Gianfranco Poggi. (2006). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Questions of Method (17-35)
One of the greatest contribution that Weber made to sociology and cultural science is his radical refusal to positivistic model that prevailed in natural science and its expansion to other fields. Thus researchers should rely on their intuition in interpreting social phenomena and persuasive communication about the given topics. The fundamental difference that divides him from the main stream seems to originate from his ontological POV: Weber sees that human beings act within the reality where they exist on the basis of the meanings [Poggi emphasized] they attribute to it. Human events are basically individual, consisting of actions and passions of individuals, and thus its scientific understanding should be based upon methodological individualism, the questions of which may include individuals' interpretation of their own circumstances and needs. His concept of ideal types plays a significant role in understanding the relation of sociology and history. While historians emphasize the uniqueness of certain facts, sociologists should provide them with ideal types, which are intrinsically at the state of fluidity, continuously corrected and replaced by others. [Ideal types does not mean optimal, rather frameworks that allows tools for interpretation of the reality, I think.] By constructing ideal types, sociology is characterized as handmaiden to history and history takes them as hypothses. Thus, Poggi puts an emphasis on Weber's perspective of contingency of social events--in that there are more than one ways of interpreting them--and necessity--in that there are not many though.
Webers' Conception of the Socio-Historical Process (36-58)
Poggi asserts that Weber would agree with Marx on the fundamental role of classes in the historical process, but he sees history as an arena where conflicts different from classes arise in the sphere of socio-cultural and political relations. One particularity in his perspectives lie in that he regards the individuals as the ultimate agents that cause conflicts and move the society. He refuses a society as an organic whole entity that sits on top of individuals. [I think this is his fundamental perspective that deduces his other ideas.]
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (59-74)
The most highly regarded Weber's essay, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, explores the genesis of modern capitalism. Not disregarding economic components of capitalism, Weber emphasized the availability of institutional and intellectual resources, such as rationalized arrangement for political and economical activities with a weighted focus on early capitalist entrepreneurship taken by a large number of individuals, who collectively experimented new and disruptive ways of producing wealth through enterprises motivated by a very distinctive capitalist spirit. Weber finds the Calvinism, the dogma of which is predestination--God decreed for each human being its destiny in the afterlife--as the core genesis of the spirit of capitalism: accumulation of wealth was morally justified first, then the elimination of strong religious impediments became necessary. Thus, capitalism played a significant role in advancing secularization. After this developmental stage, the capitalist spirit ceased to function in the capitalist system.
Other Essays in the Sociology of Religion (75-88)
Weber's interest in religion about its general roles, Poggi defines, originates from his phylosophical anthropology--'human being as an interpretative animal, positioning itself in the world by attaching significance to selected aspects of reality'--and historically interpretaion is done chiefly through religion that imparts meaning to the cosmos.
Political Power and Legitimacy (89-104)
Weber regard organized violence as the grounding form of political power, in particular, with regard to the state (Politics as a Vocation). Political power creates legitimacy to make its order more durable, secure and effective. Weber presents three topologies about legitimacy, traditional (relying on past validity and goodness)/charismatic (obedience to the forces leader embodies)/legal-rational. Among three, legal-rational legitimacy is peculiar to modern polities and a central component of state. Unlike the others, it is grounded in the notion of commands accorded to authorized norms and obedience as dutiful observance of a whole system of norms. If the legitimacy is questioned, charismatically legitimated order "repeatedly justify itself and acquire new resources by means of new initiatives and achievements, particularly of a military and economic nature, in order to renew the followers' trust in the extraordinary qualities of the reader" (p.99). This aspect is not specifically addressed by Weber. Weber's interest in a phenomenon common to all political orders regardless of its particular form turned his attention to administrative staff structured in polity. While insecure contingency characterizes the staff in charismatically legitimate polities, the staff in legal-rational legitimacy is recruited and organized in a bureaucratic model and this model constitutes the nature of the modern state, Weber asserts.
The State and Bureaucracy (105-126)
To Weber, state is the continuously reproduced result of the convergence of innumerable lines of individual activity, not a superior entity, thus state's activities are intrinsically contingent, in other words, the set of ends they pursue is open-ended. The nature of state, which is portrayed as an ensemble of practices, facilities, rules and personnel, etc. as one entity, is defined by Weber as follows: 1) political entity, which comprises the core of the institutional identity of the state, is based on organized violence, 2) legal-rational legitimacy is determined by law, 3)individuals become citizens and they constitute a new kind of political community, a nation, 4) administration to implement the policies is bureaucratic by nature. Poggi evaluates Weber, although he acknowledged the inhumanity of the capitalism and accorded to socialists' justification, remained as a class member of bourgeoisie by adhering to the (western) modernity.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality
William Pinar. (1994). NY: Peter Lang.
