New Keyword: Boundary

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term boundary is used to indicate the bounds or limits of anything material or immaterial; also the limit itself. A boundary is not limited to physical structures such as borders and fences that may divide private properties from public areas or to delineate territories such as state and nation boarders, but it also represents the limits of how we can interact, intermingle with each other and the way in which we categorize the world, such type of boundaries are known as symbolic boundaries. According to sociologist Michele Lamont, symbolic boundaries are the types of lines that individuals draw when they categorize people; they are ways in which people distinguish themselves from others and ways in which people group various elements in their environment. Concrete examples of these types of boundaries include categories such as sexuality, race, gender, and class. Currently, these types of symbolic boundaries are being continually stretched and expanded, reforming and reshaping our social world.


As mentioned above, there are physical boundaries which are visible to the naked eyes, such as walls and fences that may divide countries and states. Yet we must remember that even such physical structures are based upon arbitrary labeling of what a “boundary” is or where the boundary lies. For example, the “line” or “boundary” that divides California and Mexico is arbitrarily assigned. In order for the public to recognize or view boarders as more natural, actual lines, walls or fences are constructed to represent the boundaries. Yet, these boundaries are constantly contested as has been illustrated by unauthorized immigrations.

On a more theoretical level, individuals who choose to illegally migrate, crossing nation boundaries without state consent may view such land boundaries differently. As illegal immigrants generally are from poorer environments, nation boundaries act as a boarder that separates them from opportunity, wealth or even freedom. Through this light, the idea of boundaries, even the physical structures of it, becomes more complex and multifunctional. It acts both as a territorial divider and a barrier to some people.

Continuing on along the lines of symbolic boundaries, we can look on the issue of sexual boundaries. Today, views on sexuality are more visible, more audible, and more ambiguous and stretched out than ever before. This is signified by the recent establishment of gay marriage in California. The norm of heterosexuality is being contested by gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and bisexuals who are now “coming out of the closet” to fight to be accepted by the public. By extending the right of civil union to homosexuals, California leaders have shown that the boundary for sexuality has expanded and had become less rigid.

Moving along similar progressive lines, racial boundaries are also being contested and stretched and is signified through increasing interracial marriages and relationships. At one point in our history, people of different “race” were bounded from to engage in a romantic relationship. Today, we have come to a point where people freely date and fall in love with individuals of different skin color; race is no longer a boundary that separates people, at least not by law.

Another symbolic boundary which has significantly shifted is that of gender boundaries. Women can now compete with men at virtually equal levels for anything from the business world to sports; they are no longer domestically bounded. As gender differences are now being consolidated and blended, the boundary that separates men and women has become decentralized. Perhaps Hilary Clinton’s brave move to become a presidential candidate as a prime example of the shift of women’s role from the domestic realm into political, professional and various other areas which men have dominated.

As boundaries can be shifted left or right, it can also be moved back to its previous location. Boundaries, whether tangent and physical or invisible and symbolic, is a divider that is continuously changing, fluctuating back and forth. Our time may show the stretching and deconstruction of boundaries to break down oppression, but future generations may experience another shift in boundaries. I believe that we have all tried to identify and cross boundaries in one way or another through out this course. Whether it is the through the discussion on race, gender or Wall-e we have repeatedly attempted to define the boundary that divides right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate, humor from offense or the point where something becomes oppressive or dangerous to a group. Thus, continue to ask what the limit is or what the threshold is and then set out to test your own boundaries.

The sky is the limit.

Lamont, Michele. Money, Morals and Manners: the Cuture of the French and American Upper Class. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London

help?!

I have been thinking about this final assignment for the past week and after going through various possible terms to write about such as "shit", "organic" and "kinship". I have decided upon the term "boundary". I chose this word based upon various class discussions which we have had. The looming question that we seem to have ended each class with has been -- what is the limit or what is the line or threshold, how far can we push things? Thus, I think that the term boundary is very relevant to what has developed in our class discussions and to our society at the moment. These societal issues which I am referring to are issues like marriage boundary (it being extended to homosexuals), class boundaries, race boundaries, gender boundaries, technology boundaries and so on. We normally see think of boundary as clear physical boarders that divides things. However, there are invisible boundaries that you can not see yet has shape our lives and produce consequences that are very apparent and to the eyes (i.e. poverty, way women and men dresses...).


