For this next post, I probably should provide some views of my philosophy and politics. You could say I’m pretty much a fiscal conservative / social liberal. I believe in fiscally sound policies with liberal views on how people live and behave. I am a registered Democrat, but more or less align myself to the center-left of the political spectrum. I did vote for John Kerry in the last election.
Two issues that have come up in the last couple of weeks have been the judicial filibusters and the stem cell research. For stem cell research, I approve of federal funding for the lab research. Unfortunately, the evangelists, the Republican Party and President Bush oppose it. I know there is a lot of flack going on in the debate between the Religious Right—who have gained enormous power and influence in the Republican Party and the White House--and about half of the country. There is no compromise for the Religious Right on stem cell research—or for any views. Their plan is to shove their religious views through legislation down everyone’s throat, whether they believe in it or not. I don’t like it. I don’t like when such a group has this much power and control in Congress, the Presidency, and quite possibly the Supreme Court.
I wish there was a way to provide serious compromise on the stem cell debate. I want the lab research to go on and hopefully provide cures to some of humanities deadliest diseases. I don’t subscribe to the idea that these human embryos being held frozen in fertility labs are fully human. They are a group of cells that have the potential to become human, once they are fertilized, implanted in a woman’s womb, and the pregnancy is carried to full term where the baby is born. These cells should not have the legal rights in our society that you or I have. The real danger now is that once these evangelists shove these laws down our throats and that our research labs are starved of funds for stem cell research, the monies and scientific talents are going overseas to countries which have no legal limits based on theology. South Korea has gone ahead and created the first human clone in the lab. Their research is now ahead of whatever we can create—and their going to get more money and talent to forge farther ahead in the field than the United States. The evangelists like to claim the U.S. is sliding down a slippery slope on stem cell research, and they’re right. Only problem is that the slippery slope is that our medical research is falling behind to other countries, which will cause our economy to fall behind. The United States will become a Third World banana theocracy if we allow this to continue.
So lets find a common ground. There are plenty of frozen embryos just sitting there in storage in the fertility clinics. These embryos were to be used for in vito fertilization for couples, and once the couples have had their babies, the embryos are no longer needed. Do we end up destroying them? That would violate the Religious Right’s ‘culture of life’ viewpoint. Of course, the fertility clinics will have to do something with the old embryos from previous clients who no longer need them to make room to store new embryos for new clients. The clinics can’t just keep adding storage tanks for embryos—that would increase the fixed costs for their business. Do we just leave them there in storage forever? They are never going to become human beings anyway. I’m not trying to be callous here, but I do want to find a better way to resolve this issue. I would suggest that when couples wish to use the services of these fertility clinics, they would have to sign a form stating what they wish to be done with their unused embryos. If they wish to have them destroyed, then they can be destroyed. If they wish to donate the embryos for stem cell research, the embryos would be donated for research. If they wish to continue storing the embryos for future in vitro fertilizations by the couple, then the clinic would store the embryos for a nominal storage fee charged to the couple. This would allow the individual or couples to decide for them what to do with the old embryos based on their own moral and religious views. It would give them the right to choose. As with any previously stored embryos, the clinics would contact the couples that have donated them and ask them what they would like to have done with their old embryos. Those couples would have to decide what to do with the old embryos. And if they wish to keep them in their frozen state, they will have to pay a storage fee. They would have to take responsibility for paying to have the embryos stored by the clinic. If the couples do not accept responsibility for those embryos, then the couples waive their rights regarding the stored embryos to the clinics. The clinics would then have the right to choose what to do with the old embryos—whether to continue storing them, destroy them, or give them to research. If the clinics give the embryos to research facilities, this could provide new cell lines for research, and certainly improve our technologies and medical research facilities. I would permit whatever lab research is necessary, but I would be opposed to taking a cloned human embryo and inserting it into a woman’s womb to carry it to a full term pregnancy with a baby being born.
The evangelists and Religious Right may claim that stem cells are a moral or a religious issue, but they are wrong. It is not about morality. It is about property rights. When a baby is first born, the custody of that baby is given to its parents. A social contract is created between the baby and the parents. The parents accept responsibility to feed, clothe, and care for the baby or child, until the child’s 18th birthday. In return for the parent’s care of the child, the child accepts responsibility to abide by whatever rules the parent has determined to place within that family unit of society, until the child’s 18th birthday. Once a child turns 18, the child becomes an individual contributing member of society with the full legal rights and responsibilities that society gives to every other member (The only exception to this rule in American society is the right to purchase and drink alcoholic beverages, where the legal age is 21). But before that child’s 18th birthday, the child is theoretically the property of the parents. If the parents cannot accept the responsibility of this social contract, then a legal guardian is selected by the state, or the child is put up for adoption, or the child becomes the responsibility of the state until that child’s 18th birthday. So in effect, the child becomes the legal property of the parents or a guardian until the child’s 18th birthday. And as the property of the parents or guardian, the child must abide by the rules that the guardian makes within the family unit under the overall society. The child does have certain legal rights under society, where the parents or guardian may not physically abuse the child, or perform sex with the child. But overall, this is a property right’s issue, although society does not specifically call it property rights. It is called the family.
So what are the property rights of embryonic stem cells? In one respect, the embryos are harvested from a woman’s ovaries in a fertility clinic so that the woman can become pregnant and bear a child. The embryos came from a woman’s ovaries, so therefore the property rights of those embryos reside with the woman who provided those embryos. The problem is that those embryos, which are harvested by the fertility clinic, can only exist outside of a woman’s womb using specialized equipment to freeze and store the embryos, which is expensive to purchase and maintain. An individual woman or a couple which chooses in vitro fertilization would not have the economic resources to store the extra embryos for future pregnancies after the first pregnancy is successfully achieved. Fertility clinics have the resources to purchase and maintain this equipment to freeze and store embryos, but they do not have the property rights to own these embryos. And since they do not have the property rights to own these embryos or to use these embryos for their own economic self-interest, they should not have the sole responsibility to maintain these embryos within their frozen state indefinitely. And yet, they are required to expend their own resources to store these embryos indefinitely—especially if the Religious Right is successful in legally identifying embryos as being human with the destruction of these embryos equating to murder. The key here is to provide a property value to an embryo, then establish a contractual system where the rights of this property can be transferred. So a woman goes to a fertility clinic for in vitro fertilization. She becomes pregnant and successfully gives birth to a healthy baby. The other embryos, which the clinic harvested in case the first pregnancy failed, becomes the property of the woman. She may store them at the clinic and be charged for a storage fee. She may order the clinic to destroy the embryos. She may donate the embryos for stem cell research. Or she may contractually release the ownership of the embryos to the clinic, where the clinic may use the embryos for its own economic self-interest. The Religious Right may argue that assigning property values to an embryo is akin to enslavement, but I disagree. An embryo is not a human being; therefore an embryo cannot be enslaved.
There are certain traits that make a human being as human. First, a human being must be able to live outside of a woman’s womb. It does not need a woman’s womb to exist or survive. In other words, there is not biological relationship between the mother and the baby. The baby does not feed off the mother’s life. When a baby is born, that baby is a separate life entity—a living, breathing life form outside of the mother’s biological life form. Theoretically, it does not need the mother to survive. It will, however, need the whole of society to help it survive and grow. The baby could be born from its mother, and then given to the father. The father can feed the baby with formula, clothe it, and care for it. Or the baby can be born, and then given to foster parents, or put up for adoption, or be placed in an orphanage where the state will care for it. The baby can grow up to become a functioning member of society. An embryonic stem cell cannot survive outside of a mother’s womb. It cannot grow up to become a functioning member of society outside of the mother’s womb. It must have that symbiotic biological relationship between the mother and the cells in order to advance from basic stem cells, to the specialized cells that make up parts of the human body. In other words, the mother’s own body biologically feeds and cares for the embryo. Society does have the capability to remove the embryos and store them using advanced technology, but the cells are placed in a limbo where they will never grow or advance. In order for the embryonic stem cells to grow, they must be fertilized, placed in a woman’s womb (It doesn’t have to be the mother, but rather a woman who can bear children), and the pregnancy goes through its full term where a baby is born. The second thing that makes a human is simply cognitive reasoning. Humans have the ability to think and reason in abstract terms. Even a baby has that ability to think and reason in a similar way and to communicate that reasoning. When a baby is hungry, or needs its diaper changed, it will communicate its wants by crying. At first, the parents may not be able to differentiate the baby’s wants with its crying—they may try to feed the baby when the baby doesn’t want to be fed, but rather be changed or held. Pretty soon, the baby will realize that different types of crying will provide different types of wants—one type of cry will provide feeding, while another type of cry will provide a diaper change. A baby will also learn how a different parent’s facial expression will convey different emotions. This is really the start of reasoning and communication between the baby and its parents. Embryonic stem cells do not have the ability to reason, nor do embryonic stem cells have the ability to communicate any wants or needs outside of the limited existence of those cells. It is simply a cluster of cells. These cells have the potential to become a human being, but they are not human. If in my opinion, they are not human, how can they be enslaved?
This has been a fairly long posting on stem cell research, getting into some minute arguments on stem cells. There are so many moral, religious, and philosophical arguments to the issue, that it is impossible to declare it black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. It is an issue with so many different shadings and gradations of differing gray areas. The Religious Right likes to think in simple black-and-white terms where they are right and good, and everyone else is wrong and evil. I don’t buy that argument. For stem cell research, we have got to find some middle ground, which reflects the interests of both sides. I would even venture to say that if the Religious Right believes that embryos are human beings, well then let’s give all the frozen embryos to whatever Religious Right organization that wants them, and let the Religious Right pay for economic costs of storing them. And if the Religious Right cannot pay the economic costs of storing these human embryos, then the Religious Right can only blame themselves for ‘murdering’ humans.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Policy Institutes
American Political Science Association
Brookings Institution
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Bureau
Center for American Progress
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for Economic Policy Analysis
Center for Public Integrity
Center for Responsive Politics
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Study of the Presidency
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Commonweal Institute
Congressional Budget Office
Economic Policy Institute
Federal Reserve Bank
Financial Markets Center
Foreign Policy in Focus
Global Policy Forum
Global Policy Network
Independent Institute
Institute for Economic Analysis
Institute for Policy Studies
Institute of Governmental Studies
International Monetary Fund
Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies
Moving Ideas
National Bureau of Economic Research
National Center for Policy Analysis
Office of Management & Budget
OMB Watch
Progressive Policy Institute
Project for a New American Century
Public Agenda
Public Policy Institute of California
San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank
St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
World Trade Organization
Brookings Institution
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Bureau
Center for American Progress
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for Economic Policy Analysis
Center for Public Integrity
Center for Responsive Politics
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Study of the Presidency
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Commonweal Institute
Congressional Budget Office
Economic Policy Institute
Federal Reserve Bank
Financial Markets Center
Foreign Policy in Focus
Global Policy Forum
Global Policy Network
Independent Institute
Institute for Economic Analysis
Institute for Policy Studies
Institute of Governmental Studies
International Monetary Fund
Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies
Moving Ideas
National Bureau of Economic Research
National Center for Policy Analysis
Office of Management & Budget
OMB Watch
Progressive Policy Institute
Project for a New American Century
Public Agenda
Public Policy Institute of California
San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank
St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
World Trade Organization
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Essays on Russian Politics
Political Science 141
Russian Politics
Dr. Sharyl Cross
Final Take Home Examination
Russian Politics
First Essay on Russian Politics
In 1939, Winston Churchill described Russia as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Russia is an enigma that few Westerners can fully understand. Her development as a nation-state-has followed neither a full Western concept of society and culture, nor has she reverted to an Eastern concept of society. In reality, Russia has created a hybrid society taking elements of both cultures. Please explain?
The most important aspect of this hybridization is the conflict of a western notion of individual thought verses the eastern notion of community thought. This affects every aspect of Russian society. Western views of individualism and scientific rationalism were imported into Russia by the Tsars, Russian nobles and intellectual elites. Peter I, and Catherine II both attempted to bring in Western intellectual thought, art and culture. And yet this attempt at westernizing Russia conflicts with the traditional Russian values of community, family and its deep religious beliefs found in the Russian Orthodox Church. In other words, Western individual thought contradicts with the traditional Russian feelings of communitarism. Another example is the view that Western society believes in the separation of church and state. This contradicts the deep Russian beliefs in religion and its integral part of Russian politics. What is interesting to note is that Russia attempted to create a hybrid ideology incorporating these two conflicting ideals through the Communist Party. The Communist Party was a rationally scientific attempt at creating a new “Soviet Man,” living in a Utopian society using elements of both Western and Eastern thought. An example of such is the Communist ideology which individuals had the right and obligation to work for the common good of society. Yet individuals who were able to work their way up through the ranks of the communist hierarchy could be rewarded for their efforts inside the Party system—those outside the party system had no means of social or economic movement. Communism also sought to incorporate a religious doctrine into their ideology. While Communism preached for the separation of church and state through promoting atheism, or cracking down on the Eastern Orthodox religion, the Communist Party also created it own religion with Marxist-Leninism as its religious ideology. This became even more pronounced as the Party elevated both Lenin and Stalin into mythical deities with their phrases and beliefs changed to a quasi-religious scripture. Finally, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is currently being torn between the notion of the West’s free market approach of capitalism and the Communist ideology of state-market economic planning with its roots in communitarism. Russia has adapted by creating a number of Russian oligarchies, which control the Russian means of industrial production. These oligarchies have connections within the Russian Mafia and the government of which it can exert its influences with impunity. More importantly, is the shift in these oligarchies views of enriching themselves and their own interests with a distinctly Western view of individualism over that of the traditional Russian view of communitarianism. This can be seen through the collapse of the Russian welfare system with the harsh living conditions that have been thrust upon ordinary Russian’s daily life. There is also an economic class distinction where a select few Russians in the government, the bureaucracy, and the Mafia who have gathered up the wealth of Russia, while the majority of Russian citizens struggle to survive in such harsh conditions each day.
Another aspect of Russia is the Russian individuals dual personality. On the outside, Russians could be seen as somewhat impassive and suspicious. Russians would not openly state their opinions or views on an issue or the government for a fear of reprisals against them. This was an outer personality. And yet, there was an inner personality where they could be warm, caring and fiercely loyal and proud to those they could trust. This dual personality has its roots in the old Tsaris period when Russians had to fear the state secret police. With no freedom of speech or expression, Russians had to be careful with who they could share their personal views and opinions. This personality was more pronounced during the Communist regime. The West had no counterpart to this dual personality since the Western peoples and societies had the rights of freedom of speech and expression. In Russia, government criticism to the wrong people could cause the individual to be arrested by the state secret police simply for speaking his opinion during the Tsaris and Soviet periods. Therefore, the Russians were always guarded as to what they could say to whom. Currently with the Yeltsin government, the Russian people have full rights of freedom of speech, worship, and assembly, which was unheard of 70 years ago. However certain rights such as the freedom of press my be restricted not through government censorship, but rather through economics as newspaper, radio and television stations are purchased through oligarchs and Russian Mafia fronts which use those media outlets to restrict the editorial content of the press or they will force the press to publish to their own favorable views on issues.
For much of its history, Russia has felt this pulling of traditions between Eastern and Western thought and culture. Russia has straddled between these extremes. The Communist experiment was Russia’s unique attempt to incorporate these opposing views into a new and distinct Russian culture. This culture could only originate in Russia.
Second Essay on Russian Politics
The fall of the Romanov dynasty brought an end to the house of the Tsars while beginning a new history of the Soviet state. The Soviet Union was to replace an autocratic monarchy with a worker’s paradise guided by the hand of Joseph Stalin. Did the Soviet Union under Stalin resemble the Russian state under the Tsars?
