’s a Top 10 industry in employment and employs over a million Americans), and this is even given that the brunt of sales are done internationally. Of course companies always want to increase profit, but increasing the domestic content laws is not necessary for a market where the US is already a leading competitor. Staying as is preserves American jobs and profit, while increasing domestic content laws would eventually reduce both. Ideally US policymakers would reach this decision together, however given our current system of terms and term limits, US policy is often focused on immediate gain that looks good and is sellable to the public. Increasing American competition looks good; allowing foreign companies to continue working and expanding in the US does not. Given this, and as discussed by Dean Jackson when he made the policy decision during the simulation, the inevitable future is the US government increasing content laws now and the working class paying the economic price later. We just finished Week 8, meaning we have officially finished two months of college classes, and as many other classmates have remarked, this past week was a bit of a rough one. We had our World Politics Midterm Essay and Minor Simulation, and beyond that I also had another take-home midterm, a book reading and review, a research essay, and a copious amount of Chinese homework all due. There were at least two-too-many late-nighters pulled, and I’m glad to have Week 8 firmly in the past.
As Wyatt said in her reflection, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I got into the simulation topic. I’ve never taken an economics class before, and so my understanding of economics comes primarily from specific case studies and is pretty tangential. It was really interesting exploring the topic from a corporate perspective, and after the presentations I had a really interesting talk with Olivia about the way capitalism is influenced by realism and liberalism. Large corporations like Ford could often be ascribed as following “realist” modes of thinking, such as always striving to appear to have all the virtues (PR teams, “corporate social responsibility”, employee benefits, etc.) and a focus on a “bottom line” in terms of always seeking to increase profit, and the fact that this profit is a result of competition with others. Liberalism meanwhile encourages economic ties as an essential way of creating and fostering relationships between countries, thus promoting more capitalist ventures. In this way commercial liberalism drives the bottom line, while realism enforces adherence to it, and on and on this cycle goes. Another thing that Anneli does a really good job of discussing in her reflection post is how inextricably linked “foreign” and “domestic” economies are- bringing up on of this semester’s earliest questions on what exactly “foreign” means. In our world, there is no such thing as completely closed economies, and all consumer purchases work to drive market trends. Boosting the economy of another country give people in those countries more buying power, and that can make them consumers of your own country’s imports, thereby helping your own economy. This was a huge part of the post-WWII Marshall Plan and in China’s BRI, but is often overlooked in the US’s current political climate which looks down on free trade agreements and pushes an “America First” policy (though again, in our globalized world, what economic policy does really pur “America First”? Is there any economic/political policy that benefits only one country?). I hope I can discuss this more tomorrow, and look forward to seeing the results of our presentations. With the end off Week 7 I have officially been in college for two months already (counting welcome week); I vacillate between feeling like I’ve been here for no time at all and feeling like I’ve been here for ages. It hasn’t started yet, but I’m excited for Week 8 to be over so that I can finally be done with all my midterms work. I know that AU schedules midterms over three weeks to try and reduce stress, but I feel like it just stretches out the stress and anxiety over a longer period of time. I didn’t even get to really relax over “Fall Break” because I have three midterm projects. . .