Please let me know if this is a good idea and I am open to any suggestions as to how I can go about describing this key term.

judge judy, myspace and writing

Today’s class discussion about myspace reminds me of an episode of Judge Judy that I saw last year. In this particular episode, an elderly woman was suing her son’s friend for “slandering” her on his myspace blog. Apparently, the mother had done something that came out as b****y to the young friend, so he vented his anger on his blog in which he used various curse words to describe her. Her son read the blog entry and told his mother about it and she ended up suing the friend who posted the entry.

Aside from being tremendously ridiculous, this case was humorous as well, we can really try to sue anyone for anything these days! On a heavier note, the case really made me think of the boundaries of privacy. Can we really have privacy, especially in the vast network of internet? Sure, we can set our blogs and space pages on private but as long as we are linked to another person, friends can always expose our pages to outsiders. Perhaps this issue of privacy working online was one of my biggest concerns about the format of the class at the beginning. I am a pretty timid and quiet person and am honestly very self conscious and insecure about my writing, thus the idea of twenty plus other students reading my essays unnerved me. During my first couple entries I wrote and rewrote my entries four to five times, or until I got lazy, before posting it; I normally don’t even reread my papers, I rely on spell check and friends to help me do the needed revisions. However, the online blog entries forces me to self correct and revise, and I am beginning to enjoy this newly develop habit. Additionally, I have developed an appreciation for critiques from others.Another aspect of the course design is that we can use images to illustrate our written ideas and thoughts without going through the hassles of having to do presentations.

This class has forced me to become more comfortable with comparing my work to another student's work and thereby has taught me to look for alternative writing styles. I believe that this is a skill that will be very useful in the future. Furthermore, writing blogs and reading other people's blog has made me realize that my audience don't all think alike, thus pushing me to be more careful and aware of my audiences when expressing my opinions through my writing. I really enjoyed the Keyword book, it has contributed new meanings to words which I thought i knew through and through. Before this class I did not know how to start a blog, least of all maintain one, you can be assured that I have learned more than this in the past six weeks.

humor and pictures

Ashley’s post about her boyfriend, Jeff, caught my attention instantaneously for several reasons. One is that my friend’s mother had an aneurism yesterday and is currently on life-support so I am feeling uneasy about hospitals, and think that hospital scenes should be treated with seriousness. Of course, this is only a thought because my friend’s mother is in such a critical condition. At the same time, I also realize, as we discussed in class, that humor can be used to debunk stereotypes and discrimination, and to deal with tough times— but can humor also be used to deal with devastating and traumatic situations such as a mother’s death? In such as case, is it even appropriate to laugh or try to make people laugh as a “coping” method? I guess, I am throwing out the same question which many other class members developed during our class conversation which is, where is the line of “appropriateness” for humor drawn? Personally, I have a strong support for people such as David Chappelle, George Lopez and the other minorities who do use humor to show how ridiculous racialized stereotypes are and to deal with their oppression as discriminated minorities. However, I am uneasy with the idea of using humor to cope with the death of a loved one, especially a mother – would it really hurt to shed a tear or two for the woman who carried you for nine months?

Secondly, the image of Jeff with two thumbs up while hovering over an elderly man with tubes running in and out of him is very unnerving – it is almost as if he is celebrating the man’s near death condition. However, as Ashley’s post explains, the young man is merely showing his joy over the fact that the elderly gentleman has survived a dangerous surgery. I guess what this image really reminds me that even pictures can lie and that we should not judge books by their covers. But, can an image really lie? In a sense is an image not the most honest thing since it just ? They always say that a picture is worth thousand words, perhaps the meaning behind this clichés is that a picture has a thousand stories behind it, and each viewer can take the image of what they see and interpret it in their own way.

Boy or Girl?