While the Communist doctrine may reject such similarities between the two dynasties, The Russian government and its social structure remained the same. The most obvious similarity was the nature of the government. Bother the Tsar and the Soviet government were autocratic dictatorships with a strong, central leader. Both Nicholas I and Stalin ruled Russia with a strong-willed dictatorship. Their word was law. There were no other governmental systems to provide a check on their powers. This strong, central leadership has continued to play a part in Russian politics with Yeltsin having established a presidency with tremendous powers. In addition, both Stalin and his Tsar predecessors had an extreme mistrust of dissent and opposition. Catherine II was forced to put down a rebellion uniting Cossacks, Tartars, and serfs under Emelian Pugachev using force in 1773-1774. Stalin was fearful of the Old Bolsheviks who could usurp his power with their knowledge and their close personal relationship with Lenin during the early stages of the revolution when Stalin was consolidating his power. Stalin initiated purges of these Old Bolsheviks, which grew into a self-destructive orgy of killing by Stalin’s minions. One opponent of Stalin’s policies—Leon Trotsky--was assassinated presumably under Stalin’s orders while he was in exile in Mexico. Yeltsin unleashed the army to storm the Russian “White House” to arrest opponents in the legislature who opposed his power in 1993.
A second similarity between the Tsaris and Stalinist Russia was a deep-seated fear of invasion. This can be explained by the Russian geography. Russia is a nation located on a great steppe or plain. There are no natural mountain ranges or swift rivers that can provide a defensive line. Hence, the Russian nation has always been subjected to invasions. Pre-Tsarist Russia was subjected to Mongolian invasions until Ivan the Great overthrew the Mongols and consolidated the Muscovite Russia. Russia was also invaded by Sweden and Poland during the “Time of Troubles,” and the French invaded Russia under Napoleon. Finally, Germany invaded Russia twice—once during the First World War, which caused the Romanov dynasty to end, and during the Second World War that pitted Stalin and Hitler in a fight. Because of these continuous invasions, Russia has always had a deep-seated fear of security and the need for a strong army. Stalin’s Russia was no different. Stalin feared the rise of Nazi Germany and Hitler, which was one of the primary reasons for the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939. Stalin had hoped the non-aggression pact would allow Russia to buy some time and develop her industry and build up his army before the Germans invaded. Near the end of the Second World War, Stalin was determined not to have a 3rd German invasion on his territory. This prompted Stalin to create the friendly communist regimes in East Europe as a buffer zone to protect against a German and US invasion of Russia. Currently, Russia’s main fear has been the US expansion of NATO into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as well as the NATO bombings of Kosovo during the Yugoslav crisis. However, with the collapse of the Russian army, there has been little that Russia can do to relieve its own fear and insecurities.
While there were some similarities between the Tsaris and Stalinist regimes, there was one unique difference between them. This unique difference would be seen as a difference between Eastern and Western philosophy. The Tsarist regimes all had a common desire to import Western ideals, thought, culture and art to Russia. Peter the Great traveled through Europe and attempted to build up the Russian army on a European model. Catherine the Great was a former German princess. The Tsars and the Russian intellectual elite’s were cultured and schooled in Western thought and traditions. The peasantry, however, were uneducated to the Western thought. They were brought up with the old Russian traditions, the strong Russian Orthodox religion, and communitarianism. In contrast, Stalin did not have much exposure to Western intellectual and political thought. He came up through the Bolshevik system through hard work and careful Machiavellic planning. Stalin was fearful of the West and its power. He was also fearful of the intellectual elite’s, and of the old Bolsheviks since they could challenge his power through Lenin’s ideals. He eliminated the Old Bolsheviks during the purges of the 1930s. The main reason for this was that the Old Bolsheviks were a part of the original Communist party and had strong memories of Lenin as a man and had memories of Lenin’s views and opinions. They were an intellectual threat to Stalin’s power and his own grandiose dreams of deity for which he encouraged through the cult of Stalinism. More importantly, while the elite’s in the Tsarist period wanted to transform Russia into a strong, decidedly Western power, Stalin transforms the Soviet Union into a militarily strong power for which he immortalized himself as a deity responsible in transforming the Soviet Union. This was the cult of Stalinism.
While Russia has emerged from its Communist past, the similarities and differences between the Stalinist and Tsarist past are a part of Russia’s national character. Russia cannot escape from the past. Russia cannot escape from the Tsars or Stalin. She must learn the lessons they teach to help her move forward in the world and in history.
Russian Politics
Dr. Sharyl Cross
Final Take Home Examination
Russian Politics
First Essay on Russian Politics
In 1939, Winston Churchill described Russia as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Russia is an enigma that few Westerners can fully understand. Her development as a nation-state-has followed neither a full Western concept of society and culture, nor has she reverted to an Eastern concept of society. In reality, Russia has created a hybrid society taking elements of both cultures. Please explain?
The most important aspect of this hybridization is the conflict of a western notion of individual thought verses the eastern notion of community thought. This affects every aspect of Russian society. Western views of individualism and scientific rationalism were imported into Russia by the Tsars, Russian nobles and intellectual elites. Peter I, and Catherine II both attempted to bring in Western intellectual thought, art and culture. And yet this attempt at westernizing Russia conflicts with the traditional Russian values of community, family and its deep religious beliefs found in the Russian Orthodox Church. In other words, Western individual thought contradicts with the traditional Russian feelings of communitarism. Another example is the view that Western society believes in the separation of church and state. This contradicts the deep Russian beliefs in religion and its integral part of Russian politics. What is interesting to note is that Russia attempted to create a hybrid ideology incorporating these two conflicting ideals through the Communist Party. The Communist Party was a rationally scientific attempt at creating a new “Soviet Man,” living in a Utopian society using elements of both Western and Eastern thought. An example of such is the Communist ideology which individuals had the right and obligation to work for the common good of society. Yet individuals who were able to work their way up through the ranks of the communist hierarchy could be rewarded for their efforts inside the Party system—those outside the party system had no means of social or economic movement. Communism also sought to incorporate a religious doctrine into their ideology. While Communism preached for the separation of church and state through promoting atheism, or cracking down on the Eastern Orthodox religion, the Communist Party also created it own religion with Marxist-Leninism as its religious ideology. This became even more pronounced as the Party elevated both Lenin and Stalin into mythical deities with their phrases and beliefs changed to a quasi-religious scripture. Finally, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is currently being torn between the notion of the West’s free market approach of capitalism and the Communist ideology of state-market economic planning with its roots in communitarism. Russia has adapted by creating a number of Russian oligarchies, which control the Russian means of industrial production. These oligarchies have connections within the Russian Mafia and the government of which it can exert its influences with impunity. More importantly, is the shift in these oligarchies views of enriching themselves and their own interests with a distinctly Western view of individualism over that of the traditional Russian view of communitarianism. This can be seen through the collapse of the Russian welfare system with the harsh living conditions that have been thrust upon ordinary Russian’s daily life. There is also an economic class distinction where a select few Russians in the government, the bureaucracy, and the Mafia who have gathered up the wealth of Russia, while the majority of Russian citizens struggle to survive in such harsh conditions each day.
Another aspect of Russia is the Russian individuals dual personality. On the outside, Russians could be seen as somewhat impassive and suspicious. Russians would not openly state their opinions or views on an issue or the government for a fear of reprisals against them. This was an outer personality. And yet, there was an inner personality where they could be warm, caring and fiercely loyal and proud to those they could trust. This dual personality has its roots in the old Tsaris period when Russians had to fear the state secret police. With no freedom of speech or expression, Russians had to be careful with who they could share their personal views and opinions. This personality was more pronounced during the Communist regime. The West had no counterpart to this dual personality since the Western peoples and societies had the rights of freedom of speech and expression. In Russia, government criticism to the wrong people could cause the individual to be arrested by the state secret police simply for speaking his opinion during the Tsaris and Soviet periods. Therefore, the Russians were always guarded as to what they could say to whom. Currently with the Yeltsin government, the Russian people have full rights of freedom of speech, worship, and assembly, which was unheard of 70 years ago. However certain rights such as the freedom of press my be restricted not through government censorship, but rather through economics as newspaper, radio and television stations are purchased through oligarchs and Russian Mafia fronts which use those media outlets to restrict the editorial content of the press or they will force the press to publish to their own favorable views on issues.
For much of its history, Russia has felt this pulling of traditions between Eastern and Western thought and culture. Russia has straddled between these extremes. The Communist experiment was Russia’s unique attempt to incorporate these opposing views into a new and distinct Russian culture. This culture could only originate in Russia.
Second Essay on Russian Politics
The fall of the Romanov dynasty brought an end to the house of the Tsars while beginning a new history of the Soviet state. The Soviet Union was to replace an autocratic monarchy with a worker’s paradise guided by the hand of Joseph Stalin. Did the Soviet Union under Stalin resemble the Russian state under the Tsars?
While the Communist doctrine may reject such similarities between the two dynasties, The Russian government and its social structure remained the same. The most obvious similarity was the nature of the government. Bother the Tsar and the Soviet government were autocratic dictatorships with a strong, central leader. Both Nicholas I and Stalin ruled Russia with a strong-willed dictatorship. Their word was law. There were no other governmental systems to provide a check on their powers. This strong, central leadership has continued to play a part in Russian politics with Yeltsin having established a presidency with tremendous powers. In addition, both Stalin and his Tsar predecessors had an extreme mistrust of dissent and opposition. Catherine II was forced to put down a rebellion uniting Cossacks, Tartars, and serfs under Emelian Pugachev using force in 1773-1774. Stalin was fearful of the Old Bolsheviks who could usurp his power with their knowledge and their close personal relationship with Lenin during the early stages of the revolution when Stalin was consolidating his power. Stalin initiated purges of these Old Bolsheviks, which grew into a self-destructive orgy of killing by Stalin’s minions. One opponent of Stalin’s policies—Leon Trotsky--was assassinated presumably under Stalin’s orders while he was in exile in Mexico. Yeltsin unleashed the army to storm the Russian “White House” to arrest opponents in the legislature who opposed his power in 1993.
A second similarity between the Tsaris and Stalinist Russia was a deep-seated fear of invasion. This can be explained by the Russian geography. Russia is a nation located on a great steppe or plain. There are no natural mountain ranges or swift rivers that can provide a defensive line. Hence, the Russian nation has always been subjected to invasions. Pre-Tsarist Russia was subjected to Mongolian invasions until Ivan the Great overthrew the Mongols and consolidated the Muscovite Russia. Russia was also invaded by Sweden and Poland during the “Time of Troubles,” and the French invaded Russia under Napoleon. Finally, Germany invaded Russia twice—once during the First World War, which caused the Romanov dynasty to end, and during the Second World War that pitted Stalin and Hitler in a fight. Because of these continuous invasions, Russia has always had a deep-seated fear of security and the need for a strong army. Stalin’s Russia was no different. Stalin feared the rise of Nazi Germany and Hitler, which was one of the primary reasons for the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939. Stalin had hoped the non-aggression pact would allow Russia to buy some time and develop her industry and build up his army before the Germans invaded. Near the end of the Second World War, Stalin was determined not to have a 3rd German invasion on his territory. This prompted Stalin to create the friendly communist regimes in East Europe as a buffer zone to protect against a German and US invasion of Russia. Currently, Russia’s main fear has been the US expansion of NATO into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as well as the NATO bombings of Kosovo during the Yugoslav crisis. However, with the collapse of the Russian army, there has been little that Russia can do to relieve its own fear and insecurities.
While there were some similarities between the Tsaris and Stalinist regimes, there was one unique difference between them. This unique difference would be seen as a difference between Eastern and Western philosophy. The Tsarist regimes all had a common desire to import Western ideals, thought, culture and art to Russia. Peter the Great traveled through Europe and attempted to build up the Russian army on a European model. Catherine the Great was a former German princess. The Tsars and the Russian intellectual elite’s were cultured and schooled in Western thought and traditions. The peasantry, however, were uneducated to the Western thought. They were brought up with the old Russian traditions, the strong Russian Orthodox religion, and communitarianism. In contrast, Stalin did not have much exposure to Western intellectual and political thought. He came up through the Bolshevik system through hard work and careful Machiavellic planning. Stalin was fearful of the West and its power. He was also fearful of the intellectual elite’s, and of the old Bolsheviks since they could challenge his power through Lenin’s ideals. He eliminated the Old Bolsheviks during the purges of the 1930s. The main reason for this was that the Old Bolsheviks were a part of the original Communist party and had strong memories of Lenin as a man and had memories of Lenin’s views and opinions. They were an intellectual threat to Stalin’s power and his own grandiose dreams of deity for which he encouraged through the cult of Stalinism. More importantly, while the elite’s in the Tsarist period wanted to transform Russia into a strong, decidedly Western power, Stalin transforms the Soviet Union into a militarily strong power for which he immortalized himself as a deity responsible in transforming the Soviet Union. This was the cult of Stalinism.
While Russia has emerged from its Communist past, the similarities and differences between the Stalinist and Tsarist past are a part of Russia’s national character. Russia cannot escape from the past. Russia cannot escape from the Tsars or Stalin. She must learn the lessons they teach to help her move forward in the world and in history.
Machiavelli and Hobbes
Political Science 160B
Modern Political Thought
4-09-01
Midterm Examination: Machiavelli and Hobbes
Machiavelli and Hobbes base their political theories on conceptions of human nature. Compare and contrast these, explaining fully your evaluation.
Human nature. For centuries, man has sought to explain the basic cause of this complex philosophy which can manifest itself in the building of magnificent civilizations extolling the virtues on mankind’s great achievements, and in causing the violent destruction, death and ruin of those great civilizations, mankind’s great achievements scattered among the rubble. According to the ancient philosophers of Plato and Aristotle, human nature could be explained through man’s capacity of reasoning. This idea was accepted and refined by the political and religious thinkers throughout history until the European Renaissance. But Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan brought a new twist towards the conception of human nature. Both thinkers rejected the idea that human nature could be explained by his capacity to reason. Machiavelli believed that human nature was based on man’s own self-interests—determined by virtue and fortune—and political institutions and theories had to reflect this self-interest among all individuals. Whereas Hobbes argued that human nature was based on a state of war between solitary individuals who pursued their own stimulation and passions while fearing violent death. Political institutions and theories by both philosophers were basically a compact between all individuals to moderate their behavior so they may pursue their passions and self-interests.
In order to understand human nature and how human nature affects political theories, Niccolo Machiavelli provided a unique explanation in his short work The Prince. The Prince is a treatise of leadership capabilities of how individuals can gain and control power. Machiavelli states there are two qualities, which affects all individuals and rulers. These two qualities are virtue and fortune. Virtue is a masculine quality. It is the quality of boldness, decisiveness, and action. Machiavelli claims that men with virtue are “innovators” who “depend upon their own resources and can use force,” (Machiavelli, pg. 27). Such men rarely fail. The second quality, which affects all individuals, is fortune. Fortune is the quality that cannot be controlled. Fortune is the unanticipated. It is the luck of the draw. Fortune dominates 50% of life with virtue dominating the other 50%. Machiavelli says, “individuals depend entirely upon the will and fortune—two fickle and unstable things,” (Machiavelli, pg. 28). Fortune can affect individuals in both positive and negative ways. Machiavelli cites Cesare Borgia as an example where Borgia “acquired power through his father’s (Pope Alexander VI) fortunes and lost it through the same means, despite the fact that he exerted every effort and did everything that a prudent and capable man should do to entrench himself in those territories which the arms and fortunes of others had granted him,” (Machiavelli, pg. 29). While fortune and virtue each control a half of an individual and a ruler, the quality of virtue must be held in check by prudence. Prudence is the capacity to understand where actions and trends can lead a person. A ruler must anticipate the consequences of bold and reckless actions found in virtue. “He must be sufficiently prudent to avoid a reputation for those vices which would deprive him of his state and, if possible, also avoid those that would not deprive him of it,” (Machiavelli, pg. 57).