Working From Within (1972. pp.7-12)
Bringing Jackson Pollock's interview on his immediacy as a way of painting for greater directness as well as his emphasis on inner world, Pinar argues that the more immediate the class becomes, the more we become immersed in the moment such that students become more honest in expressing their thinking and feeling. To him, spontaneity is a key to bring about cognitive and emotional contact. [But, this requires tremendous capability of teachers themselves. In this sense, he stresses teacher's self-reflection.]
The Method of Currere (1975, pp.19-27)
Pinar delineates a process of culturing intellectuality through self-reflective biographical approach in four stages.
Regressive: Return to the past and observe as it is.
Progressive: Relax in a slightly darkened room and think of future, then bring back the attention to matters associated with one's intellectual interests and associatively.
Analytical: Describe the biographical present and respond to it freely.
Synthetical: See oneself concretely as if in a mirror.
[This meditative engagement is not so transparent to me. Nevertheless I highly regard the way he approaches for the second phase.]
The Trial (1976, pp.29-92)
His thoughtful interpretation of the Trial by Kafka is used to support his emphasis on self-reflection. Pinar explains that K, who is lack of self-reflection--attention on his own experience, on his body and on his emotion, is arrested intellectually and phycho-socially. In other words, he is dissociated from his subjective experience. On the other hand, Pinar argues that his task is to 'portray singularity, subjectivity, the process of self-knowing' and choose autobiography as a means of writing subjectively. He quotes Dewey (1960, On Experience, nature and freedom) to support his idea of self-awareness as a tool to dissolve intellectual arrest and its movement: "but that what I have learned from them ['philosophical writing'] has been technical in comparison with what I have been forced to think upon and about because of some experience in which I found myself entangled." In this light, Pinar describes the introduction of phenomenology to the social science as a significant event, that relieves theories to the 'primary experience' and the things themselves. [It is rather long, but interesting to read how he developed and support his ideas about the importance of self-reflection. It is very intellectual and persuasive.]
Notes on the Curriculum Field (1978, pp.77-99)
Pinar seeks new curriculum possibilities in emancipation based on Habermas's acknowledgment of a distinction between theory and praxis. Habermas argues, "Decisions for the political struggle, cannot at the outset be justified theoretically and thn be carried out organizationally. The sole possible jstification at this level is consensus aimed at in practical discourse, among the participants, who, in the consciousness of their common interests and their knowledge of circumstances, of the predictable consequences and secondary consequences, are the only ones who can know the risks they are willing to undergo, and with what expectations" (quoted p.93, Theory and Practice, p33). Pinar's methodology directly reaches Habermas' argument: "the methodological framework that determines the meaning of the validity of critical propositions of this category['critical social science'] is established by the concept of self-reflection. The latter releases the subject from dependence on hypothesized powers. Self-reflection is determined by an emancipatory cognitive interest" (quoted p.87, Habermas Knowledge and Human Interest(?), 310) [It is a good historical overview on curriculum theories and Pinar carefully keeps his position regarding self-reflection and emancipatory as new curriculum possibilities and this voice gets stronger towards the end of his argument. It is well written.]
Autobiography and an Architecture of Self (1985, pp.202-222)
Pinar articulates two reasons of the loss of authentic self-acknowledgement: 1) at schools children experience clashing of their identities brought from home and 2) a capitcal economy, where everything is commodified, results in self-estrangement in its essence. From psychoanalysis theories, existential phenomenology traverse Foucault and Derria and Nietzsche, Pinar argues "the running of the course is the building of the self, the lived experience of subjectivity. Autobiography is an architecture of self, a self we create and embody as we read, write, speak and listen" (p.220). [It is amazing to see how he connects trains of thoughts through such diverse and deep analysis, but after all, I do not see the point of doing it. It is only interpretation of theories. Where is the lived experience?]