For some people, the hardest part about this post assignment may have been trying to figure out what exactly they want to take a picture of, for me it was this and figuring out how to get the darn picture onto the this blog page. After thinking long and hard, I decided to use a picture of my pet Shih Tzu, Brownie, that I snapped a while back. As we have been discussing gender roles and gender typing in class, I would like the readers to guess the gender of my dog and why you think the dog is a he or she.

Although deciding which picture to use was difficult, taking the picture was easy. I came home from my 8:00pm class a few weeks ago and there the dog was, running around, with a cute little bow on it’s forehead to hold up the bangs that was blocking it’s eyes. It was just so cute that I had to take a picture, who would have known that it would come into use. However, loading the picture from the camera into my laptop so I can upload it onto this page was a difficult and frustrating task. I felt very technologically ignorant during this process. For some reason I thought that I had to eject the memory card and stick it into a computer outlet. So I ejected the memory card, but could not find a place on my laptop to put it into! I seriously looked like a cave woman trying to figure out what the heck this metal and plastic device of a thing was while I was looking in every corner of my laptop for a outlet to fit the memory card, especially since it was about 6am in the morning and my hair had been ruffled and tangled by sleep. And then it hit me, that’s right, it took almost a whole 5 minutes for me to figure out that I needed a USB wire, that came with the camera, to connect the camera to the computer so I can load the pictures onto my computer in order for me to upload it onto this blog. So now, after my long frustrating work, there is a picture or my dog on the top of this blog entry.

As I have mentioned in the first paragraph, our class has been discussing gender roles and gender stereotypes and various other types of grouping in class. Looking at the picture, many of people, including myself, would conclude that the dog is a she because of the bow. This bow has been socially constructed to symbolize “female” or “girl” accessories, generally used by “girls”. The fact that the bow is blue may suggest that the owner likes blue or that the owner of the dog does not want the dog to be too feminine, thus, it has a bow, but in a slightly more masculine color, so it’s not a sissy dog. According to stereotyping and generalization, then, one would assume that the dog is a girl. This would not be a wrong assumption if all stereotype and generalizations were true, however since we know that stereotypes and generalizations can be wrong, this can also be false. How then can you distinguish the sex of the dog? Another type of grouping the dog into the binary gender system people has created is by the name. Well, the dog’s name is Brownie. This is a fairly gender neutral name, like Bailey, Kelly and Gene. Thus, what does one do when all the characteristics in which society as constructed as “female” or “male” seems neutral or is ambiguous?

As negative and isolating it may be for us, socially driven creatures, to distinguish and group people, does it not make life more convenient to do so. For example, you would not have to wonder whether Brownie is a boy or girl.Sometimes grouping people can be dangerous, especially in cases which grouping is done with the intention of victimizing people, as Rick as mentioned in class. However, grouping also organizes life and helps society advance, generalizing and assigning certain characteristics to certain gender helps people interact with other because in reality, we don’t have time to go around asking people, what is your gender or are you boy or girl. But then, if we don’t have a system of genderdizing or grouping people, we would not have to ask such questions. Would this be a better life style? Would such world be more “equal”? Or are conflict, tension, difference and hierarchy inevitable elements among social creatures? I am not sure what the world be like if there were no set or shared symbols and grouping. I would imagine life would be very difficult, how would traffic be?! Would we even progress this far? For those who are still reading this post, Brownie is a boy.

Asian as Subculture group?