Anyway, today I just wanted to briefly discuss my feelings on identity and the intersectionality of multiple (marginalized) identities within society. Identity is something that I’m always thinking about, and questions of identity have plagued me for as long as I can remember. The glasses example that we did in class was a microcosm of the decisions that I have to make every time I introduce myself. I am a Chinese immigrant (but not like a FOB [Fresh off the Boat]); I am Chinese-American (but also an adoptee with white parents); I am a Chinese adoptee (but also not ethnically Chinese). Everything that I say or don’t say has its own connotations in the way that I am perceived by others, and so I must make decisions that I think will be most beneficial, while also not trying to “hide my authentic self” and alienate other aspects of my identity, while also not blabbing my whole life story to everyone because truthfully the guy chatting me up at the bus stop does not need or deserve to know the intimate details of why my parents wanted to adopt me. People with contacts had to make a decision of which part of their identity was stronger: having glasses, or the appearance of not having glasses. In that choice is the anxiety of double-consciousness and having to actively cultivate your identity, but also strength in being able to understand multiple facets of identity. Truthfully, it was a bit disheartening how quickly people in the glasses group were willing to tout their own superiority. Of course it was all said in jest, but at the same time I couldn’t help but wonder if it was a deeper representation of how quickly identities and superiority complexes can be formed and internalized. There is something extremely primal and intrinsic about identities- you physically are or you aren’t a race by virtue of your birth (no Rachel Dolezal, “transracial” is not a thing outside of the adoptee community), yet race, ethnicity, and nationality are also at the same time completely arbitrary concepts that society gives value to. Of course we are all born a certain way, but it is the actions that take place afterwards that really define how we understand, internaliz, and interact with those innate characteristics. My birth parents are some kind of ethnicity which they have passed on to me; regardless of that I don’t know my birth parents and thus was raised believing myself to be Zhuang (a Chinese ethnic minority). What I was raised to be does not change what I am per se, but it does show how arbitrary identity classifications can be. A Han Chinese person born and raised in China and a Chinese-American person will all experience the same racism in America - the people shouting “Ramen!” at me out of their car in Bethesda honestly couldn’t have cared less whether I was Chinese-Chinese or Chinese-American - however the way that we think about and feel that racism will be different. The Chinese-Chinese person will maybe be annoyed and then move on with their life knowing that this racism does not severely impact their future or their standing in “society” (because to them the important society is not American society, but Chinese society). There is no “double-consciousness” here. To the Chinese-American however, this racism reinforces how no matter what they do or how they think and feel about themselves, they still will not be accepted into American society. Then given this, should the Chinese-American try to integrate himself into American society or Chinese society, knowing that neither will truly accept him? That is the bind of being a racial minority in the US, and that is what creates the double-consciousness. Even if others feel aspects of oppression, they will not necessarily gain double-consciousness. That distinction needs to be made clear in order to really understand the complexities of racial categories and racial discrimination. Why can’t white people experience racism and double-consciousness the way people of color can? Because racism is systematic oppression due to your race that stems from institutionalized imbalances of power. You may have been bullied or felt weird being a “minority” in a school filled with POC, but at the end of the day you are supported by a society where people like you are represented on TV, in the police force, and making laws which benefit you. Therefore, you cannot feel double-consciousness because of your race. This is not to say that American POC are inherently “woke” or are somehow “morally superior” due to having to contend with racial oppression or double-consciousness, or that people in the dominant culture do not deal with problems. It is only to say that racial minorities must deal with these problems in addition to the problems experienced at all levels of society such as sexism, classism, or homophobia. Originally I did not mean to make this post as long as it is here, but all of this has weighed on my mind heavily since class on Thursday. I look forward to exploring these ideas more as we continue on throughout the semester. W. E. B. Du Bois introduces the notion of the "double consciousness" as part of his discussion of the experience of freed slaves and their descendants in the United States. How specific in applicability is this concept? Do other groups experience the same, or at least a similar, sort of of "double consciousness," either in the United States or elsewhere? Is Du Bois' concept helpful for an understanding of other societies and other experiences, beyond the United States?