Working From Within (1972. pp.7-12)
Bringing Jackson Pollock's interview on his immediacy as a way of painting for greater directness as well as his emphasis on inner world, Pinar argues that the more immediate the class becomes, the more we become immersed in the moment such that students become more honest in expressing their thinking and feeling. To him, spontaneity is a key to bring about cognitive and emotional contact. [But, this requires tremendous capability of teachers themselves. In this sense, he stresses teacher's self-reflection.]
The Method of Currere (1975, pp.19-27)
Pinar delineates a process of culturing intellectuality through self-reflective biographical approach in four stages.
Regressive: Return to the past and observe as it is.
Progressive: Relax in a slightly darkened room and think of future, then bring back the attention to matters associated with one's intellectual interests and associatively.
Analytical: Describe the biographical present and respond to it freely.
Synthetical: See oneself concretely as if in a mirror.
[This meditative engagement is not so transparent to me. Nevertheless I highly regard the way he approaches for the second phase.]
The Trial (1976, pp.29-92)
His thoughtful interpretation of the Trial by Kafka is used to support his emphasis on self-reflection. Pinar explains that K, who is lack of self-reflection--attention on his own experience, on his body and on his emotion, is arrested intellectually and phycho-socially. In other words, he is dissociated from his subjective experience. On the other hand, Pinar argues that his task is to 'portray singularity, subjectivity, the process of self-knowing' and choose autobiography as a means of writing subjectively. He quotes Dewey (1960, On Experience, nature and freedom) to support his idea of self-awareness as a tool to dissolve intellectual arrest and its movement: "but that what I have learned from them ['philosophical writing'] has been technical in comparison with what I have been forced to think upon and about because of some experience in which I found myself entangled." In this light, Pinar describes the introduction of phenomenology to the social science as a significant event, that relieves theories to the 'primary experience' and the things themselves. [It is rather long, but interesting to read how he developed and support his ideas about the importance of self-reflection. It is very intellectual and persuasive.]
Notes on the Curriculum Field (1978, pp.77-99)
Pinar seeks new curriculum possibilities in emancipation based on Habermas's acknowledgment of a distinction between theory and praxis. Habermas argues, "Decisions for the political struggle, cannot at the outset be justified theoretically and thn be carried out organizationally. The sole possible jstification at this level is consensus aimed at in practical discourse, among the participants, who, in the consciousness of their common interests and their knowledge of circumstances, of the predictable consequences and secondary consequences, are the only ones who can know the risks they are willing to undergo, and with what expectations" (quoted p.93, Theory and Practice, p33). Pinar's methodology directly reaches Habermas' argument: "the methodological framework that determines the meaning of the validity of critical propositions of this category['critical social science'] is established by the concept of self-reflection. The latter releases the subject from dependence on hypothesized powers. Self-reflection is determined by an emancipatory cognitive interest" (quoted p.87, Habermas Knowledge and Human Interest(?), 310) [It is a good historical overview on curriculum theories and Pinar carefully keeps his position regarding self-reflection and emancipatory as new curriculum possibilities and this voice gets stronger towards the end of his argument. It is well written.]
Autobiography and an Architecture of Self (1985, pp.202-222)
Pinar articulates two reasons of the loss of authentic self-acknowledgement: 1) at schools children experience clashing of their identities brought from home and 2) a capitcal economy, where everything is commodified, results in self-estrangement in its essence. From psychoanalysis theories, existential phenomenology traverse Foucault and Derria and Nietzsche, Pinar argues "the running of the course is the building of the self, the lived experience of subjectivity. Autobiography is an architecture of self, a self we create and embody as we read, write, speak and listen" (p.220). [It is amazing to see how he connects trains of thoughts through such diverse and deep analysis, but after all, I do not see the point of doing it. It is only interpretation of theories. Where is the lived experience?]
Monday, December 15, 2008
PAR and Poplular Education in Latin America
Carlos Alberto Torres. (1995). In Critical Theory and Educational Research (pp. 237-255). MaLaren, P. & Giarelli, J. (Eds.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Torres finds the origin of PAR in Latin America largely in Freire's pedagogy of liberation. PAR is particularly prevailing in adult education, which takes a form of cultural action offered to consenting and self-motivating adults. The central objective of this action is by and large described as 'conscientization', meaning critical consciousness as forms of class knowledge and practices from a Freirian perspective. Adult education not only provides direct needs of communities where the participants belong, but also constitutes an instrument of mobilization and the development of political consciouness in the transition to socialism in Latin America, Torres argues. He asserts that although questions regarding its methodology and paradignamic position in educational research, PAR is a major contributor to emancipatory, problem-posing education throughout Latin America now.