As I read through the old postings of my classmates, I found a lot of interesting and insightful posts. I may not share the same point of view as everyone, but I do understand why they may think in such manner. However, as an Asian American who was and still a member of, I guess what Warren called, an “Asian subculture” group, I felt a ting of being different in an “abnormal” fashion when he stated: There are so many subcultural groups everywhere you go. Many are considered different from each other. In high school I remember how segregated it was between groups of people with different interests. I don’t want to sound cliché, but here is a small list of groups: “emo”, goths, jocks, “nerds”, hipsters, Asian, etc. I found it funny how Asians were a group of their own with no apparent similar interests, just the fact that they share a common culture/race.
First off, putting Asian on the list of “emo”, “goths”, “jocks” and “nerds” has somehow made me feel belittle as an Asian. It makes me feel as if my race group is similar to that of these often outcaste groups, as if being Asian is abnormal or what not. Maybe I am reading too much into it and Warren is simply trying to make a point that Asians, being that they share similar cultures and beliefs, has created their own subculture groups. But then he states that “Asians were a group of their own with no apparent similar interests”. Perhaps, the situation is different in my schools, but I feel that I share more than just being “Asian” with my gang of Asian friends. We shared a similar culture, Confucius beliefs, an immigrant history, a minority status and a sense of being excluded one point or another. More so than anything else, my group of Asian friends helped me develop an Asian American identity in a school environment that showed little appreciation to Asians and their contribution to our country and an environment that teaches the normality of being Caucasian American. Additionally, there are many Asian groups, not just one, each group with their own special subculture. There were the “ghetto”, but super genius Asian boys who smoked under the pine tree,the rice car boys, the “preppy” Asian kids, and the newly immigrated Asians, to name a few. I guess, I do not think that being Asian qualifies the group as a “subculture”; rather it is the experience, belief, interest and practice that the Asian subgroups shared that created a bond for their subgroup to develop.
As we do not call groups that are comprised of Caucasians only, a subculture for no apparent shared interest other than their whiteness, we should not call Asian groups subculture simply because of their race. I strongly oppose the idea that Asian “subculture” groups or any seemingly race base groups, forms simply because they share the same race, instead the similar experience of discrimination or similar upbringing due to their shared race is what bonds them. I apologize for seeming redundant, however I just want to make clear that Asian subcultures may not be form merely on the grounds of Asian race, rather it is the entire identity of that race which embodies experience, belief, interest that acts as the “similar interest” and the glue of the group.

Above is a clip of Tim Wise’s speech for affirmative action during an Intelligence Square debate about affirmative action. Although Wise’s compassion and enthusiasm towards equality is very evident in his body language and facial expressions, I think that one should observe through listening more so than looking while viewing the clip – the message is much more clear.



Listening to Wise’s arguments for affirmative action reminded me of the discussion of race and difference that the class has been engaging in this passed week. The way which Wise has laid out the various forms of “affirmative action” for non-minorities in our country’s past and present, compared to the “affirmative action” that were available to ethnic minorities in recent history and the different type of public support for them makes me think of how people responds to labels. Because what Wise calls “affirmative action for Whites” usually are not labeled “affirmative action” but rather comes in the forms of “Federal Housing Act” or “Homestead Acts” it is largely supported by the public and has little to no negative connotations. However, as Wise has argued, the privileges and perks of these acts are exclusive to only “Whites”, thus it is very much like an affirmative action for non-ethnic minorities. Yet, the mass public did not voice complaints of the inequality that are inherent in these particular acts. On the other hand, when the Affirmative Action Act was established in the 90s, providing perks that were available only to minorities, there was a great number of opposition from the non-minority population as well as some from the minority populations. Until today, many people are antagonistic towards the affirmative action for minorities. I wonder then, would the responses to the Federal Housing Act been different if it were titled “Affirmative Action for Whites: FHA”, even more so, I wonder if the general public would see “affirmative action” the same way. That is, would they see is as negative and unequal acts that are excluding privileges to one ethnic/racial group as they see affirmative action for minorities? Does label really make a difference in the way we see and judge things?

This is an advertisement opposing cigarettes, the usage of smoking and the selling of cigarettes. It is a picture of an enormous, cigarette stick that is about six feet in length and a foot or two in diameter, which has either landed on or simply weighed downed on top of a small, light copper toned hatch back (I am not too familiar with cars but it looks like an old model of a Toyota hatch back). There is a red sign with white wording that is comparing the number of deaths caused by car accidents to the total deaths caused by cigarettes in that particular year that is leaning against the midway of the body of the car, right under the giant cigarette . As in any add, there are fine prints at the bottom of the advertisement, however, due to the fineness of the prints, we are unable to make out the words. The automobile looks pretty outdated and wheels seem rusted but the car's exterior seems very clean. There is not other damage other than the huge indent on the roof and front window of the driver’s side where the cigarette has seemingly landed on first. You can see a yellow “police” tape through the window of the driver’s side, denoting that automobile is immobilized. Purposefully, the car is placed in a business, inner city environment, directly in front of a set of stairs that leads to a cement building; perhaps this is the front of a cigarette corporation. Behind the car, there are small businesses, one that is called “777”. There are no people or any traces of broken windows around the car; the only damage is caused by the cigarette.