W.E.B. Du Bois describes double-consciousness as “a peculiar sensation. . .this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity”. Although he originally used it to refer to the black, newly-freed slave’s experience, I do think that other marginalized groups in America and beyond do also have similar varied experiences with this concept. As Enloe’s “Margins, Silences, and Bottom Rungs” discussed, no matter where you go in the world there exist hierarchies which prioritizes one group above others, centralizing that groups needs, desires, and experiences while relegating all others to the wayside, the margins. The habits of the dominant group defines societal norms, standards, and expectations, and becomes the standard to which all others are judged. This creates systems of privilege and inequality. Those in the dominant group, as Blake brought up in class, do not need to be aware of or acknowledge the struggles of others. They can choose to ignore inequality if they want, and that in and of itself is privilege. However minorities (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) are forced everyday to contend with the realities and limitations that exist as a result of marginalization. Minorities are stripped of their individuality and must instead always represent something else. Minorities are divergent, and their very existence is a political statement against the standard. For example, as a Chinese immigrant taking a Chinese politics class, I am not allowed to simply have my own opinions. If I say something more neutral or perhaps “favoring” China (even if my reasoning is objective), people will say that I have those opinions just because I’m Chinese and therefore I must subscribe to a certain set of beliefs (pro-communist, anti-democratic, etc.). In order to be respected and have people listen to my opinion as my opinion, I first must work to convince others of my knowledgeability and competence. Others may not have these initial barrier. There are innumerable examples of these types of double-standards in the US and beyond. In each of these cases, the marginalized is always made acutely aware of what they are lacking. All of these seeks to control the narrative, your body, and your life (yet another way of maintaining pre-existing hierarchies). If you conform to stereotypes and assumptions, you are allowing the mainstream directly control your life and personal narrative. However if you don’t conform to the stereotype you have to a.) deal with societal ramifications such as judgement and b.) consider why you’re not conforming. If not conforming is simply a reaction to being told to conform in the first place, then isn’t that still letting the opinions of the mainstream control you? This goes back to the reality of living in a world where dominant cultures exist and everything in society is catered to the comfort of said dominant culture. It is this awareness that forms the “double-consciousness” that DuBois talks about. DuBois’ concept of “double consciousness” is useful as a way to identify these accompanying feelings and get everyone on the same page so that they can have productive dialogue about the issues and then hopefully develop ways to solve them. This week began our first week of college midterms...I’m honestly quite stressed about my midterms; hopefully they all turn out okay. We shall see...For this class I’m not too worried and I am interested to see what the topic for our midterm paper will be like. My goal is that regardless of the topic, I can combine my previous knowledge with new research instead of just relying on information I’ve learned and synthesized before. This will help challenge me and make sure I’m making the best use of my classes to really learn as much as possible.
I was really intrigued by the Shotter reading this week and thought it brought up some very interesting philosophical questions. There were a couple things I wanted to discuss but did not have time to in class:
"Instead of convincing arguments -- arguments which, if a first truth is admitted, will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds, generally and technically, that is, by calculation -- we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences." (John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167)
Shotter does not draw this distinction lightly or by accident. Certainly his argument in the chapter is that we need more persuasion and less striving to be convincing (in the special and technical ways he defines both of those terms), at least in public life. Do you agree? Will such a move, from convincing to persuading, help to address the general problem that Shotter diagnoses, in which not everyone is able to participate fully in the shaping of our social lives together? And where does this leave scientific facts? Convincing is an introspective and personal act in which you cause others to truly believe in an idea, concept, or truth. It is subjective and depends on the individual person and his or her own unique personal background and past experiences. Persuasion on the other hand is about fostering agreement between people. When people are persuaded, they are willing and able to act as a group in order to implement policies and actually take action. While convincing can be powerful for an individual, the practical limitations and benefits of convincing others are many, because the power of individuals pales in comparison to the combined powers of a group. Belief is a type of personal faith that assumes some things to be true. Belief is based off of certain established truths which are assumed to be naturally correct and upon which other beliefs are based off of. However, because belief is so individualized, there is not much room for discussion or true debate, nor is there a real independent metric to determine whether sometime is genuine or not. This leaves a lot of room