Torres finds the origin of PAR in Latin America largely in Freire's pedagogy of liberation. PAR is particularly prevailing in adult education, which takes a form of cultural action offered to consenting and self-motivating adults. The central objective of this action is by and large described as 'conscientization', meaning critical consciousness as forms of class knowledge and practices from a Freirian perspective. Adult education not only provides direct needs of communities where the participants belong, but also constitutes an instrument of mobilization and the development of political consciouness in the transition to socialism in Latin America, Torres argues. He asserts that although questions regarding its methodology and paradignamic position in educational research, PAR is a major contributor to emancipatory, problem-posing education throughout Latin America now.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Gramsci (1891-1937): Prison Notebooks
Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971). Hoare, Q & Smith, G. (Trans & Eds.). NY: International Publishers
The Intellectuals (pp. 5-23)
To Gramsci, all men are intellectuals in that they carry on some form of intellectual activity, however, not all have in society the function of intellectuals. This discrepancy lies in elaboration of the intellectual activity. Then, what is the function of intellectuals? He quotes discussion about new intellectualism in the weekly Ordine Nuovo. In this discussion, the mode of new intellectuals consists in specialization--active participation in practical life--and politicization ('directive')--proceeding from technique-as-work to science and humanistic conception of history. This is 'organic' intellectuals, meaning that they are formed within a social group, in relation to 'traditional' intellectuals, who has no acknowledgment of class formation. The editors note that this perspective contains Gramsci's key ideas of (1) organic intellectuals of the proletariat and (2) the possibility of proletarian cultural hegemony through the work process. The relationship of intellectuals and the world is examined through the superstructures--civil society (private sector) and political society (State). Intellectuals, subordinate of dominant group, exercise the functions of social hegemony through spontaneous consent and political government through legal apparatus of state that coercive power.
On Education (pp. 26-43)
He points out that particularisation in school systems that increasing types of vocational school brought about constitutes the education crisis in his time. By its diversities and distinctions made from the traditional school, it may give the impression of democratic tendency in education, but in fact, it only deteriorated the real democratic order because individuals do not obtain "governing" stratum in a social and political context. First all children do not enter school with the same background--as Bourdieu indicates as "cultural capital"--thus those who are lack of certain assets aligned with the school system do hardly enter the system. He stresses that "child's consciousness is not something individual, it reflects the sector of civil society in which the child participates, and the social relations which are formed within his family, his neighborhood, his village, etc." Secondly, although it is implicit in this writing, the system that creates vocational school and its integration into State is philosophically far from democritization. According to him, each social group create its own types of schools , which contributes to the perpetuation of a specific traditional function, ruling and subordinate. To him, creating intellectuals from the working class is fundamental, but the task is enormous.
Here is his account of technocracy that comes to control both regimes and bureaucracies: "deliberative (having to do with policy) bodies tend to an ever-increasing extent to distinguish their activity into two organic aspects: into the deliberative activity which is their essence, and into technical-cultural activity in which the questions upon which they have to take decisions are first examines by experts and analyzed scientifically. this latter activity has already created a whole bureaucratic body with a new structure; for apart from the specialized departments of experts who prepare the technical material for the deliberative bodies, a second body of functionaries is created--more or less disinterested volunteers, selected variously from industry, from the banks, from finance houses. This is one of the mechanisms by means of which he career bureaucracy eventually came to control the democratic regimes and parliaments; now the mechanism is being organically extended, and is absorbing into its sphere the great specialists of private enterprise, which thus comes to control both regimes and bureaucracies. What is involved is a necessary, organic development which tends to integrate the personnel specialized in the technique of politics with personnel specialized in the concrete problems of administering the essential practical activities of the great an complex national societies of today."(27-28)
Mentioning the collectivism in academic culture that forces norms and particular ways of expressing, he uses the term, "Taylorise" intellectual work (more in Americanism and Fordism).
Political Struggle And Military War
Gramsci argues that political struggle, which is more complex than military war, takes three forms: 'war of movement (i.e. boycott)', 'war of position (i.e. strike)' and 'underground warfare (i.e. secret arms)'. He says while the war of position in politics, once won, is decisive, the war of manoeuvre [I think it is the same as movement] subsists when there is a question of the winning positions which are not decisive. When the balance is lost and only decisive positions are at stake, war occurs.
