Sumblog 7

They're Teaching Her. . . and Then They're Going to Teach Me! 

Our form of American mass public education is beginning to spread worldwide. Before we had public schools and classrooms where most of the educating took place, there were parents, master crafts-people, other more informal ways or learning. From there we began to educate children in a classroom setting and then we began to require education for everyone. That has become our form of education and it is becoming (if not, it already has become) the standard of education world wide.

For example, the NY Times Article, linked here, explains a push by the UN to provide classrooms and primary education for all children. The mass-education model is beginning to take the place of all other forms of education.

My internal feelings are that diversity is better for the world, meaning that nation-states should have their own forms of education, fitted to the needs of the nation-state. Some may need a larger focus on vocational training for factory and craftsman positions as opposed to learning about topic above the practical needs of the country. On the other side of the coin, my realistic feelings point towards conforming to the global standard of education. I think it's very important in today's global conditions to conform to what the world is considering "developed", if a nation-state does not, they might be left slowly developing while the rest of the world grows at a much faster rate.

A compromise between the two sides of the issue could be to slightly tailor the mass-education model to each nation-state's needs. Some nation-states could educate all of their youth on the secrets of the physical world, while others could focus on building and maintaining small engines or electronics.

Sumblog 6

Make a Nation-State out of Me

This idea of the world-identity, to me, could have some quite interesting consequences. First off, what I drew from our discussion in class is that there is a global identity which acts as a template for all nation-states, old and new. It acts as a mold for new developing nation-states, by guiding the development of said nation-state into the global model of what a nation-state would be. For example, a newly recognized nation-state is pushed towards the global identity's ideal of a developed nation-state (democratic, protective policies, environmental protection, etc.). The global identity can also pressure developed nations into conforming with the global model's values. An example of this can be seen in our own nation-state; although most other "developed countries" have some form universal healthcare coverage, we still have privatized insurance companies providing the majority of the coverage. We are moving towards universal healthcare (as slow going as it is) and will then fit into the global model of developed.

In my opinion, this idea is both beneficial and harmful. Sadly, if new developing nation-states are all developing in line with one model, global diversity of forms of government, policy, etc. will begin to decrease. Problems that re-occur will be solved using the same means, as opposed to using a possibly more efficient solution. 

This image (taken from Pink Floyd's The Wall) depicts my issue with the global identity, nation-states are molded by the global identity into a homogenous, ground beef-like "product".

On the other side of the coin, developing in different ways leaves a lot of room for mistakes and less humanitarian options. Nation-states may develop and have absolutely no environmental regulations or use practices that have been deemed inhumane (i.e. slavery). The developmental process would also take a lot longer without a global model to guide it.

Sumblog 5

Where My Jobs At?
Global inequality has been a huge issue since societies first became interconnected. Some societies had more power than others, some societies were further "developed" than others, and those countries have used their power and development to profit off of other countries. In the past, the Roman Empire used the surrounding tribes; a little more recently, industrialized nations (US, UK, Spain, etc.) used other smaller nations to grow cash crops and provide revenue. Today the formal bonds of colonialism have been broken, however there is still a legacy lingering and global inequality continues.

In my opinion, economic factors are a major player in the retention of these subordinate and dominant roles. First and foremost, as we discussed in class, capitalism is the perfect vessel for inequality; not only does is create losers as much as winners, but it also allows and encourages exploitation. An import characteristic of capitalism is the pursuit of profit, which has often fueled global inequality. We have seen manifestations of this in world systems theory. Often the peripheral countries who house the harvesting of raw materials and the manufacturing process are chosen for their lack of labor laws and workers' protection. This means that these countries often have low wages and the employees can be maintained with little cost to the company. In choosing these countries, the business exploits them by profiting from the legal and cost differences when compared to other core nations. There are also many other causes of global inequality besides the exploitation of countries for profit. I feel that the economic system which is characterized by this practice (capitalism), is one of the major reasons.

To convey a slightly different response to this aspect of the global market, the CATO Institute provides a video with a more factual view of outsourcing labor than we are used to in media sources. It explains the reasons for outsourcing, but their own view of outsourcing shows through as well (which tries to steer away from the inequalities created by this system).

SumBlog 4

Where in the World is World Systems Theory

This week we started to discuss Wallerstein's World Systems Theory what has stuck with me the most are the terms core, semi-periphery, and periphery areas. These terms act as classifications for nations based on the parts of the world economy taking place inside of them. Core areas often house business' headquarters and do little of the actual manufacturing. Periphery areas are where the physical production and harvesting of raw materials take place. The semi-periphery areas land inbetween the two categories; they contain not only distribution and administration  facilities but also manufacturing plants and raw materials.

This typology of nations seems to work well. I can think of plenty of instances where semi-periphery areas have switched to core areas because a business had moved it's manufacturing plants to periphery areas with lower wages and less regulations. America is the first one that comes to my mind. America used to perform a lot of manufacturing with little regulation and low wages, but as time went on, regulations began to develope and companies began to move their manufacturing steps to other countries. This shift "upgraded" our country from semi-periphery to core area.

The image below is an example of this situation where the move of manufacturers has been coined as outsourcing. The image not only shows a movement from America to other semi-periphery and periphery areas, but a movement out of other core areas, such as the western European nations, into those areas as well.