for questions, such as what is “truth”? Who defines truth? How do we know that the initial truth is actually true? How do societal biases such as racism, sexism, classism, etc. affect ideas of truth, what is accepted as truth, and who is believed? The danger of beliefs is how quickly they can devolve into situations of “my facts” vs “your facts”. However, as we discussed in class, facts are either true or they’re not true, but there can’t exist multiple contradictory facts. That is the definition of a fact. However, how do we decide which facts to believe? Convincing is based off of the agreement of many, thus you need a lot of people to “be convinced”. Necessitating the involvement of multiple people provides more opportunities for others to provide their own opinion and shape what the consensus is and thus what becomes “accepted truth” in society. More people, assuming the people called upon are representative of the entire population (as opposed to all being from the same background and excluding people of different backgrounds) also helps limit the effects of bias in finding out the truth. As discussed on page 167, science begins in a version of my facts vs your facts, however through discussion this “confrontation” gives way to persuasion wherein some facts are accepted and some rejected, and those that are accepted must reach a certain level of consensus, of group persuasion, before they can be generally accepted as “truth”. This system of convincing creates a control valve in which a single person’s bias can’t single-handedly control everything, lending popular credibility. In a society which so values “universal truths”, persuasion is seen as the peak form of rhetoric, and creating a consensus is seen as validating truth. This credibility and “appearing to have all the virtues” makes it easier to then create and implement policy based on agreed-upon truths. Now we’ve just finished the fifth week of classes and are quickly heading into midterms. As such, I think it’s a good time to reflect on how the course is going up to now. So far, I really enjoy this class and the discussion-based approach. As I’ve discussed with Olivia, our cohort has a very broad range of interests, backgrounds, and approaches regarding politics, international relations, history, and culture. Thus when we all come together for class we have a wealth of knowledge to pull from, resulting in unique and lively discussions. I’m always so impressed with how passionate my classmates are, and listening to them talk about subjects that they’re particularly interested in or knowledgeable about motivates me to read more and become a more informed person.
My own interests and background is strongly rooted in East Asian culture, history, and politics, and this semester I’m taking two other classes about international studies: 21st Century Silk Road and Chinese Politics. As a result, a lot of my contributions to class are centered around Chinese examples. While I do really enjoy discussing China, moving forward, I want to do more personal reading about other parts of the world such as Europe and Africa. This would allow me to compare and contrast (and thus more fully understand) China and the U.S.’s political systems and philosophies within a more holistic world context. I want to learn more about past political systems and philosophies and how they interact to create the various ideologies and understandings we have today. I also want to learn more about economics and better understand how wealth affects power and political systems. Sometimes in class I feel behind because I lack the same in-depth understanding on certain topics as other classmates, and this makes me nervous to speak because I feel like I can’t contribute at the same level. I hope that as I read and listen more I’ll be able to really form my own independent and educated opinions. I’ve also taken a couple classes on racism and income inequality in America, and this, as well as my status as an immigrant woman of color, definitely colors the way that I analyze texts and situations for this class. In our recent readings of Machiavelli and Locke especially we’ve specifically explored “societal ideas” about what the purpose of society and government is, who has power and who doesn’t, who benefits in society and who is sacrificed, and defining what is acceptable in society and what is not. From my experiences living with several marginalized identities and through previous courses taken, I think it’s incredibly important to always be critical. Who is really included when politicians or philosophers use the words “we”, “the people”, “society”, etc.? Who is not included? How does this further promote existing inequalities? How do these historic philosophical inequalities affect lived-in inequality now? What is “truth” (especially regarding morality), how do we define it, and how do we decide how to define it? In class I really like to take advantage of the diversity and pose these questions and maybe get people to think about things that are normally taken for granted. I also think that the first discussion we had about Awiti when we spent over half the class period discussing how we should discuss Awiti, set a really great tone for promoting constant question and discussion of things that seem obvious. All in all, I’m really enjoying this class and I look forward to continued growth throughout the rest of the semester! This week of SIS 105 marked the completion of a full month of college classes, and I alternatively feel as if I’ve been here for a long time, but also no time at all. For class we read Machiavelli's The Prince, a book which I had some background knowledge of but had never really delved into deeply. I found our class discussion on Friday to be especially interesting as it centered on Machiavelli’s central argument that “the greater good” is most important above all else.