In opposition to iron economic determinism, Gramsci stresses civil society that "is resistant to the catastrophic incursions of the immediate economic element (crises, depressions, etc.)." Thus, the more advanced the civil society is, the more time is taken for destructive political power to be active and the less likely the civilians, defenders, lose their position or faith.
Internationalism and National Policy
Gramsci summarizes the philosophy of praxis such that "the international situation should be considered in its national aspect. In reality, the internal relations of any nations are the result of a combination which is original (in a certain sense) and unique. To be sure, the line of development is towards internationalism, ut the point of departure is national--and it is from this point of departure that one must begin. Yet the perspective is international and cannot be otherwise." In particular, this logic supports his political idea of the solidarity of the international proletariat class under the direction of international communism. (1933). [This brief but clearly provocative essay throws an analytical groundword for my research: begin with the national but move toward the international as a directive light.]
Problem of the "Collective Man" or of "Social Conformism"
Perpetual educative and formative role of the State, according to Gramsci, is creating new higher types of civilization and turning it and morality of the popular masses to apparatus for economic production, and as a result, new types of humanity evolves. One becomes a collective man and tendency to conformism (standardisation of thoughts and actions) of society spreads. Big factories, Taylorisation, rationalisation, etc. are the economic basis of collective man, he argues. [He also talks about conformism, but it is not clear in this essay.] However, he stresses that the collective man do consent and collaborate, feeling "freedom" instead of coercion through the educative pressure of the State, and finds the apparatus in the 'Law', which includes not only legally natural activities but also the civil society. This civil society, which operates without compulsory obligation, exerts a collective pressure and develops customs, ways of thinking and acting and morality. Within the context, he mentions that the political concept of permanent revolution, which was described in the context of the epoch, where the society is still in a state of fluidity, expanded to the formular of "civil hegemony",where a State prepares a war 'minutely and technically in peacetime'. This is where the power of educative and formative role of the State arises. [A very succinct description of creeping State power that operates in civil society.]
Taylorism and the Mechanization of the Worker
The comparison Gramsci made between medieval copyist and new industrial workers highlights mechanization process of the production. He sneers at Ford's books and the work of Philip on the ground that these efforts are part of the wholesale cautionary measures and 'educative' initiatives not to leave the workers any moment to think inbetween their work times.
The Intellectuals (pp. 5-23)
To Gramsci, all men are intellectuals in that they carry on some form of intellectual activity, however, not all have in society the function of intellectuals. This discrepancy lies in elaboration of the intellectual activity. Then, what is the function of intellectuals? He quotes discussion about new intellectualism in the weekly Ordine Nuovo. In this discussion, the mode of new intellectuals consists in specialization--active participation in practical life--and politicization ('directive')--proceeding from technique-as-work to science and humanistic conception of history. This is 'organic' intellectuals, meaning that they are formed within a social group, in relation to 'traditional' intellectuals, who has no acknowledgment of class formation. The editors note that this perspective contains Gramsci's key ideas of (1) organic intellectuals of the proletariat and (2) the possibility of proletarian cultural hegemony through the work process. The relationship of intellectuals and the world is examined through the superstructures--civil society (private sector) and political society (State). Intellectuals, subordinate of dominant group, exercise the functions of social hegemony through spontaneous consent and political government through legal apparatus of state that coercive power.
On Education (pp. 26-43)
He points out that particularisation in school systems that increasing types of vocational school brought about constitutes the education crisis in his time. By its diversities and distinctions made from the traditional school, it may give the impression of democratic tendency in education, but in fact, it only deteriorated the real democratic order because individuals do not obtain "governing" stratum in a social and political context. First all children do not enter school with the same background--as Bourdieu indicates as "cultural capital"--thus those who are lack of certain assets aligned with the school system do hardly enter the system. He stresses that "child's consciousness is not something individual, it reflects the sector of civil society in which the child participates, and the social relations which are formed within his family, his neighborhood, his village, etc." Secondly, although it is implicit in this writing, the system that creates vocational school and its integration into State is philosophically far from democritization. According to him, each social group create its own types of schools , which contributes to the perpetuation of a specific traditional function, ruling and subordinate. To him, creating intellectuals from the working class is fundamental, but the task is enormous.