It is clear that the advertisement is suggesting smoking kills. The number of death caused by car accidents is shadowed by the huge number of deaths caused by cigarettes. Because the sign is red, this message is implied to be a danger alert. Car accidents seem to be the cause of death which most people are familiar with, thus, juxtaposing the death toll between car accidents and cigarette smoking gives people an idea of how dangerous smoking is-- it kills more people than car accidents! Cigarettes may be physically small, but the damages are huge and heavy. So much so that it can put an end to or stops a person’s mobilization—it can literally stop you dead in your track, which this add implies with numbers and damage of the car which is a source of mobilization for hundreds and millions of people.

Chem 194 Circle

This is an observation I made a while ago:

As most students who has ever taken class in Chem194 or walked by the building when lecture lets out, are aware of, it can be pretty hectic and crowded in that particular circle. Pedestrians, bikers, buses, skateboarders, and everyone or anyone trying to make their way from one class to another seem to travel around or through this circle. After an embarrassing accident that I had during my freshman year in which I fell off my bike after colliding into another bike, I’ve always tried to avoid the Chem 194 circle, but whenever I do cross that path, in particular when the lecture in Chem 194 lets out, I stop and observe the traffic flow. It always amazes me that not once did anyone else manage to collide with another person whether they are biking or walking, during the many occasions which I did observe it; everyone seem to always make it through perfectly fine. The hoards of students from the Chemistry building that holds up to four hundred students pouring out and those students rushing on foot, some on bikes to their next class, the dozens of other students trying to get to the silo for lunch and the bus passing and bikers trying to speed their way to class all the while talking on their cell phone and no one, not a single person collides into another. What is more amazing is that there is no stop light to direct the traffic and only a few ever stops while biking around the circle, everyone just continuously bikes or walk for the most part, yet I have yet to observe any collision. I guess my point is, everyone who passes this circle is always in a rush and the circle gets so jammed up sometimes that it seems as if here is the point of Diasporas of those travelers. Although it is but for a few seconds, people who passes the circle comes together and work together to get through safely and then spreads out to their own destination. Whether it is the students from the Chem building or other students making their way to another class, some how everyone comes together for a few short seconds, meet at one point in the circle and moves on, and everything just flows.

Howard Dean is Human

Howard Dean is human. Having lost his image in a presidential campaign years ago, Dean has become the laughing stock among many political communities and the general public. The act of expressing one’s emotions is only natural for human beings, but for some reason, if our (prospective) President or public leaders display it, it is bad. In reality, however, will an outburst of raw and true emotions during a rally indicate that he cannot lead a country? Howard Dean was scorned for acting the way he did, but he was merely showing his enthusiasm and vigor for the presidential race. Unfortunately, many people read his excitement as “uncontrolled” emotions or as “craziness” even though it is perfectly normal for people laugh and make hand gestures to show enthusiasm. Have image and superficial actions superseded merit and personality? Does society want our leaders to be so controlled that they cannot display their raw emotions? Does society only want to see a front, a superficial cover that portrays our prospective leaders? Sure, I understand that we need a calm and cool individual leading the country, but to judge Howard Dean’s ability to stay calm or lead base on display of excitement public rally is absolutely ludicrous. He shows a side of his true personality and the minute that he did he was rejected. I guess, the world is simply a stage and we are all but mere players with our own exits and entrances.

His-Story

If it is in the text, it must be true. This is the mindset that many people have, and it is the way of thinking that our education system is instilling in students nationwide. However, as many of us have come to realize, not everything written, even if it is done so in stone, is true, or is the truth. History or any telling of an occurrence, whether it is oral or written, is just that, his-story, it is the perspective of someone, of a single person or some people. Yet, student throughout the country is being taught that this one perspective is what really happened, that nothing else could have occurred or it could not have happened any other way. For example, as mentioned in class, the newer generation in Germany does not believe that the Holocaust actually took place and do not believe that it did because they were never told that is happened. On the other hand, people who were educated and socialized in areas where they were told and taught the story of the Holocaust can not be convinced, even by God himself, that this atrocity did not take place. Thus, next time we cite something from a text, we should really access the truthfulness of the evidence which we are using to support our claims.