I think everyone could easily agree that we should always strive to help the most people possible in the country become the best possible etc. etc., but the question remains of how we define who “the greater good” is. In the past in Western society, “the greater good” was thought of as white property-holding men, justifying such things as slavery and preventing women from voting. Given this, it is imperative that we think critically about how we define the greater good, who is included, whose interests are prioritized, and why; specifically how various aspects of privilege (ie race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.) shape those definitions. Or conversely, who are we most willing to sacrifice for “the greater good”? Furthermore, is “greater good” defined by power or population? An example used in class was that the Three Gorges Dam in China was a justified decision because 1.5 million displaced people pales in comparison to the billion or so in China. This would imply that population is most important in determining “greater good”. However, it was also suggested in our discussion and in The Prince that “the greater good” is synonymous with keeping the currently ruling government in power. Again, how do various privileges intersect to create and define the ruling class that we want to keep in power? I also wondered, what would Machiavelli say about peasant revolutions? These overthrow the previous systems of power, but potentially help “the greater good”; in these cases which side would Machiavelli approve of? This idea of sacrifice for the greater good is an especially important topic for me because my life is itself a direct product of China’s infamous One Child Policy. By the Chinese government’s estimate, this policy prevented some 450 million births and allowed for better distribution of resources, continued job opportunities, and continued rapid economic growth. If we think of this from a purely Machiavellian, “logical” standpoint, having the One Child Policy was justified. However the human cost included millions of forced abortions, a highly imbalanced gender ratio (both at birth and otherwise), and between 50 and 90 million “missing women” in China-- baby girls that were sex-selectively aborted and simply never born, baby girls who became victims of infanticide, baby girls whose births were never reported and who have to live their entire lives without access to any government resources, and baby girls like me who were abandoned in market places and in front of orphanages. All of us were considered collateral, necessary sacrifices for the greater good of the country, yet we had no say in these policies because we have no ruling power. How can our suffering be quantified, and who will take responsibility? Public policy and politics are inherently about people, and the policies that we put in place directly affect the lives of everyone in both big and small ways. To unilaterally ignore the humanistic side of policy in favor of a nebulous “greater good” puts us into an extremely dangerous position of creating policy without critical and holistic thinking. Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him?
One of the main concepts expressed in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the idea of virtù, which Machiavelli takes to mean possessing “those qualities that lead to success” (505) in any given situation. Acts of virtù may not at face value appear to be kind, but they ensure in the long run that the country and its people will maintain order and prosperity in the long run, and that stability for Machiavelli is virtuous. The initial quote in this blog is preceded Machiavelli’s assertion that:
If one were to follow all rules, guidelines, and precedents to a T, this would inevitably lead to failure at some point or another, something that Machiavelli absolutely cannot stand. Instead, Machiavelli would argue that disregarding rules, even his own, would be the best if they would lead to success. This seems like circular logic, and perhaps that is the magic of Machiavelli in that even when you disagree with him you cannot escape his same train of thought. For myself, I agree with Machiavelli’s sentiment philosophically, however I don’t think that it can be unilaterally applied today. I too believe that success for a country and its citizens is of utmost importance, however who defines what success is? Who can say what sacrifices are “worth it” for success or not? In our present-day democracy, is order still the measure of success? How do values like personal freedom factor into ideas of success? I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and we no longer live in the monarchal “one-party system” of Machiavelli’s Italy. Now in the US we have a large multi-party system that represents the interests of many different factions and schools of thought, and there is no longer a single virtuous man to “seize his chances and will recognize what needs to be done” (505). Then, looking at the practical realities of today, I would argue that is best not to follow Machiavelli's rules. *"Page numbers" are Kindle locations **Bullet point quote is due to Weebly's inability to indent paragraphs |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|