While Machiavelli shows these qualities of virtue, fortune and prudence to be found in princes of states, these qualities can be found in every individual—from the common man to the stately prince. These qualities control an individual’s life—not the capacity of reason as found in the ancient philosophers. This idea provides a unique concept of political theory where an individual is not fully in control of his existence. The qualities of virtue and fortune are used by individuals and rulers alike to pursue their own self-interests. Machiavelli introduces the idea where there was no state. There was no political entity. And if there was no state, then government was not natural among man. “The various kinds of government came into existence among men by chance, for in the beginning of the world, the inhabitants being few, they lived dispersed for a time in the manner of beasts,” (Machiavelli, pg. 92). In this beginning of time, Machiavelli proposes that man lived in anarchy like beasts. But this state of anarchy would not allow individuals to pursue their self-interests. People would feel weak and helpless in this state of anarchy. “Then, as the population increased, they drew together and, the better to defend themselves, they sought out the strongest and bravest one among them, (Machiavelli, pg. 92). This is the start of the political association. Within this state of anarchy where men lived in the manner of beasts, there would be intense competition for each individual to pursue their self-interest. However, this competition benefits only those individuals with a strong quality of virtue, over those who are weaker. Therefore, an early form of social contract was created where a strong powerful individual was chosen and made leader. This strong individual leader would protect the weaker individuals who would accept the leader’s decisions so that all may pursue their self-interests. “From this beginning,” Machiavelli claims, “Came a recognition of what is proper and good, as opposed to what is pernicious and wicked.” Politics comes before everything else. Without some form of political association, there can be no language, culture, laws, justice, morality, religion, ethics and family. This political structure was designed as a second-best alternative. All people through their virtue and fortune pursue their own self-interests. However since people feel they are helpless and weak, they feel it is in their best interest to pledge their support to the strongest and bravest individual who can protect them and allow them to pursue their self-interest. Machiavelli claims that a prince must “encourage his citizens peaceably to pursue their affairs, whether in trade, in agriculture, or in any other human activity, so that no one will hesitate to improve his possessions for fear that they will be taken from him,” (Machiavelli, pg. 79).
While Machiavelli views human nature in regards to man’s pursuit of his self-interests as determined by virtue and fortune, Thomas Hobbes examines a different approach to human nature. Hobbes argues that human nature can be explained through scientific reasoning and empiricism. He intends to place “science” in the middle of political science. For Hobbes, science is “the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.” (Hobbes, pg. 45). The Leviathan is Hobbes’ attempt to scientifically explain politics and human nature.
Hobbes begins his scientific reasoning with a premise that the state is an artificial human being. He says, “For by art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or a State, in Latin Civitas, which is but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended…” (Hobbes, pg. 19). The state is created by humans, but it is not a natural entity. According to Hobbes, each aspect of the state is compared to the organs of man. Hobbes is comparing the idea of the state with the idea of a man. He claims that in order for man to understand each other, they must “learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; that is, nosce teipsum, read thyself…to teach us…. That for the similitude of the thoughts and passions of one man, to the thoughts and passions of another.” (Hobbes, pg. 20). For Hobbes, empirical observations are the key. Hobbes wants to observe what man is and then compare these observations of man with that of the artificial man or state. Hobbes’ key interest is to strip mankind of all cultural, social, and religious customs. He wants to find what the lowest common denominator is among all of humanity—an equality of all humanity. Hobbes claims that human beings are creatures that respond to the senses and stimulation of their environment. Humans are creatures of senses, “the cause of sense, is the external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense, either immediately, as in taste and touch; or mediatelly, as in seeing, hearing, and smelling; which pressure, by the mediation of the nerves, and other strings and membranes of the body, continued inwards to the brain and heart,” (Hobbes, pg. 21). Things strike human senses. This stimulation of the senses is what drives humans to react to a particular sensation. Hobbes says there are two types of stimulation, which humans react to. The first is appetite. Appetites are things and stimulation’s which individuals want. An example of appetite is hunger, thirst, sexual desires, desires for things. Appetite is basically a thing an individual wants. The second type of stimulation is aversion. Aversions are things and stimulation’s an individual does not want. Hobbes does not place any value towards appetites or aversions aside from the concept that each individual is bombarded with stimulation and sensations for which they will have appetites and aversions towards those sensations.
However these appetites show the two common denominators that exist in all of mankind. The first common denominator, which Hobbes identifies, is that each individual has a desire towards power. Power allows for an individual to obtain the things that individual want in order to satisfy the individual’s appetite. The cause of power is “that the object of man’s desire, is not to enjoy once only, and for one instant of time; but to assure for ever, the way of his future desire,” (Hobbes, pg. 80). Mankind, Hobbes reiterates, “has a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death,” (Hobbes, pg. 80). The constant desire to satisfy man’s passions, appetites, and stimulation will cause man to ceaselessly obtain more power, which can stop only in death. The second common denominator is the fear of violent death. While man has a desire to satisfy his passions, he also has a desire to avoid a violent death. According to Hobbes, it is these two common denominators, which define human nature.
These two denominators also show a unique influence in political theory. Hobbes claims they are the foundation for which a political society can be built. Hobbes begins by showing how man exists in an environment with only these denominators. First, man is by nature equal in everything. While one man may be stronger than another, his strength is counteracted by the others speed, or deterity. Common strengths among individuals are equally factored by common weaknesses. Hobbes says that “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometime their delectation only, endeavor to destroy, or subdue on another,” (Hobbes, pg. 98-99). Hobbes calls this the state of nature. The state of nature is a state of war. The state of nature has no society, no one individual can trust another individual since all are in combat for the things they want and avoid violent death. In the state of nature, an individual is confronted with others who want to take what they want, to compete against each other or kill for the thing. This state of nature conflicts with an individuals desire to satisfy their passions and avoid violent death. In the state of nature, Hobbes says “there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building, no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” (Hobbes, pg. 100). Both Hobbes and Machiavelli show a primeval state of nature where man existed without a political association. However, Machiavelli does not dwell into the details of this state of nature aside from the common definition of anarchy where men behave as beasts. Hobbes graphically defines this state.
While Hobbes shows the horrors of entering this state of nature, he also shows a way out of the state of nature. It is achieved by determining the laws of nature through man’s capacity to reason. Laws of nature or natural laws are a universal structure in nature. They can be considered as a higher law placed by God, which transcends man-made laws, and all lesser laws must conform to the natural laws. Hobbes lists two laws of nature. The first law of nature is where man is forbidden to take his own life, and to “endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he ma seed, and use, all helps, and advantages of war,” (Hobbes, pg. 103-104). Man must seek peace and follow peace. The second law of nature is “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself,” (Hobbes, pg. 104). This second law says that man must give up a portion of his claim of every desire and passion, if other men will also give up their claims to every desire. This second law has references traced back to the Gospel teachings “whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do you to them,” (Hobbes, pg. 104). This is the beginning of a social contract between men to escape from the state of nature. Machiavelli does not include any reference to natural laws in The Prince. For Machiavelli, the political entity comes first when all people gather around and accept the strongest and bravest man to become their leader, then they create society, mores, religion and laws.
Natural laws do not make a contract in creating a state. Hobbes claims that the idea of the natural laws can be used in developing a specific contract between individuals and the role of a sovereign commonwealth. The basic end of a sovereign is to provide security. The commonwealth or state provides a secure environment for all men where they can live with their own preservation and pursue their own passions and appetites without the fear of violent death or being forced back to the state of nature. The state is an entity where all its inhabitants pledge “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner,” (Hobbes pg. 132). Hobbes defines the commonwealth as “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense. The function of the sovereign is to enforce this contract. The sovereign must keep the people at peace and out of the state of nature. It order for the sovereign to achieve this goal of keeping the peace, the sovereign must have power to enforce its laws. Hobbes recognizes this as another covenant individuals relinquish the use of violence and force to the sovereign with the sovereign’s assurance of protection for those individuals. For what is a covenant, “without the sword, (they) are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all,” (Hobbes, 129). This is completely opposite of Machiavelli who makes a vague reference to a compact between weak people and a strong leader. Hobbes spells out the specific details of covenants between the individuals and states.
The ancient philosophers considered the idea of human nature as something within each individual. Human nature was the capacity to reason and reflect upon ideas and philosophical questions. Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes rejected this ancient ideal of human nature. By concentrating on how humans react to stimulation and self-interest, Machiavelli and Hobbes presented new ideas in human nature. While they may be gritty and realistic in description, they provide a new reflection of human nature and how such human nature can affect a political life.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. (1962). The Leviathan. Macmillian Publishing. Collier Macmillian, Canada.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. (1981) The Prince. Bantam Books. New York.
Modern Political Thought
4-09-01
Midterm Examination: Machiavelli and Hobbes
Machiavelli and Hobbes base their political theories on conceptions of human nature. Compare and contrast these, explaining fully your evaluation.
Human nature. For centuries, man has sought to explain the basic cause of this complex philosophy which can manifest itself in the building of magnificent civilizations extolling the virtues on mankind’s great achievements, and in causing the violent destruction, death and ruin of those great civilizations, mankind’s great achievements scattered among the rubble. According to the ancient philosophers of Plato and Aristotle, human nature could be explained through man’s capacity of reasoning. This idea was accepted and refined by the political and religious thinkers throughout history until the European Renaissance. But Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan brought a new twist towards the conception of human nature. Both thinkers rejected the idea that human nature could be explained by his capacity to reason. Machiavelli believed that human nature was based on man’s own self-interests—determined by virtue and fortune—and political institutions and theories had to reflect this self-interest among all individuals. Whereas Hobbes argued that human nature was based on a state of war between solitary individuals who pursued their own stimulation and passions while fearing violent death. Political institutions and theories by both philosophers were basically a compact between all individuals to moderate their behavior so they may pursue their passions and self-interests.
In order to understand human nature and how human nature affects political theories, Niccolo Machiavelli provided a unique explanation in his short work The Prince. The Prince is a treatise of leadership capabilities of how individuals can gain and control power. Machiavelli states there are two qualities, which affects all individuals and rulers. These two qualities are virtue and fortune. Virtue is a masculine quality. It is the quality of boldness, decisiveness, and action. Machiavelli claims that men with virtue are “innovators” who “depend upon their own resources and can use force,” (Machiavelli, pg. 27). Such men rarely fail. The second quality, which affects all individuals, is fortune. Fortune is the quality that cannot be controlled. Fortune is the unanticipated. It is the luck of the draw. Fortune dominates 50% of life with virtue dominating the other 50%. Machiavelli says, “individuals depend entirely upon the will and fortune—two fickle and unstable things,” (Machiavelli, pg. 28). Fortune can affect individuals in both positive and negative ways. Machiavelli cites Cesare Borgia as an example where Borgia “acquired power through his father’s (Pope Alexander VI) fortunes and lost it through the same means, despite the fact that he exerted every effort and did everything that a prudent and capable man should do to entrench himself in those territories which the arms and fortunes of others had granted him,” (Machiavelli, pg. 29). While fortune and virtue each control a half of an individual and a ruler, the quality of virtue must be held in check by prudence. Prudence is the capacity to understand where actions and trends can lead a person. A ruler must anticipate the consequences of bold and reckless actions found in virtue. “He must be sufficiently prudent to avoid a reputation for those vices which would deprive him of his state and, if possible, also avoid those that would not deprive him of it,” (Machiavelli, pg. 57).
While Machiavelli shows these qualities of virtue, fortune and prudence to be found in princes of states, these qualities can be found in every individual—from the common man to the stately prince. These qualities control an individual’s life—not the capacity of reason as found in the ancient philosophers. This idea provides a unique concept of political theory where an individual is not fully in control of his existence. The qualities of virtue and fortune are used by individuals and rulers alike to pursue their own self-interests. Machiavelli introduces the idea where there was no state. There was no political entity. And if there was no state, then government was not natural among man. “The various kinds of government came into existence among men by chance, for in the beginning of the world, the inhabitants being few, they lived dispersed for a time in the manner of beasts,” (Machiavelli, pg. 92). In this beginning of time, Machiavelli proposes that man lived in anarchy like beasts. But this state of anarchy would not allow individuals to pursue their self-interests. People would feel weak and helpless in this state of anarchy. “Then, as the population increased, they drew together and, the better to defend themselves, they sought out the strongest and bravest one among them, (Machiavelli, pg. 92). This is the start of the political association. Within this state of anarchy where men lived in the manner of beasts, there would be intense competition for each individual to pursue their self-interest. However, this competition benefits only those individuals with a strong quality of virtue, over those who are weaker. Therefore, an early form of social contract was created where a strong powerful individual was chosen and made leader. This strong individual leader would protect the weaker individuals who would accept the leader’s decisions so that all may pursue their self-interests. “From this beginning,” Machiavelli claims, “Came a recognition of what is proper and good, as opposed to what is pernicious and wicked.” Politics comes before everything else. Without some form of political association, there can be no language, culture, laws, justice, morality, religion, ethics and family. This political structure was designed as a second-best alternative. All people through their virtue and fortune pursue their own self-interests. However since people feel they are helpless and weak, they feel it is in their best interest to pledge their support to the strongest and bravest individual who can protect them and allow them to pursue their self-interest. Machiavelli claims that a prince must “encourage his citizens peaceably to pursue their affairs, whether in trade, in agriculture, or in any other human activity, so that no one will hesitate to improve his possessions for fear that they will be taken from him,” (Machiavelli, pg. 79).
While Machiavelli views human nature in regards to man’s pursuit of his self-interests as determined by virtue and fortune, Thomas Hobbes examines a different approach to human nature. Hobbes argues that human nature can be explained through scientific reasoning and empiricism. He intends to place “science” in the middle of political science. For Hobbes, science is “the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.” (Hobbes, pg. 45). The Leviathan is Hobbes’ attempt to scientifically explain politics and human nature.
Hobbes begins his scientific reasoning with a premise that the state is an artificial human being. He says, “For by art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or a State, in Latin Civitas, which is but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended…” (Hobbes, pg. 19). The state is created by humans, but it is not a natural entity. According to Hobbes, each aspect of the state is compared to the organs of man. Hobbes is comparing the idea of the state with the idea of a man. He claims that in order for man to understand each other, they must “learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; that is, nosce teipsum, read thyself…to teach us…. That for the similitude of the thoughts and passions of one man, to the thoughts and passions of another.” (Hobbes, pg. 20). For Hobbes, empirical observations are the key. Hobbes wants to observe what man is and then compare these observations of man with that of the artificial man or state. Hobbes’ key interest is to strip mankind of all cultural, social, and religious customs. He wants to find what the lowest common denominator is among all of humanity—an equality of all humanity. Hobbes claims that human beings are creatures that respond to the senses and stimulation of their environment. Humans are creatures of senses, “the cause of sense, is the external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense, either immediately, as in taste and touch; or mediatelly, as in seeing, hearing, and smelling; which pressure, by the mediation of the nerves, and other strings and membranes of the body, continued inwards to the brain and heart,” (Hobbes, pg. 21). Things strike human senses. This stimulation of the senses is what drives humans to react to a particular sensation. Hobbes says there are two types of stimulation, which humans react to. The first is appetite. Appetites are things and stimulation’s which individuals want. An example of appetite is hunger, thirst, sexual desires, desires for things. Appetite is basically a thing an individual wants. The second type of stimulation is aversion. Aversions are things and stimulation’s an individual does not want. Hobbes does not place any value towards appetites or aversions aside from the concept that each individual is bombarded with stimulation and sensations for which they will have appetites and aversions towards those sensations.
However these appetites show the two common denominators that exist in all of mankind. The first common denominator, which Hobbes identifies, is that each individual has a desire towards power. Power allows for an individual to obtain the things that individual want in order to satisfy the individual’s appetite. The cause of power is “that the object of man’s desire, is not to enjoy once only, and for one instant of time; but to assure for ever, the way of his future desire,” (Hobbes, pg. 80). Mankind, Hobbes reiterates, “has a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death,” (Hobbes, pg. 80). The constant desire to satisfy man’s passions, appetites, and stimulation will cause man to ceaselessly obtain more power, which can stop only in death. The second common denominator is the fear of violent death. While man has a desire to satisfy his passions, he also has a desire to avoid a violent death. According to Hobbes, it is these two common denominators, which define human nature.