Here is his account of technocracy that comes to control both regimes and bureaucracies: "deliberative (having to do with policy) bodies tend to an ever-increasing extent to distinguish their activity into two organic aspects: into the deliberative activity which is their essence, and into technical-cultural activity in which the questions upon which they have to take decisions are first examines by experts and analyzed scientifically. this latter activity has already created a whole bureaucratic body with a new structure; for apart from the specialized departments of experts who prepare the technical material for the deliberative bodies, a second body of functionaries is created--more or less disinterested volunteers, selected variously from industry, from the banks, from finance houses. This is one of the mechanisms by means of which he career bureaucracy eventually came to control the democratic regimes and parliaments; now the mechanism is being organically extended, and is absorbing into its sphere the great specialists of private enterprise, which thus comes to control both regimes and bureaucracies. What is involved is a necessary, organic development which tends to integrate the personnel specialized in the technique of politics with personnel specialized in the concrete problems of administering the essential practical activities of the great an complex national societies of today."(27-28)
Mentioning the collectivism in academic culture that forces norms and particular ways of expressing, he uses the term, "Taylorise" intellectual work (more in Americanism and Fordism).
Political Struggle And Military War
Gramsci argues that political struggle, which is more complex than military war, takes three forms: 'war of movement (i.e. boycott)', 'war of position (i.e. strike)' and 'underground warfare (i.e. secret arms)'. He says while the war of position in politics, once won, is decisive, the war of manoeuvre [I think it is the same as movement] subsists when there is a question of the winning positions which are not decisive. When the balance is lost and only decisive positions are at stake, war occurs.
In opposition to iron economic determinism, Gramsci stresses civil society that "is resistant to the catastrophic incursions of the immediate economic element (crises, depressions, etc.)." Thus, the more advanced the civil society is, the more time is taken for destructive political power to be active and the less likely the civilians, defenders, lose their position or faith.
Internationalism and National Policy
Gramsci summarizes the philosophy of praxis such that "the international situation should be considered in its national aspect. In reality, the internal relations of any nations are the result of a combination which is original (in a certain sense) and unique. To be sure, the line of development is towards internationalism, ut the point of departure is national--and it is from this point of departure that one must begin. Yet the perspective is international and cannot be otherwise." In particular, this logic supports his political idea of the solidarity of the international proletariat class under the direction of international communism. (1933). [This brief but clearly provocative essay throws an analytical groundword for my research: begin with the national but move toward the international as a directive light.]
Problem of the "Collective Man" or of "Social Conformism"
Perpetual educative and formative role of the State, according to Gramsci, is creating new higher types of civilization and turning it and morality of the popular masses to apparatus for economic production, and as a result, new types of humanity evolves. One becomes a collective man and tendency to conformism (standardisation of thoughts and actions) of society spreads. Big factories, Taylorisation, rationalisation, etc. are the economic basis of collective man, he argues. [He also talks about conformism, but it is not clear in this essay.] However, he stresses that the collective man do consent and collaborate, feeling "freedom" instead of coercion through the educative pressure of the State, and finds the apparatus in the 'Law', which includes not only legally natural activities but also the civil society. This civil society, which operates without compulsory obligation, exerts a collective pressure and develops customs, ways of thinking and acting and morality. Within the context, he mentions that the political concept of permanent revolution, which was described in the context of the epoch, where the society is still in a state of fluidity, expanded to the formular of "civil hegemony",where a State prepares a war 'minutely and technically in peacetime'. This is where the power of educative and formative role of the State arises. [A very succinct description of creeping State power that operates in civil society.]