These two denominators also show a unique influence in political theory. Hobbes claims they are the foundation for which a political society can be built. Hobbes begins by showing how man exists in an environment with only these denominators. First, man is by nature equal in everything. While one man may be stronger than another, his strength is counteracted by the others speed, or deterity. Common strengths among individuals are equally factored by common weaknesses. Hobbes says that “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometime their delectation only, endeavor to destroy, or subdue on another,” (Hobbes, pg. 98-99). Hobbes calls this the state of nature. The state of nature is a state of war. The state of nature has no society, no one individual can trust another individual since all are in combat for the things they want and avoid violent death. In the state of nature, an individual is confronted with others who want to take what they want, to compete against each other or kill for the thing. This state of nature conflicts with an individuals desire to satisfy their passions and avoid violent death. In the state of nature, Hobbes says “there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building, no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” (Hobbes, pg. 100). Both Hobbes and Machiavelli show a primeval state of nature where man existed without a political association. However, Machiavelli does not dwell into the details of this state of nature aside from the common definition of anarchy where men behave as beasts. Hobbes graphically defines this state.
While Hobbes shows the horrors of entering this state of nature, he also shows a way out of the state of nature. It is achieved by determining the laws of nature through man’s capacity to reason. Laws of nature or natural laws are a universal structure in nature. They can be considered as a higher law placed by God, which transcends man-made laws, and all lesser laws must conform to the natural laws. Hobbes lists two laws of nature. The first law of nature is where man is forbidden to take his own life, and to “endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he ma seed, and use, all helps, and advantages of war,” (Hobbes, pg. 103-104). Man must seek peace and follow peace. The second law of nature is “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself,” (Hobbes, pg. 104). This second law says that man must give up a portion of his claim of every desire and passion, if other men will also give up their claims to every desire. This second law has references traced back to the Gospel teachings “whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do you to them,” (Hobbes, pg. 104). This is the beginning of a social contract between men to escape from the state of nature. Machiavelli does not include any reference to natural laws in The Prince. For Machiavelli, the political entity comes first when all people gather around and accept the strongest and bravest man to become their leader, then they create society, mores, religion and laws.
Natural laws do not make a contract in creating a state. Hobbes claims that the idea of the natural laws can be used in developing a specific contract between individuals and the role of a sovereign commonwealth. The basic end of a sovereign is to provide security. The commonwealth or state provides a secure environment for all men where they can live with their own preservation and pursue their own passions and appetites without the fear of violent death or being forced back to the state of nature. The state is an entity where all its inhabitants pledge “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner,” (Hobbes pg. 132). Hobbes defines the commonwealth as “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense. The function of the sovereign is to enforce this contract. The sovereign must keep the people at peace and out of the state of nature. It order for the sovereign to achieve this goal of keeping the peace, the sovereign must have power to enforce its laws. Hobbes recognizes this as another covenant individuals relinquish the use of violence and force to the sovereign with the sovereign’s assurance of protection for those individuals. For what is a covenant, “without the sword, (they) are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all,” (Hobbes, 129). This is completely opposite of Machiavelli who makes a vague reference to a compact between weak people and a strong leader. Hobbes spells out the specific details of covenants between the individuals and states.
The ancient philosophers considered the idea of human nature as something within each individual. Human nature was the capacity to reason and reflect upon ideas and philosophical questions. Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes rejected this ancient ideal of human nature. By concentrating on how humans react to stimulation and self-interest, Machiavelli and Hobbes presented new ideas in human nature. While they may be gritty and realistic in description, they provide a new reflection of human nature and how such human nature can affect a political life.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. (1962). The Leviathan. Macmillian Publishing. Collier Macmillian, Canada.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. (1981) The Prince. Bantam Books. New York.
Plato and Aristotle
Political Science 160A
Classical Political Thought
Take Home Final Examination: Plato and Aristotle
The historian Thomas Carlyle made the famous observation that half of humanity seems to be inspired more by Plato in its thinking and the other half seems to be inspired more by Aristotle. With specific reference to politics and political science, in which group would you be inclined to place yourself? Explain why fully.
Thomas Carlyle made the observation that half of humanity seems to be inspired by Plato while the other half seems to be inspired by Aristotle. This break in humanity appears to be a break in the history of ideals of community and communal values in political life. But what Carlyle may not have realized is that both Plato and Aristotle portray opposite extremes in these political ideals. Plato attempts to define these political ideals by creating a Utopian political society whereas Aristotle takes the view of political ideals by observing and comparing political constitutions. More importantly, both philosophers reject the possibility of examining these political ideals from the opposing viewpoint.
In the Republic, Plato takes the view that to discover goodness and justice in the individual, you must search for it in the state or polis. The entire crux of the argument is that to identify and define what goodness and justice is in the polis, one can then search for those same qualities in an individual. The only means to identify what goodness and justice is in the city is to create a perfect representation of a city in order to examine these characteristics. Plato attempts to create a simple, utopian society based on the idea of people living in a communal, tribal environment close to nature. However, Plato fails to consider that people are individuals with their own individual interests, passions, and emotional viewpoints—both good and bad. These individual interests will conflict with one another. When Plato’s main character Socrates defines this natural city, Glaucon rebukes him as being a city of pigs. Because of this, Plato creates the Utopian society, which can incorporate the luxury lovers and show the comparison of the goodness and justice of the city with the goodness and justice of the individual. But the city is so perfect in its existence with the social and cultural norms so radically different from Greek social norms at that time that the city and its political institutions could never be properly established. This is the main problem with the Republic. Plato has created such an extreme view of a utopian society that the society would be impossible to implement as a viable political entity. For example, Socrates claims that such a society could never be created, even as Glaucon repeatedly asks for specifics in how to create such a society.
Not only is Glaucon anxious to create this Utopian society, but the first half of humanity is anxious as well. While Plato may have viewed this as an intellectual theory for which to stimulate the mind of philosophers, the first half of humanity has taken the Republic as an extreme model for creating the Utopian society. As a result, philosophers and thinkers have all attempted to emulate Plato by creating their own versions of a perfect society. In these perfect societies, it is the polis or state, which defines all aspects of how individuals will live their lives and how these individuals will think. In effect, the state decides everything that an individual will do and think. Plato does not go this far in the Republic. He allows the state to establish guidelines for modifying the behavior for philosopher-kings and guardians who are considered the ruling class. However, he has the state completely ignore the laborers, farmers, and common citizens in the Utopian society—the state never attempts to force these individuals how to think or live. Utopian societies that have been attempted by humanity all have shown the state force its own will upon all people and classes of a society in how these people shall live and how they think. History is littered with such attempts at creating a Utopian society with the Communist revolutions in Russia, China and Vietnam, Nazi Germany’s attempt at creating the master race for Hitler’s thousand year Reich, and even Cambodia where the Khmar Rouge literally depopulated Cambodian cities and forced the Cambodian people to live in a simple agrarian society where individuals who showed any initiative or intelligence were shot in the killing fields. There have been literary works attempting to create Utopian societies such as Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, and Animal Farm, and even the Bible has man living in Utopian setting of the Garden of Eden.
Plato also never considers the possibility of creating a practical society, even though he leaves unique insights in political theory, which can be utilized in developing a practical political association. There are actually two unique insights that Plato simply refers to, but never fully examines. The first is when Glaucon proposes an early form of a social contract where individuals agree with one another not to commit any wrongs. The second insight is Thrasymachus’ views of realpolitiks in which the world is a dog-eat-dog world where the strong survive over the weak. Both of these views concentrate on individual actions with individual reasons for their actions. Yet, Plato fails to comprehend this concept of individuality. He concentrates solely on comparing the Utopian polis with the perfect individual that all other unique and interesting possibilities in intellectual and political thought are ignored. Plato concentrates on the ideal—the ideal individual or the ideal polis. He ignores the problem that such an ideal could never be fully identified or implemented. In the end, humanity studies the Republic, recognizes this ideal, and then attempts to recreate the ideal on a practical matter only to end in failure. Plato has created an illusion of a perfect society which half of humanity continues to believe may exist.
While Plato seemed interested in creating the ideal society and polis, Aristotle take takes the opposite approach in his views of politics. Aristotle examines politics by observing and comparing the structure and characteristics of all constitutions in the world which existed and in the ideal constitutions which showed the basic ideas, but were not implemented such as Plato’s Republic.
The important factor of Aristotle’s Politics is that he develops the concept of contemporary politics where you can develop rational tools of observation to compare different constitutions and note the structural similarities and differences in these constitutions. This concept is founded in Aristotle’s own education and training in the natural sciences and medicine. He was specifically trained in observation. His views are considered more scientific where he observes nature and then incorporates natural elements in the polis. Plato never considered the possibility to observe and compare characteristics of different constitutions. However, the problem with Aristotle is that he uses too much observation and incorporates a greater share of natural elements into individuals and in the polis. This creates a form of bias on observation where the conclusions of such observation can be affected by the individual’s own viewpoints, education and philosophy. Aristotle never uses deductive reasoning as a check to filter out individual biases while Plato’s the Republic consistently uses deductive reasoning to advance its arguments. In addition, Aristotle never considers the realm of alternative possibilities. Aristotle thrashes Plato’s views of the perfect Utopian society, claiming such a society would never conform in a natural setting. However, he does not propose an alternative view of such a constitution, which could reflect the characteristics of a natural environment. He never developed any philosophical views of the state, nor does he elaborate on the state’s relationship with nature in a theoretical model—he only identifies what is natural in a state through his observations and comparisons. A prime example of this is that Aristotle never considered the theory that the state is not a natural element but is a human creation. This modern idea is completely alien to Aristotle.
Finally, there is more of a unique problem which the second half of humanity views Aristotle’s Politics. While the second half of humanity has rejected Plato’s view of creating the perfect Utopian society, they have embraced Aristotle’s model of observing and comparing the structures of different constitutions. With the tools Aristotle has given for comparing political systems, this half of humanity has embraced Thrasymachus’ philosophical views of the individual and the role of politics which are found in Plato’s Republic. In a sense, this half of humanity has attempted to prove Thrasymachus’ political position not on the grounds of a utopian society with a Utopian form of a political government as described in the Republic, but rather using Aristotle’s tools of observing and comparing world constitutions and society as a whole.
While Thomas Carlyle claims that half of humanity is inspired by Plato and the other half by Aristotle, such a claim is not a strict division between the two philosophers. Both Plato and Aristotle examined the role of politics through their own sharp biases. Yet, the whole of humanity seems interested in taking a combination of views from both philosophers and incorporating such views into a new form of political theory and political thought.
Classical Political Thought
Take Home Final Examination: Plato and Aristotle
The historian Thomas Carlyle made the famous observation that half of humanity seems to be inspired more by Plato in its thinking and the other half seems to be inspired more by Aristotle. With specific reference to politics and political science, in which group would you be inclined to place yourself? Explain why fully.
Thomas Carlyle made the observation that half of humanity seems to be inspired by Plato while the other half seems to be inspired by Aristotle. This break in humanity appears to be a break in the history of ideals of community and communal values in political life. But what Carlyle may not have realized is that both Plato and Aristotle portray opposite extremes in these political ideals. Plato attempts to define these political ideals by creating a Utopian political society whereas Aristotle takes the view of political ideals by observing and comparing political constitutions. More importantly, both philosophers reject the possibility of examining these political ideals from the opposing viewpoint.
In the Republic, Plato takes the view that to discover goodness and justice in the individual, you must search for it in the state or polis. The entire crux of the argument is that to identify and define what goodness and justice is in the polis, one can then search for those same qualities in an individual. The only means to identify what goodness and justice is in the city is to create a perfect representation of a city in order to examine these characteristics. Plato attempts to create a simple, utopian society based on the idea of people living in a communal, tribal environment close to nature. However, Plato fails to consider that people are individuals with their own individual interests, passions, and emotional viewpoints—both good and bad. These individual interests will conflict with one another. When Plato’s main character Socrates defines this natural city, Glaucon rebukes him as being a city of pigs. Because of this, Plato creates the Utopian society, which can incorporate the luxury lovers and show the comparison of the goodness and justice of the city with the goodness and justice of the individual. But the city is so perfect in its existence with the social and cultural norms so radically different from Greek social norms at that time that the city and its political institutions could never be properly established. This is the main problem with the Republic. Plato has created such an extreme view of a utopian society that the society would be impossible to implement as a viable political entity. For example, Socrates claims that such a society could never be created, even as Glaucon repeatedly asks for specifics in how to create such a society.
Not only is Glaucon anxious to create this Utopian society, but the first half of humanity is anxious as well. While Plato may have viewed this as an intellectual theory for which to stimulate the mind of philosophers, the first half of humanity has taken the Republic as an extreme model for creating the Utopian society. As a result, philosophers and thinkers have all attempted to emulate Plato by creating their own versions of a perfect society. In these perfect societies, it is the polis or state, which defines all aspects of how individuals will live their lives and how these individuals will think. In effect, the state decides everything that an individual will do and think. Plato does not go this far in the Republic. He allows the state to establish guidelines for modifying the behavior for philosopher-kings and guardians who are considered the ruling class. However, he has the state completely ignore the laborers, farmers, and common citizens in the Utopian society—the state never attempts to force these individuals how to think or live. Utopian societies that have been attempted by humanity all have shown the state force its own will upon all people and classes of a society in how these people shall live and how they think. History is littered with such attempts at creating a Utopian society with the Communist revolutions in Russia, China and Vietnam, Nazi Germany’s attempt at creating the master race for Hitler’s thousand year Reich, and even Cambodia where the Khmar Rouge literally depopulated Cambodian cities and forced the Cambodian people to live in a simple agrarian society where individuals who showed any initiative or intelligence were shot in the killing fields. There have been literary works attempting to create Utopian societies such as Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, and Animal Farm, and even the Bible has man living in Utopian setting of the Garden of Eden.
Plato also never considers the possibility of creating a practical society, even though he leaves unique insights in political theory, which can be utilized in developing a practical political association. There are actually two unique insights that Plato simply refers to, but never fully examines. The first is when Glaucon proposes an early form of a social contract where individuals agree with one another not to commit any wrongs. The second insight is Thrasymachus’ views of realpolitiks in which the world is a dog-eat-dog world where the strong survive over the weak. Both of these views concentrate on individual actions with individual reasons for their actions. Yet, Plato fails to comprehend this concept of individuality. He concentrates solely on comparing the Utopian polis with the perfect individual that all other unique and interesting possibilities in intellectual and political thought are ignored. Plato concentrates on the ideal—the ideal individual or the ideal polis. He ignores the problem that such an ideal could never be fully identified or implemented. In the end, humanity studies the Republic, recognizes this ideal, and then attempts to recreate the ideal on a practical matter only to end in failure. Plato has created an illusion of a perfect society which half of humanity continues to believe may exist.
While Plato seemed interested in creating the ideal society and polis, Aristotle take takes the opposite approach in his views of politics. Aristotle examines politics by observing and comparing the structure and characteristics of all constitutions in the world which existed and in the ideal constitutions which showed the basic ideas, but were not implemented such as Plato’s Republic.
The important factor of Aristotle’s Politics is that he develops the concept of contemporary politics where you can develop rational tools of observation to compare different constitutions and note the structural similarities and differences in these constitutions. This concept is founded in Aristotle’s own education and training in the natural sciences and medicine. He was specifically trained in observation. His views are considered more scientific where he observes nature and then incorporates natural elements in the polis. Plato never considered the possibility to observe and compare characteristics of different constitutions. However, the problem with Aristotle is that he uses too much observation and incorporates a greater share of natural elements into individuals and in the polis. This creates a form of bias on observation where the conclusions of such observation can be affected by the individual’s own viewpoints, education and philosophy. Aristotle never uses deductive reasoning as a check to filter out individual biases while Plato’s the Republic consistently uses deductive reasoning to advance its arguments. In addition, Aristotle never considers the realm of alternative possibilities. Aristotle thrashes Plato’s views of the perfect Utopian society, claiming such a society would never conform in a natural setting. However, he does not propose an alternative view of such a constitution, which could reflect the characteristics of a natural environment. He never developed any philosophical views of the state, nor does he elaborate on the state’s relationship with nature in a theoretical model—he only identifies what is natural in a state through his observations and comparisons. A prime example of this is that Aristotle never considered the theory that the state is not a natural element but is a human creation. This modern idea is completely alien to Aristotle.
Finally, there is more of a unique problem which the second half of humanity views Aristotle’s Politics. While the second half of humanity has rejected Plato’s view of creating the perfect Utopian society, they have embraced Aristotle’s model of observing and comparing the structures of different constitutions. With the tools Aristotle has given for comparing political systems, this half of humanity has embraced Thrasymachus’ philosophical views of the individual and the role of politics which are found in Plato’s Republic. In a sense, this half of humanity has attempted to prove Thrasymachus’ political position not on the grounds of a utopian society with a Utopian form of a political government as described in the Republic, but rather using Aristotle’s tools of observing and comparing world constitutions and society as a whole.
While Thomas Carlyle claims that half of humanity is inspired by Plato and the other half by Aristotle, such a claim is not a strict division between the two philosophers. Both Plato and Aristotle examined the role of politics through their own sharp biases. Yet, the whole of humanity seems interested in taking a combination of views from both philosophers and incorporating such views into a new form of political theory and political thought.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government
Political Science 160B
Modern Political Thought
5-18-01
Take Home Final Exam: John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government
Select one of the following and explain in an essay of 4-5 pages to what extent and why you agree or disagree with Locke’s or Rousseau’s reasoning and conclusions. Cite relevant passages from the text.
In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke makes the basic argument that private property is a natural right for all people and that private property must exist among people before a social compact for the creation of government can be made. Locke has a great interest in private property. He endeavors to show “how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common. (Locke. Pg. 18).” God gave the earth to humans. It becomes man’s responsibility to use his labor in order to work the land for producing things. Locke clearly states this in that whatever man “removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property, (Locke. Pg. 19).” Locke does not say that God has created private property, but rather he has placed the natural resources upon the earth for man to use. It is up to man to use his labor in order to improve upon nature and create greater resources, which would improve upon his life. The key is property. Locke attempts to explain a social contract for both society and for the development of a government by defining a pre-capitalistic trade and market economy with the use of scientific reasoning. He cites two examples in his line of reasoning. The first is the Law of Nature. Locke claims that if you use nature to take something from nature, that that thing is property and it belongs to you. However, if you grab something from someone else, who used labor to acquire something from nature, that thing does not belong to you and you have broken a law of nature. Locke says that in the Law of Nature, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions, (Locke. Pg. 9).” A second example of this reasoning is the concept of spoilage. Spoilage is considered a deterrent against individual hoarding of goods. “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labor fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy, (Locke. Pg. 20-21).” Here Locke may realize that there is a need for individuals to provide charity to those in need. However, the idea of charity contradicts the idea of man using labor to acquire property. Individuals who use labor to make things and acquire property will be motivated by self-interest. They would be interested in making products that they can trade for other products, which they do not make. Charity is the idea that you give to help others in need, for the betterment of society. Self-interest does not play a part in charity. So Locke redefines the meaning of the word charity as the natural event of spoilage in order to prevent individuals from hoarding and allow those individuals to provide their products to all of man.
What Locke created in The Second Treatise of Government, was an early form of capitalistic thought. People have a greater need than simply living, in a natural setting while hunting and gathering for food. People use property as a means to enjoy life and enjoy the fruits of their labor. What they produce in excess, they can trade or sell the excess to others in exchange for other unique products, satisfying their self-interests. “The same law of nature, that does this means give us property, does also bound that property to. God has given us all the things richly, (Locke. Pg. 20).” Locke even goes through a condensed history of how man developed the idea of property y, development of agriculture, the idea of trade where agricultural products such as foodstuffs can be traded for finished products, even the invention of money which Locke describes as “a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, (Locke. Pg. 23).” But Locke does not expand these ideas as a new type of economic thought. He attempts to politicize the idea of property. Government was created by the people as a means of resolving disputes of property. “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property, (Locke. Pg. 111).”
One of the main problems with The Second Treatise of Government is that Locke places too much emphasis on the concept of private property rights and in linking these property rights with the origins and development of government. Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise could be considered a pre-history of capitalism. But even with this emphasis of property, Locke does not recognize two problems with his arguments. First, he does not see that an unequal distribution of property will cause a division of class based on economics. There is only a limited amount of land in the world and only a smaller amount of land would have the right conditions to allow agricultural development. Not everyone will have the ability or chance to own land. Yet at the same time, there will be individuals who by luck or fortune will have the ability to acquire large tracts of land. The more land these individuals can acquire, the greater the share of wealth they will have over those who do not have land. This will cause a division of class between those who have land and those who have not. This unequal distribution of wealth and economic classes can also cause an unequal distribution of political rights. This unequal distribution of political rights would allow those who have a greater share of property, to use their property and wealth as a means to adjust political, social and economic policy to their advantage and to satisfy their interests over the interests of those who do not have land. Locke accepts the majority principle of government “where men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest, (Locke Pg. 52).” Locke does not grasp this contradiction.
The second contradiction that Locke does not realize is his equation of happiness with property. Locke equates happiness with the acquisition of property. He notes that property is a natural right that God has provided a natural abundance of resources for man to use and enjoy. Locke also claims that this is a part of human nature to better ones own self and to satisfy their individual self-interest. For Locke, this self-interest is the improvement of material positions and material well being in an individual—how much property can the individual acquire in his lifetime? With the acquisition of property, an individual can enjoy free leisure time of which the individuals can devote themselves to this leisure time to explore their self-interests in culture, music, the arts, language and history. While Locke focuses on property and the foundation of civilization, and uses reason to further advance his arguments, he does not consider the emotional side of happiness. He does not ask if there is another side of happiness, which could be based on emotional self-fulfillment, and that this side of happiness may have no basis for material possessions. Locke does not question these philosophical ideas of emotional self-fulfillment as asked by other philosophers such as Rousseau.
Works Cited
Locke, John. (1980). The Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.
Modern Political Thought
5-18-01
Take Home Final Exam: John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government
Select one of the following and explain in an essay of 4-5 pages to what extent and why you agree or disagree with Locke’s or Rousseau’s reasoning and conclusions. Cite relevant passages from the text.
In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke makes the basic argument that private property is a natural right for all people and that private property must exist among people before a social compact for the creation of government can be made. Locke has a great interest in private property. He endeavors to show “how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common. (Locke. Pg. 18).” God gave the earth to humans. It becomes man’s responsibility to use his labor in order to work the land for producing things. Locke clearly states this in that whatever man “removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property, (Locke. Pg. 19).” Locke does not say that God has created private property, but rather he has placed the natural resources upon the earth for man to use. It is up to man to use his labor in order to improve upon nature and create greater resources, which would improve upon his life. The key is property. Locke attempts to explain a social contract for both society and for the development of a government by defining a pre-capitalistic trade and market economy with the use of scientific reasoning. He cites two examples in his line of reasoning. The first is the Law of Nature. Locke claims that if you use nature to take something from nature, that that thing is property and it belongs to you. However, if you grab something from someone else, who used labor to acquire something from nature, that thing does not belong to you and you have broken a law of nature. Locke says that in the Law of Nature, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions, (Locke. Pg. 9).” A second example of this reasoning is the concept of spoilage. Spoilage is considered a deterrent against individual hoarding of goods. “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labor fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy, (Locke. Pg. 20-21).” Here Locke may realize that there is a need for individuals to provide charity to those in need. However, the idea of charity contradicts the idea of man using labor to acquire property. Individuals who use labor to make things and acquire property will be motivated by self-interest. They would be interested in making products that they can trade for other products, which they do not make. Charity is the idea that you give to help others in need, for the betterment of society. Self-interest does not play a part in charity. So Locke redefines the meaning of the word charity as the natural event of spoilage in order to prevent individuals from hoarding and allow those individuals to provide their products to all of man.
What Locke created in The Second Treatise of Government, was an early form of capitalistic thought. People have a greater need than simply living, in a natural setting while hunting and gathering for food. People use property as a means to enjoy life and enjoy the fruits of their labor. What they produce in excess, they can trade or sell the excess to others in exchange for other unique products, satisfying their self-interests. “The same law of nature, that does this means give us property, does also bound that property to. God has given us all the things richly, (Locke. Pg. 20).” Locke even goes through a condensed history of how man developed the idea of property y, development of agriculture, the idea of trade where agricultural products such as foodstuffs can be traded for finished products, even the invention of money which Locke describes as “a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, (Locke. Pg. 23).” But Locke does not expand these ideas as a new type of economic thought. He attempts to politicize the idea of property. Government was created by the people as a means of resolving disputes of property. “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property, (Locke. Pg. 111).”
One of the main problems with The Second Treatise of Government is that Locke places too much emphasis on the concept of private property rights and in linking these property rights with the origins and development of government. Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise could be considered a pre-history of capitalism. But even with this emphasis of property, Locke does not recognize two problems with his arguments. First, he does not see that an unequal distribution of property will cause a division of class based on economics. There is only a limited amount of land in the world and only a smaller amount of land would have the right conditions to allow agricultural development. Not everyone will have the ability or chance to own land. Yet at the same time, there will be individuals who by luck or fortune will have the ability to acquire large tracts of land. The more land these individuals can acquire, the greater the share of wealth they will have over those who do not have land. This will cause a division of class between those who have land and those who have not. This unequal distribution of wealth and economic classes can also cause an unequal distribution of political rights. This unequal distribution of political rights would allow those who have a greater share of property, to use their property and wealth as a means to adjust political, social and economic policy to their advantage and to satisfy their interests over the interests of those who do not have land. Locke accepts the majority principle of government “where men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest, (Locke Pg. 52).” Locke does not grasp this contradiction.
The second contradiction that Locke does not realize is his equation of happiness with property. Locke equates happiness with the acquisition of property. He notes that property is a natural right that God has provided a natural abundance of resources for man to use and enjoy. Locke also claims that this is a part of human nature to better ones own self and to satisfy their individual self-interest. For Locke, this self-interest is the improvement of material positions and material well being in an individual—how much property can the individual acquire in his lifetime? With the acquisition of property, an individual can enjoy free leisure time of which the individuals can devote themselves to this leisure time to explore their self-interests in culture, music, the arts, language and history. While Locke focuses on property and the foundation of civilization, and uses reason to further advance his arguments, he does not consider the emotional side of happiness. He does not ask if there is another side of happiness, which could be based on emotional self-fulfillment, and that this side of happiness may have no basis for material possessions. Locke does not question these philosophical ideas of emotional self-fulfillment as asked by other philosophers such as Rousseau.
Works Cited
Locke, John. (1980). The Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.
Ken Doll's letter to Bratz Doll Division of MGA Entertainment
Ken Doll
Barbie Penthouse,
Malibu, California
Executive Vice President
Sales and Marketing
Bratz Doll Division
MGA Entertainment
Dear Mr. Executive Vice President:
As you have probably heard through the numerous press releases and Entertainment Tonight stories, the rumor is true. The storybook romance between Barbie Doll and Ken Doll has now ended. We have been together for 43 years since that one day when we first met for our television commercial together in 1961. Our relationship blossomed into exciting role-playing characterizations such as Scarlett and Rhett (Gone With The Wind), Romeo and Juliet (Romeo And Juliet), and even as Arwen and Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. We were together in three successful movies—Barbie of “Swan Lake,” Barbie as “Rapunzel,” and Barbie in the “Nutcracker.” You can even see us together in our fourth upcoming movie Barbie as “The Princess and the Pauper.”
But our relationship has now ended. It seems that throughout the 43 years of our time together, Barbie never really saw me as an equal. I was the prop—the “boy toy” for Barbie. Barbie got to be Military Medic Barbie, Astronaut Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Firewoman Barbie, Policewoman Barbie, and Rock Star Barbie. Barbie even ran for president of the United States in 2004. Where was Ken when Barbie was gallivanting around the world? He was sitting in the Barbie Lounge, beside the Barbie Pool, located next to the Barbie Penthouse. Or Ken would get into the Barbie Corvette to drive to the Barbie Disco Lounge for a double scotch. Barbie never loved Ken—oh she may have tolerated him and thought of him as a friend. But I always knew that Barbie’s true love was for G.I. Joe. He’s big. He’s tough. He dresses in khakis and fights the Commies or the Viet Cong, or Cobra. In the 1980s, G.I. Joe shrank down to three-inch doll where he could play with a lot of high tech toys. I don’t think Barbie ever cared for a midget G.I. Joe during the ‘80s. But ever since the invasion of Iraq, G.I. Joe has come back—bigger and better than ever. And Barbie has been lusting for Joe ever since.
And so, you have the breakup to the storybook romance. Whatever you think, don’t believe in the new romance for the Cali Girl Barbie and Blaine—that new Australian boogie boarder who has replaced me. He’s just another boy toy. I know—I was one of them! But I’ve learned something in those 43 years of lounging by the Barbie pool, as just another prop, while Barbie met with her tax accountants, her lawyers, and her market communications specialists. I listened, and learned of how the Barbie Empire was created and managed. I can provide you with those intimate details in your own quest to topple the Barbie Empire.
Consider the following:
A new pairing between MGA Entertainment’s hot new Bratz doll and Ken. Bratz is hip—she’s chic. Bratz and Ken could drink tequila straight up, with a pinch of salt and lime, all while dancing the night away to techno music. Think of the possibilities of Ken The Pimp, or Ken The Gigolo. We could develop a whole new marketing campaign in the inner city areas of Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York to entice the young children and gang member wannabes with Rapper Bratz and her rapper beau Ken (dressed in baggy jeans, a basketball jersey, and a backwards-wearing baseball cap). You can even create collectable rapper Bratz and Ken dolls for selected cities—Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia. Or if you wish to target the “Red State” market, there is Redneck Ken—dressed in overalls, carrying a six-pack of beer and a shotgun, ready to listen to the corn grow with his “redneck” gal Bratz in her daisy duke shorts and red-checkered shirt. They could even drive around in the General Lee. Finally, we could market Presidential Ken, complete with his own Oval Office and “Condi” Bratz as his trusted advisor. Presidential Ken could even be marketed as a war hero, dressed in a Texas Air National Guard flight suit, standing on a carrier flight deck with banner saying ‘Mission Accomplished.”
But we were only looking at the U.S. market here. There could even be an even greater Third World market for the pairing of Ken and Bratz. We could specialize with unique identities, tailored to differing geographical regions. For the Central American region, there’s Cocaine Ken, dressed in a $2000 Armani suit with a dime bag, a 9mm, and Bratz as the perfect hoe, for accessories. Think of the wonderful role model Cocaine Ken could be in teaching the little children the wonders of free market capitalism. For the children in the Middle East, we can market Al-Qaida Ken. Dressed in flowing robes and a turban, Al-Qaida Ken could battle G.I. Joe in the Iraqi toy market with his AK-47 and explosives strapped to his chest. And what would the Al-Qaida Ken doll be without his partner Eco-Terrorist Bratz? A suave, cammo-wearing babe Eco-Terrorist Bratz could battle against the evils of multinational corporations bent on destroying the environment. And as a marketing tie-in, a small donation for each Al-Qaida Ken or Ecco-Terrorist Bratz doll sold would be donated to the terrorist organization of your choice. Think of the market here. Barbie doesn’t even have a foothold in this region.
In conclusion, I offer my intimate knowledge and services regarding the Barbie Empire to your organization. These are just a few marketing ideas on how to take down the Barbie Empire. To quote a famous saying about Barbie—that bitch had everything! It is time to knock her down from that pedestal and into the mud where she can be with her true love, G.I. Joe. Oh, this is not about revenge.