Taylorism and the Mechanization of the Worker
The comparison Gramsci made between medieval copyist and new industrial workers highlights mechanization process of the production. He sneers at Ford's books and the work of Philip on the ground that these efforts are part of the wholesale cautionary measures and 'educative' initiatives not to leave the workers any moment to think inbetween their work times.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Globalization and Discontents
Joseph Stiglitz (2002). NY:W.W.Norton & Company
Stiglitz mentioned that the IMF and the U.S. Treasury, which emphasized information transparency in East Asia during the global financial crisis in 1997-98, were the least transparent he experienced with. Upon his experience, he asserts that the way international institutions such as the IMF influence the world economies is subtle such that it is a matter of a tone of voice, a meeting behind closed doors or a memo after discussions.(preface. pp. ix-xvi)
A new phenomenon in globalization, according to him, is anti-globalization wave in developed countries, which is based on the prevalent awareness that globalization in many developing countries did not bring the promised economic benefits. He supports this idea from a document of World Bank (Global Economic Prospect and the Developing Countries 2000): for the last decade, the number of people in poverty increased by almost 100 millions. The hypocrisy of the Western countries lie in that they push doors of the poor to eliminate barrier while keeping their own closed--in particular Japan and the U.S. The Uruguay Round (1986-1993 concluded by the agreements of 117 countries on trade liberalization and as a result, WTO was formed.), in particular, put the intellectual property right into fire and protected the interests of the producers, concentrated in the developed countries. He argues premature capital market liberalization caused global instability and destroyed job markets in poor countries such that a sense of job security is heightened, if not loss. Nevertheless, "capital market liberalization has been pushed despite the fact that there is no evidence showing it spurs economic growth"(p. 16). IMF, World Bank and WTo are the major international institutions who he states govern the global markets and it is interesting to how he sees these players in this context: "the application of mistaken economic theories would not be such a problem if the end of first colonialism and then communism had not given the IMF and the World Bank the opportunity to greatly expand their respective original mandate, to vastly extend their reach" (p.17) He also maintains the view that globalization can be good and reshaped as long as it is governed well, but a problem he frequently mentions is the way in which the three major players operate somewhat surreptitiously for their own financial interests--it is irony that IMF is run by taxpayers' money but its representatives are mostly directly from corporations--and there is no voice of developing countries although most activities are in the developing world.[He advocates progressive capitalism with certain governmental intervention to compensate market failure.] (pp.3-22).
Stiglitz calls it the colonial mentality or white man's burden that they know what is the best for developing countries. Furthermore, what they know about is solely based on an ideology--market fundamentalism--and they insist on playing a central role in policy making without consideration of local specifics. He presents two examples, Ethiopia and Botswana: while Ethiopia, who relied on the IMF funds, did not achieve sustainable development, let alone encountering a threat of fund cut, Botswana carefully selected advisers from various private sectors and wend through their way. Despite obvious atmosphere of discontents on the policies that the IMF pushed on Korea in 1997, the reason why government officials kept silent publicly was that they were afraid of being judged as "off track" by the IMF and losing opportunities to get funded from the IMF--also note that other access to funds contingent on IMF approval. One hot topic that the IMF imposed on Korea during the supervisory period is pushing further independence of the Central Bank from the government and having it focused on inflation. He argues that this policy reflects a groundless market fundamentalism that the IMF persists with two empirical evidence: there is a general consent that European Central Bank's independence actually exacerbated an economic downturn and also, even in the U.S., Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. central bank, refused to focus on inflation only and took into account employment and growth as well. [The U.S. doesn't have to listen to the IMF, but smaller countries often have no option, but it is a matter of balancing intellectual power to some degree. The IMF is not the only way to choose.] (pp. 23-52)
Stiglitz maintains his light that there are alternative strategies, for instance, land reform not capital market liberalization, competition policies before privatization, job creation along with trade liberalization. "The essence of freedom is the right to make a choice--and to accept the responsibility that comes with it." (pp.53-88)
Stiglitz says, "it became clear that the IMF policies not only exacerbated the ownturns but were partially responsible for the onset: excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis, though mistaken policies on teh part of the countries themselves played a role as well" (pp.89-90). He recalls moments when the crisis in East Asia was about to break out: the IMF and U.S. Treasury began to criticize the countries about corruption, malfunctions, etc. although they were hardly experts. He defines that Fund aid was at the cost of accepting country's economic sovereignty. Even when the IMF calls the end of recovery, the criteria is given to stabilization of interest or exchange rate, however, he argues that there is no true recovery until workers return to their jobs and wages are restored. He continues to argue governments' role in recovering economic crisis and it is bizarre that he states that Korea is an example of the government's intervention, which not only led fast recovery but also could be more competitive in the near future. He mentions that the unemployment was up fourfold in Korea during the crisis. If the recovery was successful, the unemployment should have been reduced now. I do not have statistics, but considering skyrocket inflation, the wages are far from the restoration, I propose. (pp. 89-132).