It is just business.
Sincerely yours:
Ken
Barbie Penthouse,
Malibu, California
Executive Vice President
Sales and Marketing
Bratz Doll Division
MGA Entertainment
Dear Mr. Executive Vice President:
As you have probably heard through the numerous press releases and Entertainment Tonight stories, the rumor is true. The storybook romance between Barbie Doll and Ken Doll has now ended. We have been together for 43 years since that one day when we first met for our television commercial together in 1961. Our relationship blossomed into exciting role-playing characterizations such as Scarlett and Rhett (Gone With The Wind), Romeo and Juliet (Romeo And Juliet), and even as Arwen and Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. We were together in three successful movies—Barbie of “Swan Lake,” Barbie as “Rapunzel,” and Barbie in the “Nutcracker.” You can even see us together in our fourth upcoming movie Barbie as “The Princess and the Pauper.”
But our relationship has now ended. It seems that throughout the 43 years of our time together, Barbie never really saw me as an equal. I was the prop—the “boy toy” for Barbie. Barbie got to be Military Medic Barbie, Astronaut Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Firewoman Barbie, Policewoman Barbie, and Rock Star Barbie. Barbie even ran for president of the United States in 2004. Where was Ken when Barbie was gallivanting around the world? He was sitting in the Barbie Lounge, beside the Barbie Pool, located next to the Barbie Penthouse. Or Ken would get into the Barbie Corvette to drive to the Barbie Disco Lounge for a double scotch. Barbie never loved Ken—oh she may have tolerated him and thought of him as a friend. But I always knew that Barbie’s true love was for G.I. Joe. He’s big. He’s tough. He dresses in khakis and fights the Commies or the Viet Cong, or Cobra. In the 1980s, G.I. Joe shrank down to three-inch doll where he could play with a lot of high tech toys. I don’t think Barbie ever cared for a midget G.I. Joe during the ‘80s. But ever since the invasion of Iraq, G.I. Joe has come back—bigger and better than ever. And Barbie has been lusting for Joe ever since.
And so, you have the breakup to the storybook romance. Whatever you think, don’t believe in the new romance for the Cali Girl Barbie and Blaine—that new Australian boogie boarder who has replaced me. He’s just another boy toy. I know—I was one of them! But I’ve learned something in those 43 years of lounging by the Barbie pool, as just another prop, while Barbie met with her tax accountants, her lawyers, and her market communications specialists. I listened, and learned of how the Barbie Empire was created and managed. I can provide you with those intimate details in your own quest to topple the Barbie Empire.
Consider the following:
A new pairing between MGA Entertainment’s hot new Bratz doll and Ken. Bratz is hip—she’s chic. Bratz and Ken could drink tequila straight up, with a pinch of salt and lime, all while dancing the night away to techno music. Think of the possibilities of Ken The Pimp, or Ken The Gigolo. We could develop a whole new marketing campaign in the inner city areas of Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York to entice the young children and gang member wannabes with Rapper Bratz and her rapper beau Ken (dressed in baggy jeans, a basketball jersey, and a backwards-wearing baseball cap). You can even create collectable rapper Bratz and Ken dolls for selected cities—Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia. Or if you wish to target the “Red State” market, there is Redneck Ken—dressed in overalls, carrying a six-pack of beer and a shotgun, ready to listen to the corn grow with his “redneck” gal Bratz in her daisy duke shorts and red-checkered shirt. They could even drive around in the General Lee. Finally, we could market Presidential Ken, complete with his own Oval Office and “Condi” Bratz as his trusted advisor. Presidential Ken could even be marketed as a war hero, dressed in a Texas Air National Guard flight suit, standing on a carrier flight deck with banner saying ‘Mission Accomplished.”
But we were only looking at the U.S. market here. There could even be an even greater Third World market for the pairing of Ken and Bratz. We could specialize with unique identities, tailored to differing geographical regions. For the Central American region, there’s Cocaine Ken, dressed in a $2000 Armani suit with a dime bag, a 9mm, and Bratz as the perfect hoe, for accessories. Think of the wonderful role model Cocaine Ken could be in teaching the little children the wonders of free market capitalism. For the children in the Middle East, we can market Al-Qaida Ken. Dressed in flowing robes and a turban, Al-Qaida Ken could battle G.I. Joe in the Iraqi toy market with his AK-47 and explosives strapped to his chest. And what would the Al-Qaida Ken doll be without his partner Eco-Terrorist Bratz? A suave, cammo-wearing babe Eco-Terrorist Bratz could battle against the evils of multinational corporations bent on destroying the environment. And as a marketing tie-in, a small donation for each Al-Qaida Ken or Ecco-Terrorist Bratz doll sold would be donated to the terrorist organization of your choice. Think of the market here. Barbie doesn’t even have a foothold in this region.
In conclusion, I offer my intimate knowledge and services regarding the Barbie Empire to your organization. These are just a few marketing ideas on how to take down the Barbie Empire. To quote a famous saying about Barbie—that bitch had everything! It is time to knock her down from that pedestal and into the mud where she can be with her true love, G.I. Joe. Oh, this is not about revenge.
It is just business.
Sincerely yours:
Ken
German Immigration and Democratization
PolS 148
Democratization
German Immigration and Democratization
A fundamental question is being debated within Germany’s political and cultural society. This question is, ‘Who is German?’ What individual constitutes a German citizen? A stereotypical view of the German citizen could be a blond-haired, blue eyed burly individual who would be good-natured, drink beer, speak with an accent slurring the ‘s’ to a ‘z,’ be militarily precise and hard working, and would dress in Bavarian clothes. Yet foreign immigrants who are incorporating their own customs and mores into German culture and German society are now challenging the view of what constitutes a German citizen. With these clashing views on identity, German immigration has evolved into a split personality. One aspect of the German immigration is to allow foreigners and refugees seeking asylum into the country. And yet at the same time, immigration and naturalization laws make it almost impossible for immigrants to become naturalized German citizens. It is this fractured personality of German laws that have caused immigrants to become the equivalent of second-class citizens. Such a fracture may cause racial conflict within German society.
Immigration into modern Germany started in the 1950s when West Germany began to integrate her economy into the European Common Market. This was the start of the West German Wirtchaftswunder or Economic Miracle. At the end of the Second World War, West Germany’s economy was in the midst of a labor shortage. To combat this labor shortage, West Germany invited thousands of “Gastarbeiter,” or “guest workers” from Mediterranean and Southern European countries to temporarily fill positions in its industrial workforce. These guest workers would help Germany grow in her industry before returning to their original countries. Within the ages of twenty to forty, the Gastarbeiters brought their families over to Germany, rather than sending money back to the families in their countries of origin (Seibel, 1997). West German recruitment of guest workers ended in 1973. As a result of recruitment and reuniting of families, West German foreign population increased from 680,000 in 1960 to 3,000,000 in 1970 (Seibel, 1997). Within twenty-five years, these foreign residents became a permanent part of West German society with guest worker families giving birth to children who would become a second generation of foreign residents. These second-generation foreign residents were completely integrated into German society, language, and culture with their families giving birth to a third generation of foreign residents. Second-generation and third-generation foreign residents are German in all aspects except their race. Currently, there is an estimated 7.3 million immigrants residing in Germany (Whose Fatherland? A Proposal to Grant Citizenship to Members of Germany’s Vast Immigrant Community Stirs Passionate Debate, 1999), representing around 8% of the German population (Siebel, 1997). And their numbers are growing. One in five babies being born in German society are from non-German citizens (Who is German, 1997). According to Ranier Munz, professor of demographic studies at Humbold University in Berlin, Germany will need 300,000 immigrants a year during the next thirty years to keep it’s population steady (Rinaldi, 1999).
In addition to the immigration of foreign workers for the Wirtchaftswunder, Germany has also accepted immigrants seeking political asylum. In 1947, when the post-war West German constitution was written, a clause was inserted where “politically persecuted persons enjoy the right to asylum.” This is a part of the Grundgestez or Basic Law. This political asylum clause of the Basic Law was set up as a West Germany’s repayment to the world for asylum seekers fleeing the Nazi regime (Siebel, 1997). No other nation has recognized such a liberal and unrestricted right to political asylum. In 1989, 121, 318 asylum seekers entered West Germany. By 1992, the annual figure had risen to 438, 191. This increase in asylum seekers, coupled with economic problems of the reunification of Germany, caused a rise in radical right-winged political groups criticizing the government’s support of asylum seekers. In July 1993, Germany adapted it asylum law rejecting asylum to those immigrants who reached Germany by way of a “safe third country,” and thus cutting off a land route into Germany. Not only did this regulation conform to the policies of other West European countries, but also the number of immigrants seeking asylum dropped in Germany to around 116,367 in 1996 (Siebel, 1997).
While it has been easy for immigrants to enter Germany, it is far more difficult to become a naturalized German citizen. German citizenship laws are adhered to the legal precedent of jus sarguinis or citizenship by blood. To become a German citizen, an individual must be born of German parents or ancestors. This is opposite of the precedent of jus soli where and individual becomes a citizen through birth in a nation-state regardless of ethnicity. Thus, individuals living in Kazakhstan who were descended from ethnic Germans immigrating to Russia around 200 year ago have a greater chance of becoming German citizens over that of a second or third-generation Turkish individuals born in Germany (To the Fatherland: Kazakhstan, 1997). For those who wish to become naturalized citizens who are not of German blood, the requirements are difficult. First, an individual must voluntarily wish to remain in Germany. The individual must have a complete knowledge of German politics and German language. The individual must reside in Germany for a period of 10 years. Finally, an individual must renounce their former citizenship (Kurthen, 1995). This is an important immigration restriction since renunciation of citizenship for Turkish and Polish immigrants will lead to an abandonment of inheritance rights in their countries of origin. As a result of these strict naturalization laws, the annual naturalization ratio is about 3 percent of the 7 million resident aliens living in Germany (Kurthen, 1995). In comparison, the United States ratio is around 6 percent (Kurthen, 1995). Currently, a proposed new law is being backed by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, which would ease the process of naturalization for residents who are non-German. Called the Dual Nationality Law, this law allows some liberalization in Germany’s naturalized citizenship law. First, a second-generation foreigner born in Germany would automatically become a citizen if at least one parent came there before the age of 14. An immigrant could apply for naturalization after eight years residence instead of 10. Finally, a non-German partner in an intercultural marriage would become a citizen after three years instead of going through naturalization. More importantly, the Dual Nationality Law would not require the renunciation of an individual’s former citizenship.
This aspect of German citizenship laws is slowly creating a class society with foreign immigrants being relegated to a second-class citizenship status. Currently, foreign workers comprise between fifteen and twenty percent of the work force in Germany’s large cities (Siebel, 1997). However, much of the work which immigrants perform is menial work requiring little skills and low pay. According to a study by the RWI Economic Research Institute, 75% of foreigners do menial work which ethnic Germans would avoid, keeping the German economy running with basic food and service industries (Rinaldi, 1999). Turkish immigrants currently run 40,000 small businesses in Germany (Who Is German, 1997) while 10,000 independent kebab food shops manage to outsell McDonalds (Rinaldi, 1999). The demand for small businesses providing ethnic products and services is growing with market analysis estimating a total of 106,000 businesses, which will employ 650,000 by the year 2010 (Hillmann, 1999).
With this growing need of ethnic labor, immigrants may find a life and culture in Germany that is alien to them. The integration of two cultures can become difficult for first-generation immigrants assimilating in Germany. However second and third generation foreigners are also finding them selves caught between two cultures. Foreign children born in Germany are finding a life of confusion. Within the home and family, the social and cultural norms these children learn from their parents come from their parent’s country of origin. But when they enter the German educational system, these children learn of the German prejudices. Foreign children are isolated. They are outsiders in the minds and views of Germans. Attempts to assimilate with German children may also fail. As a result, some foreign children’s interest in learning will sink. They will become autistic or aggressive and their socialization into German society is blocked. Social, cultural, and spiritual stress increases in these children. Many children feel overwhelmed by the stress and view school as a burden rather than an obligation. This can result in a loss of education or withdrawal from school in later years (Onder, 1996). For second and third generation children who are able to assimilated into the German culture and speak the German language, the culture conflict becomes twofold. Not only do they realize the prejudices of the German culture against foreigners, but also they are thrust into a conflict between the German culture they’ve adopted and the ethnic culture of their parents. Disagreements can become violent conflicts between the children who have adopted the German culture and their parents who are culturally bound to their country of origin. Thus second and third generation children are placed into a life of no identity and are forced to culturally fend for themselves (Onder, 1996).
The final problem that immigrants must face is German racism. This modern German racism originated through a combination of factors. First, near the end of the Second World War, the allied powers of the United States, Great Britain, and France, concentrated on de-Nazifying West Germany. What the allied commanders may not have realized is that individual Nazis would have submerged their own racial beliefs and party doctrine within themselves at the end of the war. In East Germany, the Communist government disavowed them selves from having any links with the Nazis past, thus no attempts were made to de-Nazify East Germany by the Soviet Union. Second, the horrors of the Third Reich with the concentration camps and the wholesale slaughter of civilians were consistently reinforced into the West German school curriculum and through West German society. These horrors of the Nazi regime were considered a result of German militarism and German nationalism. Because of these horrors, the West German Government suppressed German nationalism and patriotism. For young Germans who were growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, and who had no memories of the war, the suppression of nationalistic pride and views Germany would cause a backlash against the status quo. This backlash would have been reinforced when the younger Germans learned from their grandparents of how nationalistic German pride existed before the Second World War. It is this lack of nationalistic pride in the younger Germans, which is fertile ground for the tapping by right-winged extremist and neo-Nazi political groups (Krautz, 1993). Bela Ewald Althans, a highly affluent and sophisticated neo-Nazi extremist, has been organizing a grass-roots network of small right-winged extremist parties, skinheads and neo-Nazis into the Die Bewegung or The Movement (Lee, 1993). Althans claims he was influenced by old Nazis and tutored to the Nazi philosophy by Willi Kraemer who was an adviser to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels and Major General Otto Ernst Remer, who played a crucial role in stopping the assassination attempt against Hitler in July 1944. Althans was also influenced by Michael Kuhnen, a German army lieutenant who was expelled from the West German army for pro-Nazi agitation in the military. Kuhnen recognized the opportunity to build up a neo-Nazi movement through brandishing resentment of foreigners and guestworkers while projecting strength as an outspoken Nazi, which would attract media attention and followers to his movement. While the German government has banned the Nazi party and has attempted to suppress some of the extreme right-winged parties, Althan’s has carried on Kuhnen’s work, creating through the underground a highly organized German Nazi Party (Lee, 1993). In 1996, over 2,500 racially motivated criminal acts were reported in Germany (Onder, 1996). It is estimated that there are 42,000 right-winged radicals in Germany with 6,200 considered dangerously militant (Marks, 1994).
Finally, the problems with German immigration and the racial views can be identified through German culture. Germans believe that the Aryan race and culture is distinct. Germans believe that their nation is not a nation of immigration. Germany is not a ‘melting pot’ of immigrants as compared to the United States. “In Germany, a kind of unconscious feeling exists that a real German is only a real German by blood and that others can never be part of this country,” said Nora Rathzel, head of the Institute for Migration and Racism in Hamburg (Drohan, 1993). This is the key problem since this mental image of who can be German is causing an unconscious racial view and racial discrimination against different ethnic peoples and cultures. Only when Germany can accept different peoples and culture into her society will she become a much more stronger and democratic nation.
Works Cited
Drohan, Madelaine. (1993). The German Problem. World Press Review. Vol. 40.
No. 2. Pg. 23.
Hillman, Felicitas. (1999). A Look at the “Hidden Side”: Turkish Women in Berlin’s Ethnic Labour Market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 23, Issue 2. Pg. 267.
Krautz, Joachin. (1993). The Grapes of Neglect—Violence and Xenophobia in Germany. Contemporary Review. Vol. 263. No. 1533. Pg. 169.
Kurthen, Hermann. (1995). Germany at the Crossroads: National Identity and the Challenges of Immigration. International Migration Review. Vol. 29. No. 4. Pg. 914.
Lee, Martin A. (1993). Hitler’s Offspring. The Progressive. Vol. 57. No. 3. Pg. 28.
Marks, John. (1994). The Growing Pains of the New Germany; Unification Brings Disorder and Early Sorrow. U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 116. No. 19. Pg. 42.
Onder, Zehra. (1996). Muslim-Turkish Children in Germany: Sociocultural Problems. Migration World Magazine. Vol. 24. No. 5. Pg. 18.
Rinaldi, Alfred. (1999). No Turks, Please, We’re German. New Statesman. Vol. 128. Issue 4417. Pg. 23.
Siebel, Anne Marie. (1997). Deutschland ist doch ein Einwanderungsland Gerworden: Proposals to Address Germany’s Status as a “Land of Immigration.” Vanderbilt Journals of Transnational Law. Vol. 30. No. 4. Pg. 905.
To the Fatherland: Kazakhstan. (1997). The Economist. No. 9. Pg. 47.
Who is German? (1997). The Economist. Vol. 342. No. 8011. Pg. 45.
Whose Fatherland? A Proposal to Grant Citizenship to Members of Germany’s Vast Immigrant Community Stirs Passionate Debate. (1999). Time International. Vol. 153. Issue 3. Pg. 22.
Who Should be German, Then? (1998). The Economist. Vol. 348. No. 8075. Pg. 45.
Democratization
German Immigration and Democratization
A fundamental question is being debated within Germany’s political and cultural society. This question is, ‘Who is German?’ What individual constitutes a German citizen? A stereotypical view of the German citizen could be a blond-haired, blue eyed burly individual who would be good-natured, drink beer, speak with an accent slurring the ‘s’ to a ‘z,’ be militarily precise and hard working, and would dress in Bavarian clothes. Yet foreign immigrants who are incorporating their own customs and mores into German culture and German society are now challenging the view of what constitutes a German citizen. With these clashing views on identity, German immigration has evolved into a split personality. One aspect of the German immigration is to allow foreigners and refugees seeking asylum into the country. And yet at the same time, immigration and naturalization laws make it almost impossible for immigrants to become naturalized German citizens. It is this fractured personality of German laws that have caused immigrants to become the equivalent of second-class citizens. Such a fracture may cause racial conflict within German society.
Immigration into modern Germany started in the 1950s when West Germany began to integrate her economy into the European Common Market. This was the start of the West German Wirtchaftswunder or Economic Miracle. At the end of the Second World War, West Germany’s economy was in the midst of a labor shortage. To combat this labor shortage, West Germany invited thousands of “Gastarbeiter,” or “guest workers” from Mediterranean and Southern European countries to temporarily fill positions in its industrial workforce. These guest workers would help Germany grow in her industry before returning to their original countries. Within the ages of twenty to forty, the Gastarbeiters brought their families over to Germany, rather than sending money back to the families in their countries of origin (Seibel, 1997). West German recruitment of guest workers ended in 1973. As a result of recruitment and reuniting of families, West German foreign population increased from 680,000 in 1960 to 3,000,000 in 1970 (Seibel, 1997). Within twenty-five years, these foreign residents became a permanent part of West German society with guest worker families giving birth to children who would become a second generation of foreign residents. These second-generation foreign residents were completely integrated into German society, language, and culture with their families giving birth to a third generation of foreign residents. Second-generation and third-generation foreign residents are German in all aspects except their race. Currently, there is an estimated 7.3 million immigrants residing in Germany (Whose Fatherland? A Proposal to Grant Citizenship to Members of Germany’s Vast Immigrant Community Stirs Passionate Debate, 1999), representing around 8% of the German population (Siebel, 1997). And their numbers are growing. One in five babies being born in German society are from non-German citizens (Who is German, 1997). According to Ranier Munz, professor of demographic studies at Humbold University in Berlin, Germany will need 300,000 immigrants a year during the next thirty years to keep it’s population steady (Rinaldi, 1999).
In addition to the immigration of foreign workers for the Wirtchaftswunder, Germany has also accepted immigrants seeking political asylum. In 1947, when the post-war West German constitution was written, a clause was inserted where “politically persecuted persons enjoy the right to asylum.” This is a part of the Grundgestez or Basic Law. This political asylum clause of the Basic Law was set up as a West Germany’s repayment to the world for asylum seekers fleeing the Nazi regime (Siebel, 1997). No other nation has recognized such a liberal and unrestricted right to political asylum. In 1989, 121, 318 asylum seekers entered West Germany. By 1992, the annual figure had risen to 438, 191. This increase in asylum seekers, coupled with economic problems of the reunification of Germany, caused a rise in radical right-winged political groups criticizing the government’s support of asylum seekers. In July 1993, Germany adapted it asylum law rejecting asylum to those immigrants who reached Germany by way of a “safe third country,” and thus cutting off a land route into Germany. Not only did this regulation conform to the policies of other West European countries, but also the number of immigrants seeking asylum dropped in Germany to around 116,367 in 1996 (Siebel, 1997).
While it has been easy for immigrants to enter Germany, it is far more difficult to become a naturalized German citizen. German citizenship laws are adhered to the legal precedent of jus sarguinis or citizenship by blood. To become a German citizen, an individual must be born of German parents or ancestors. This is opposite of the precedent of jus soli where and individual becomes a citizen through birth in a nation-state regardless of ethnicity. Thus, individuals living in Kazakhstan who were descended from ethnic Germans immigrating to Russia around 200 year ago have a greater chance of becoming German citizens over that of a second or third-generation Turkish individuals born in Germany (To the Fatherland: Kazakhstan, 1997). For those who wish to become naturalized citizens who are not of German blood, the requirements are difficult. First, an individual must voluntarily wish to remain in Germany. The individual must have a complete knowledge of German politics and German language. The individual must reside in Germany for a period of 10 years. Finally, an individual must renounce their former citizenship (Kurthen, 1995). This is an important immigration restriction since renunciation of citizenship for Turkish and Polish immigrants will lead to an abandonment of inheritance rights in their countries of origin. As a result of these strict naturalization laws, the annual naturalization ratio is about 3 percent of the 7 million resident aliens living in Germany (Kurthen, 1995). In comparison, the United States ratio is around 6 percent (Kurthen, 1995). Currently, a proposed new law is being backed by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, which would ease the process of naturalization for residents who are non-German. Called the Dual Nationality Law, this law allows some liberalization in Germany’s naturalized citizenship law. First, a second-generation foreigner born in Germany would automatically become a citizen if at least one parent came there before the age of 14. An immigrant could apply for naturalization after eight years residence instead of 10. Finally, a non-German partner in an intercultural marriage would become a citizen after three years instead of going through naturalization. More importantly, the Dual Nationality Law would not require the renunciation of an individual’s former citizenship.
This aspect of German citizenship laws is slowly creating a class society with foreign immigrants being relegated to a second-class citizenship status. Currently, foreign workers comprise between fifteen and twenty percent of the work force in Germany’s large cities (Siebel, 1997). However, much of the work which immigrants perform is menial work requiring little skills and low pay. According to a study by the RWI Economic Research Institute, 75% of foreigners do menial work which ethnic Germans would avoid, keeping the German economy running with basic food and service industries (Rinaldi, 1999). Turkish immigrants currently run 40,000 small businesses in Germany (Who Is German, 1997) while 10,000 independent kebab food shops manage to outsell McDonalds (Rinaldi, 1999). The demand for small businesses providing ethnic products and services is growing with market analysis estimating a total of 106,000 businesses, which will employ 650,000 by the year 2010 (Hillmann, 1999).
With this growing need of ethnic labor, immigrants may find a life and culture in Germany that is alien to them. The integration of two cultures can become difficult for first-generation immigrants assimilating in Germany. However second and third generation foreigners are also finding them selves caught between two cultures. Foreign children born in Germany are finding a life of confusion. Within the home and family, the social and cultural norms these children learn from their parents come from their parent’s country of origin. But when they enter the German educational system, these children learn of the German prejudices. Foreign children are isolated. They are outsiders in the minds and views of Germans. Attempts to assimilate with German children may also fail. As a result, some foreign children’s interest in learning will sink. They will become autistic or aggressive and their socialization into German society is blocked. Social, cultural, and spiritual stress increases in these children. Many children feel overwhelmed by the stress and view school as a burden rather than an obligation. This can result in a loss of education or withdrawal from school in later years (Onder, 1996). For second and third generation children who are able to assimilated into the German culture and speak the German language, the culture conflict becomes twofold. Not only do they realize the prejudices of the German culture against foreigners, but also they are thrust into a conflict between the German culture they’ve adopted and the ethnic culture of their parents. Disagreements can become violent conflicts between the children who have adopted the German culture and their parents who are culturally bound to their country of origin. Thus second and third generation children are placed into a life of no identity and are forced to culturally fend for themselves (Onder, 1996).
The final problem that immigrants must face is German racism. This modern German racism originated through a combination of factors. First, near the end of the Second World War, the allied powers of the United States, Great Britain, and France, concentrated on de-Nazifying West Germany. What the allied commanders may not have realized is that individual Nazis would have submerged their own racial beliefs and party doctrine within themselves at the end of the war. In East Germany, the Communist government disavowed them selves from having any links with the Nazis past, thus no attempts were made to de-Nazify East Germany by the Soviet Union. Second, the horrors of the Third Reich with the concentration camps and the wholesale slaughter of civilians were consistently reinforced into the West German school curriculum and through West German society. These horrors of the Nazi regime were considered a result of German militarism and German nationalism. Because of these horrors, the West German Government suppressed German nationalism and patriotism. For young Germans who were growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, and who had no memories of the war, the suppression of nationalistic pride and views Germany would cause a backlash against the status quo. This backlash would have been reinforced when the younger Germans learned from their grandparents of how nationalistic German pride existed before the Second World War. It is this lack of nationalistic pride in the younger Germans, which is fertile ground for the tapping by right-winged extremist and neo-Nazi political groups (Krautz, 1993). Bela Ewald Althans, a highly affluent and sophisticated neo-Nazi extremist, has been organizing a grass-roots network of small right-winged extremist parties, skinheads and neo-Nazis into the Die Bewegung or The Movement (Lee, 1993). Althans claims he was influenced by old Nazis and tutored to the Nazi philosophy by Willi Kraemer who was an adviser to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels and Major General Otto Ernst Remer, who played a crucial role in stopping the assassination attempt against Hitler in July 1944. Althans was also influenced by Michael Kuhnen, a German army lieutenant who was expelled from the West German army for pro-Nazi agitation in the military. Kuhnen recognized the opportunity to build up a neo-Nazi movement through brandishing resentment of foreigners and guestworkers while projecting strength as an outspoken Nazi, which would attract media attention and followers to his movement. While the German government has banned the Nazi party and has attempted to suppress some of the extreme right-winged parties, Althan’s has carried on Kuhnen’s work, creating through the underground a highly organized German Nazi Party (Lee, 1993). In 1996, over 2,500 racially motivated criminal acts were reported in Germany (Onder, 1996). It is estimated that there are 42,000 right-winged radicals in Germany with 6,200 considered dangerously militant (Marks, 1994).
Finally, the problems with German immigration and the racial views can be identified through German culture. Germans believe that the Aryan race and culture is distinct. Germans believe that their nation is not a nation of immigration. Germany is not a ‘melting pot’ of immigrants as compared to the United States. “In Germany, a kind of unconscious feeling exists that a real German is only a real German by blood and that others can never be part of this country,” said Nora Rathzel, head of the Institute for Migration and Racism in Hamburg (Drohan, 1993). This is the key problem since this mental image of who can be German is causing an unconscious racial view and racial discrimination against different ethnic peoples and cultures. Only when Germany can accept different peoples and culture into her society will she become a much more stronger and democratic nation.
Works Cited
Drohan, Madelaine. (1993). The German Problem. World Press Review. Vol. 40.
No. 2. Pg. 23.
Hillman, Felicitas. (1999). A Look at the “Hidden Side”: Turkish Women in Berlin’s Ethnic Labour Market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 23, Issue 2. Pg. 267.
Krautz, Joachin. (1993). The Grapes of Neglect—Violence and Xenophobia in Germany. Contemporary Review. Vol. 263. No. 1533. Pg. 169.
Kurthen, Hermann. (1995). Germany at the Crossroads: National Identity and the Challenges of Immigration. International Migration Review. Vol. 29. No. 4. Pg. 914.
Lee, Martin A. (1993). Hitler’s Offspring. The Progressive. Vol. 57. No. 3. Pg. 28.
Marks, John. (1994). The Growing Pains of the New Germany; Unification Brings Disorder and Early Sorrow. U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 116. No. 19. Pg. 42.
Onder, Zehra. (1996). Muslim-Turkish Children in Germany: Sociocultural Problems. Migration World Magazine. Vol. 24. No. 5. Pg. 18.
Rinaldi, Alfred. (1999). No Turks, Please, We’re German. New Statesman. Vol. 128. Issue 4417. Pg. 23.
Siebel, Anne Marie. (1997). Deutschland ist doch ein Einwanderungsland Gerworden: Proposals to Address Germany’s Status as a “Land of Immigration.” Vanderbilt Journals of Transnational Law. Vol. 30. No. 4. Pg. 905.
To the Fatherland: Kazakhstan. (1997). The Economist. No. 9. Pg. 47.
Who is German? (1997). The Economist. Vol. 342. No. 8011. Pg. 45.
Whose Fatherland? A Proposal to Grant Citizenship to Members of Germany’s Vast Immigrant Community Stirs Passionate Debate. (1999). Time International. Vol. 153. Issue 3. Pg. 22.
Who Should be German, Then? (1998). The Economist. Vol. 348. No. 8075. Pg. 45.
Essays on Technology and Civilization
Industrial Technology 198
Technology & Civilization
Instructor Jack McKeller
Essays on Technology and Civilization
What role does moral obligation play in the development and use of aspects of biotechnology, the environment, social issues and information technologies?
The concept of technology has no moral sense or obligations. Technology is a process where scientific knowledge and mechanical engineering is brought together to create new tools and develop new processes of which to perform certain tasks. The only obligation of a technology is to perform the task it was designed for, adapt the technology to perform its task or replace the technology with a new technology that can perform the task with improved results. While technology has no moral sense or obligations, society and the individuals who use the technology must understand and accept the morals and values of their society as humanity embraces a technology of which its power can possibly destroy these social morals and values. Human society must look into itself and examine the morals and values their civilization was founded upon—religious teachings, social customs, mores, stories, laws, literature, arts, music, beliefs, fears, ambitions—and to take all that a civilization can use to define itself, then examine a technology and determine how this technology can be adapted for society’s own benefit of its people.
Of all the technologies, biotechnology is the most serious in how a civilization can define its moral obligations to the technology. Biotechnology affects the very foundation of life and life’s process—life with can be created or destroyed. With the development of the Human Genome Project, scientist would be able to map the entire genetic code for humans and determine which genes affect which human traits. The ability to manipulate human genes gives rise to the concept of eugenics or even the concept of cloning human individuals genetically developed to perform certain tasks. Those selected individuals who have the access and knowledge to understand and use such technology will have the ability to create life in their own image and to become gods to mankind. Such a power can be abused. Genetically engineered food is another example. Those who have the technology to genetically engineered food items can develop food for the specific needs of a small market willing to pay for such items while overlooking the needs of members of a society who may not have the resources. An example would be to genetically engineer baby carrots or baby corn for salads that members of an advanced society may purchase and use while members of an impoverished society may not have the resources to purchase a genetically engineered strain of wheat which can grow in arid or desert conditions. Society must recognize the dangers and benefits of biotechnology and must see that the benefits of a biotechnology are equally shared to all members and not concentrated to only a few.