Stiglitz mentioned that the IMF and the U.S. Treasury, which emphasized information transparency in East Asia during the global financial crisis in 1997-98, were the least transparent he experienced with. Upon his experience, he asserts that the way international institutions such as the IMF influence the world economies is subtle such that it is a matter of a tone of voice, a meeting behind closed doors or a memo after discussions.(preface. pp. ix-xvi)
A new phenomenon in globalization, according to him, is anti-globalization wave in developed countries, which is based on the prevalent awareness that globalization in many developing countries did not bring the promised economic benefits. He supports this idea from a document of World Bank (Global Economic Prospect and the Developing Countries 2000): for the last decade, the number of people in poverty increased by almost 100 millions. The hypocrisy of the Western countries lie in that they push doors of the poor to eliminate barrier while keeping their own closed--in particular Japan and the U.S. The Uruguay Round (1986-1993 concluded by the agreements of 117 countries on trade liberalization and as a result, WTO was formed.), in particular, put the intellectual property right into fire and protected the interests of the producers, concentrated in the developed countries. He argues premature capital market liberalization caused global instability and destroyed job markets in poor countries such that a sense of job security is heightened, if not loss. Nevertheless, "capital market liberalization has been pushed despite the fact that there is no evidence showing it spurs economic growth"(p. 16). IMF, World Bank and WTo are the major international institutions who he states govern the global markets and it is interesting to how he sees these players in this context: "the application of mistaken economic theories would not be such a problem if the end of first colonialism and then communism had not given the IMF and the World Bank the opportunity to greatly expand their respective original mandate, to vastly extend their reach" (p.17) He also maintains the view that globalization can be good and reshaped as long as it is governed well, but a problem he frequently mentions is the way in which the three major players operate somewhat surreptitiously for their own financial interests--it is irony that IMF is run by taxpayers' money but its representatives are mostly directly from corporations--and there is no voice of developing countries although most activities are in the developing world.[He advocates progressive capitalism with certain governmental intervention to compensate market failure.] (pp.3-22).
Stiglitz calls it the colonial mentality or white man's burden that they know what is the best for developing countries. Furthermore, what they know about is solely based on an ideology--market fundamentalism--and they insist on playing a central role in policy making without consideration of local specifics. He presents two examples, Ethiopia and Botswana: while Ethiopia, who relied on the IMF funds, did not achieve sustainable development, let alone encountering a threat of fund cut, Botswana carefully selected advisers from various private sectors and wend through their way. Despite obvious atmosphere of discontents on the policies that the IMF pushed on Korea in 1997, the reason why government officials kept silent publicly was that they were afraid of being judged as "off track" by the IMF and losing opportunities to get funded from the IMF--also note that other access to funds contingent on IMF approval. One hot topic that the IMF imposed on Korea during the supervisory period is pushing further independence of the Central Bank from the government and having it focused on inflation. He argues that this policy reflects a groundless market fundamentalism that the IMF persists with two empirical evidence: there is a general consent that European Central Bank's independence actually exacerbated an economic downturn and also, even in the U.S., Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. central bank, refused to focus on inflation only and took into account employment and growth as well. [The U.S. doesn't have to listen to the IMF, but smaller countries often have no option, but it is a matter of balancing intellectual power to some degree. The IMF is not the only way to choose.] (pp. 23-52)
Stiglitz maintains his light that there are alternative strategies, for instance, land reform not capital market liberalization, competition policies before privatization, job creation along with trade liberalization. "The essence of freedom is the right to make a choice--and to accept the responsibility that comes with it." (pp.53-88)
Stiglitz says, "it became clear that the IMF policies not only exacerbated the ownturns but were partially responsible for the onset: excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis, though mistaken policies on teh part of the countries themselves played a role as well" (pp.89-90). He recalls moments when the crisis in East Asia was about to break out: the IMF and U.S. Treasury began to criticize the countries about corruption, malfunctions, etc. although they were hardly experts. He defines that Fund aid was at the cost of accepting country's economic sovereignty. Even when the IMF calls the end of recovery, the criteria is given to stabilization of interest or exchange rate, however, he argues that there is no true recovery until workers return to their jobs and wages are restored. He continues to argue governments' role in recovering economic crisis and it is bizarre that he states that Korea is an example of the government's intervention, which not only led fast recovery but also could be more competitive in the near future. He mentions that the unemployment was up fourfold in Korea during the crisis. If the recovery was successful, the unemployment should have been reduced now. I do not have statistics, but considering skyrocket inflation, the wages are far from the restoration, I propose. (pp. 89-132).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