The environment is a serious problem since environmental waste and pollution affect all members of society in all nations. Pollution does not limit itself inside of a particular nation’s borders, but rather spreads throughout the earth. Sulfur dioxide, which is expelled in the atmosphere from coal plants in the United States, can drift north into the Canadian forests and combine with water moisture to form acid rain and destroy those forests. The nuclear accident at Cherynoble released radioactive gas and particles, which have been dispersed throughout the world. Nations with advanced technology and the resources would have the ability to clean up the environment within their borders for the benefit of their own people. However, nations that are attempting to industrialize their economies and raise the standard of living for their own people will not have the technology or resources to clean the environment of the pollution caused by industrialization. These nations are concentrating on trying to industrialize and raise the standard of living, which is already common in advanced nations. The moral obligation of both advanced societies and societies which are attempting to industrialize is to find some common technologies which can be installed in an industrializing nation’s infrastructure at minimal cost, which can help limit the effects of pollution. For in the end, pollution affects all nations in all borders.
The world’s population is growing at an expanded rate. In 1927, the population was estimated to be around 2 billion people. By 2054, the population is expected to explode to around 9 billion people. Much of this population growth is expected in China and India of which both nations are attempting to industrialize their economies to support this population. In contrast, the populations of the United States and Western Europe are remaining at a relatively stable rate of growth. With the exploding population in China and India, both nations are going to need an increasing amount of resources in food, water, and energy to support this base of people. The goal of technology is to find ways to support an increasing amount of people using resources in an efficient way. What new energy technologies can be developed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which can support a greater demand for energy? What agricultural technologies can be developed to increase the food output in order to feed a greater share of people? If these issues are not resolved, then there will be an unequal distribution of resources between the advanced societies of the United States and Europe which have a lower population base, but consume most of the earth’s resources, and the Third World countries of China and India which will have a greater share of the world’s population, but will not have the resources to support that population. This can lead to a dangerous confrontation between the haves and have-nots—especially if the confrontation is between nuclear powers of the United States, China and India.
The information highway and communications technology will also give benefits to those individuals who have access to the technology and knowledge to use this technology over individuals who do not have access. This again corresponds to nations and societies with advanced technological infrastructure will make greater use of this technology over those nations and societies who do not have access. The question here for moral obligations is how can this technology be provided to those individuals who do not have access? An even more important issue is that those individuals who do have access to the technology and the knowledge to use this technology would have the means to provide the information, to determine what information and content can be published on the information superhighway which will suit their own interests over those interests of others. This means that power will be concentrated to the few who control the technology and the gateways to access the technology. How can information and knowledge be shared equally among individuals and societies without censorship due to political, racial, religious or cultural values?
Moral obligations with the development of technologies will not come cheap for societies. Any decision on a technology and how it will be used to society will benefit members of one group while hurting members of another group. There are no easy answers—no quick fixes. But rather, compromising positions, which can benefit all members to an extent, must be addressed and the technologies developed to provide the solutions to these problems. These are the issues that society must confront and provide solutions to for technology.
How can you increase the quality of life in developing countries through technological diffusion and technology transfer?
The question of improving the quality of life in developing countries has been asked throughout the history of the earth. Developed countries would exert their influence and use their technology to subvert or destroy the social and political structures of a less developed society in the name of progress. England would move in and take over a less developed territory and colonize it under the guise of “civilizing the natives” to become model citizens of the British Empire when in reality the colonization of territories meant access to raw materials for the factories back in England. Investment of technology was never emphasized for the true benefit of the citizens in the colony or to use that technology to improve the quality of life for the colony’s citizens. The question is still being debated today as global conglomerates invest the technology of manufacturing in less developed countries for access of cheap raw materials and cheap labor for the development of finished products which will be sold to US and Western European markets with none of the profits benefiting the population of the less developed countries. So the question remains. How can technological diffusion and technology transfer improve the quality of life in less developed countries? The problem is that each individual less developed nation will have its own level of infrastructure. The infrastructure of a developing nation such as Thailand is far different than a developing nation such as Mozambique. Thailand may have more individuals who are educated, and have a greater level of utilities infrastructure such as electrical, gas, and water utilities within its borders than Mozambique may have. Each nation must be examined on a case-by-case basis, then an assessment of what technologies can be provided to these countries that may have the greatest impact. A large manufacturing factory may not be in the best interest for Mozambique since manufacturing technologies require highly skilled workers to operate in the factory and basic utilities of electricity, water, and gas to power the factory. However simple technologies such as windmills, water mills to provide irrigation systems for improved farming would help improve rural areas and the citizens living in those rural areas of Mozambique. Basic technological improvements in metalworking or artisan crafts and ceramics that can produce basic tools and goods for general population may also be necessary. A basic educational system to improve the education of the population would also help. This is a gradual approach to improve the quality of life for the population of a developing country as a whole. However, the problem with this approach is two-fold. First the leaders of a developing country would be educated in schools in the United States and Europe and have western values and ideas instilled in them—these values would be alien to the general population. In addition, these leaders would want to “Westernize” or technologically improve their nation in order to emulate the advanced societies such as the United States even though the county would have a lack of basic economic and technological infrastructure and a lack of a skilled and educated workforce necessary to maintain an advanced technological society. Second, globalized companies and conglomerates have an interest in producing manufactured goods at a reduced cost. These conglomerates may approach a leader of a developing country and offer a deal to build a factory there in order to gain cheap labor to produce their products. While there is a short-term economical benefit to the developing country for having a factory built, the true benefits will go to the company building and running the factory since the company would pay extremely low wages to the workers, taking full advantages of those workers and not giving any benefits or right to the workers in the factories. Thus the benefits of the technology will not benefit the developing country or improve the quality of life for its citizens. This second issue is an even greater problem for developing countries, which do have a semi-skilled workforce who are able to work in factories and whose countries already have a general infrastructure of power, gas and water utilities which are needed to run the factories. In addition, companies building factories in developing countries would not have an incentive to place environmental controls in the factory itself to reduce pollution since environmental controls would raise costs and lower production of manufactured goods. What is necessary for these developing nations is for the governments of these developing nations and global companies negotiate agreements of which a portion of the profits in manufacturing these goods can be invested into the country’s infrastructure and improve the quality of life for the citizens. This can be done either by allowing the government to have a share of ownership in the factory, or having the global company pledge to build schools or homes for their workers. Finally, global companies must realize that exploiting cheap labor and raw materials in developing countries can no longer be done with impunity. Citizens and critics in the developed nations of the United States and Europe have noticed this issue and are already criticizing these practices. One example of such criticism is the general outcry on sweatshops producing clothing for the US market. Another is the general protest movement against the World Trade Organization, which cause major riots in Seattle and paralyzed the WTO meetings last year while generating unfavorable publicity on the WTO in the mainstream press. Technological transfer and diffusion of technology into developing countries must be done at a slow, gradual pace in allowing these technologies to gain hold in a nation and allow the citizens of a developing nation to acquire the skills and knowledge to use these technologies before advancing to more complex technologies.
Technology & Civilization
Instructor Jack McKeller
Essays on Technology and Civilization
What role does moral obligation play in the development and use of aspects of biotechnology, the environment, social issues and information technologies?
The concept of technology has no moral sense or obligations. Technology is a process where scientific knowledge and mechanical engineering is brought together to create new tools and develop new processes of which to perform certain tasks. The only obligation of a technology is to perform the task it was designed for, adapt the technology to perform its task or replace the technology with a new technology that can perform the task with improved results. While technology has no moral sense or obligations, society and the individuals who use the technology must understand and accept the morals and values of their society as humanity embraces a technology of which its power can possibly destroy these social morals and values. Human society must look into itself and examine the morals and values their civilization was founded upon—religious teachings, social customs, mores, stories, laws, literature, arts, music, beliefs, fears, ambitions—and to take all that a civilization can use to define itself, then examine a technology and determine how this technology can be adapted for society’s own benefit of its people.
Of all the technologies, biotechnology is the most serious in how a civilization can define its moral obligations to the technology. Biotechnology affects the very foundation of life and life’s process—life with can be created or destroyed. With the development of the Human Genome Project, scientist would be able to map the entire genetic code for humans and determine which genes affect which human traits. The ability to manipulate human genes gives rise to the concept of eugenics or even the concept of cloning human individuals genetically developed to perform certain tasks. Those selected individuals who have the access and knowledge to understand and use such technology will have the ability to create life in their own image and to become gods to mankind. Such a power can be abused. Genetically engineered food is another example. Those who have the technology to genetically engineered food items can develop food for the specific needs of a small market willing to pay for such items while overlooking the needs of members of a society who may not have the resources. An example would be to genetically engineer baby carrots or baby corn for salads that members of an advanced society may purchase and use while members of an impoverished society may not have the resources to purchase a genetically engineered strain of wheat which can grow in arid or desert conditions. Society must recognize the dangers and benefits of biotechnology and must see that the benefits of a biotechnology are equally shared to all members and not concentrated to only a few.
The environment is a serious problem since environmental waste and pollution affect all members of society in all nations. Pollution does not limit itself inside of a particular nation’s borders, but rather spreads throughout the earth. Sulfur dioxide, which is expelled in the atmosphere from coal plants in the United States, can drift north into the Canadian forests and combine with water moisture to form acid rain and destroy those forests. The nuclear accident at Cherynoble released radioactive gas and particles, which have been dispersed throughout the world. Nations with advanced technology and the resources would have the ability to clean up the environment within their borders for the benefit of their own people. However, nations that are attempting to industrialize their economies and raise the standard of living for their own people will not have the technology or resources to clean the environment of the pollution caused by industrialization. These nations are concentrating on trying to industrialize and raise the standard of living, which is already common in advanced nations. The moral obligation of both advanced societies and societies which are attempting to industrialize is to find some common technologies which can be installed in an industrializing nation’s infrastructure at minimal cost, which can help limit the effects of pollution. For in the end, pollution affects all nations in all borders.
The world’s population is growing at an expanded rate. In 1927, the population was estimated to be around 2 billion people. By 2054, the population is expected to explode to around 9 billion people. Much of this population growth is expected in China and India of which both nations are attempting to industrialize their economies to support this population. In contrast, the populations of the United States and Western Europe are remaining at a relatively stable rate of growth. With the exploding population in China and India, both nations are going to need an increasing amount of resources in food, water, and energy to support this base of people. The goal of technology is to find ways to support an increasing amount of people using resources in an efficient way. What new energy technologies can be developed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which can support a greater demand for energy? What agricultural technologies can be developed to increase the food output in order to feed a greater share of people? If these issues are not resolved, then there will be an unequal distribution of resources between the advanced societies of the United States and Europe which have a lower population base, but consume most of the earth’s resources, and the Third World countries of China and India which will have a greater share of the world’s population, but will not have the resources to support that population. This can lead to a dangerous confrontation between the haves and have-nots—especially if the confrontation is between nuclear powers of the United States, China and India.
The information highway and communications technology will also give benefits to those individuals who have access to the technology and knowledge to use this technology over individuals who do not have access. This again corresponds to nations and societies with advanced technological infrastructure will make greater use of this technology over those nations and societies who do not have access. The question here for moral obligations is how can this technology be provided to those individuals who do not have access? An even more important issue is that those individuals who do have access to the technology and the knowledge to use this technology would have the means to provide the information, to determine what information and content can be published on the information superhighway which will suit their own interests over those interests of others. This means that power will be concentrated to the few who control the technology and the gateways to access the technology. How can information and knowledge be shared equally among individuals and societies without censorship due to political, racial, religious or cultural values?
Moral obligations with the development of technologies will not come cheap for societies. Any decision on a technology and how it will be used to society will benefit members of one group while hurting members of another group. There are no easy answers—no quick fixes. But rather, compromising positions, which can benefit all members to an extent, must be addressed and the technologies developed to provide the solutions to these problems. These are the issues that society must confront and provide solutions to for technology.
How can you increase the quality of life in developing countries through technological diffusion and technology transfer?
The question of improving the quality of life in developing countries has been asked throughout the history of the earth. Developed countries would exert their influence and use their technology to subvert or destroy the social and political structures of a less developed society in the name of progress. England would move in and take over a less developed territory and colonize it under the guise of “civilizing the natives” to become model citizens of the British Empire when in reality the colonization of territories meant access to raw materials for the factories back in England. Investment of technology was never emphasized for the true benefit of the citizens in the colony or to use that technology to improve the quality of life for the colony’s citizens. The question is still being debated today as global conglomerates invest the technology of manufacturing in less developed countries for access of cheap raw materials and cheap labor for the development of finished products which will be sold to US and Western European markets with none of the profits benefiting the population of the less developed countries. So the question remains. How can technological diffusion and technology transfer improve the quality of life in less developed countries? The problem is that each individual less developed nation will have its own level of infrastructure. The infrastructure of a developing nation such as Thailand is far different than a developing nation such as Mozambique. Thailand may have more individuals who are educated, and have a greater level of utilities infrastructure such as electrical, gas, and water utilities within its borders than Mozambique may have. Each nation must be examined on a case-by-case basis, then an assessment of what technologies can be provided to these countries that may have the greatest impact. A large manufacturing factory may not be in the best interest for Mozambique since manufacturing technologies require highly skilled workers to operate in the factory and basic utilities of electricity, water, and gas to power the factory. However simple technologies such as windmills, water mills to provide irrigation systems for improved farming would help improve rural areas and the citizens living in those rural areas of Mozambique. Basic technological improvements in metalworking or artisan crafts and ceramics that can produce basic tools and goods for general population may also be necessary. A basic educational system to improve the education of the population would also help. This is a gradual approach to improve the quality of life for the population of a developing country as a whole. However, the problem with this approach is two-fold. First the leaders of a developing country would be educated in schools in the United States and Europe and have western values and ideas instilled in them—these values would be alien to the general population. In addition, these leaders would want to “Westernize” or technologically improve their nation in order to emulate the advanced societies such as the United States even though the county would have a lack of basic economic and technological infrastructure and a lack of a skilled and educated workforce necessary to maintain an advanced technological society. Second, globalized companies and conglomerates have an interest in producing manufactured goods at a reduced cost. These conglomerates may approach a leader of a developing country and offer a deal to build a factory there in order to gain cheap labor to produce their products. While there is a short-term economical benefit to the developing country for having a factory built, the true benefits will go to the company building and running the factory since the company would pay extremely low wages to the workers, taking full advantages of those workers and not giving any benefits or right to the workers in the factories. Thus the benefits of the technology will not benefit the developing country or improve the quality of life for its citizens. This second issue is an even greater problem for developing countries, which do have a semi-skilled workforce who are able to work in factories and whose countries already have a general infrastructure of power, gas and water utilities which are needed to run the factories. In addition, companies building factories in developing countries would not have an incentive to place environmental controls in the factory itself to reduce pollution since environmental controls would raise costs and lower production of manufactured goods. What is necessary for these developing nations is for the governments of these developing nations and global companies negotiate agreements of which a portion of the profits in manufacturing these goods can be invested into the country’s infrastructure and improve the quality of life for the citizens. This can be done either by allowing the government to have a share of ownership in the factory, or having the global company pledge to build schools or homes for their workers. Finally, global companies must realize that exploiting cheap labor and raw materials in developing countries can no longer be done with impunity. Citizens and critics in the developed nations of the United States and Europe have noticed this issue and are already criticizing these practices. One example of such criticism is the general outcry on sweatshops producing clothing for the US market. Another is the general protest movement against the World Trade Organization, which cause major riots in Seattle and paralyzed the WTO meetings last year while generating unfavorable publicity on the WTO in the mainstream press. Technological transfer and diffusion of technology into developing countries must be done at a slow, gradual pace in allowing these technologies to gain hold in a nation and allow the citizens of a developing nation to acquire the skills and knowledge to use these technologies before advancing to more complex technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