Consumption Function

In class, we discussed the negative and possible positive aspects of consumption in the ways people in our society fulfill or not fulfill their wants through comparing wants and desires to need. Conclusively several of us have suggested that consumption created a superficial need of a sort, creating a blurred line between “want” and “need”. Take fashion and clothing for example. Some people actually spend hundreds of dollars on a pair of jeans--hundreds, not twenty or forty dollars but hundreds. I know for a fact that human beings do not need a hundred dollar pair of pants to survive; in fact, some people would argue that we do not need clothes at all. Why then, do so many people feel the necessity to buy Seven© jeans, or True Religion© jeans if they can do without it? Has the “want” of yesterday become the “need” of today? In many ways I think it has. People from other part of the world may say “Americans, why do they have to have electric cars when feet are the most environmental friendly and economic source of transportation”. However, to just function and be a part of our society, individuals need certain material that may seem as superficial or unnecessary, like cars and even certain type of clothes. These things may not be the basic human needs to survive, but because they are tools that can be used to navigate through the world and because the worth and value of people has become based on possessions of these things, they become indirectly essential for survival. Consumption, the wide availability of commodities, and the changing values of people in society has transformed some “wants” to “needs”.

Dramas, Dramas, Dramas

I love watching dramas. Daytime soaps, Korean Dramas, Taiwanese Dramas, Thai Dramas -- I love them all. Thus, instead of being productive as I intended to be, I found myself in front of my desktop streaming Youtube videos yesterday afternoon. After three hours of gluing my eyes to my monitor, I finally left to get a drink of water. Well, partly also because I’ve surfed through every popular series I could find online. As I was drinking water, I wondered why I waste my time watching these dramas. They all have the same formula: guy meets girl, they fall in love but are separated by a misunderstanding which is often caused by a third wheel and/or family members. Somehow, in the end, they resolve the issues and live happily ever after, or in some cases either the guy or girl dies from a terminal disease such as leukemia. Sure, most of the dramas, especially the Asian ones, often teach morals and ethics to the audience, but aside from this and love, there is really not much else to gain. Why then do I anxiously return home every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday after work to check for updates of drama series if it’s the same old storyline? I can’t be the only person who feels this way, I mean, I visited forums which contains the exact same speculations. Dramas can be and generally are predictable, formulaic and terribly cheesy. But why is it that I find it hard to make time for homework, but I can always squeeze in a quick drama? What’s so entertaining about predictability? Honestly, sometimes I don’t even watch it for entertainment; I just watch it for the sake of watching it.
It is not peer pressure, I don't do it to fit in with others. On top of that, there are not that many people at Davis who are addicted to dramas and I do not feel pressured to do it. It certainly is an addiction though, I miss it terribly if I don’t watch it for a long period time. Have I become so intellectually lazy that I can be satisfied with such simple and formulaic entertainment? Furthermore, what aspect of my life and my society is not formulaic or predictable, is it really just me or has society as a whole “dumbed down," or rather, become less intellectually active?

Capitalism and friends

My group has decided that after defining our own term, we would somehow explain why our keyword is connected to or related to the other four terms. Since we selected the keywords based on the theme of economy and capitalism, we felt that there had to be a degree of relativism between capitalism, economy, marginal, welfare and class. In my opinion there is a clear relationship between these five words.
As mentioned in my previous page, capitalism is often thought of as an economic system. When asked about economy, the term capitalism and money are the first few thoughts that would arise in my mind, I can safely assume that it is the same for the majority of Americans. Thus, there is a direct relationship between these two keywords in that one makes up the other. I had difficulty trying to link marginal and capitalism. To be marginal means to be on the boundary or borderlines in reference to the center. The text explains the center to be the power and the further away from the center the lesser power. In terms of capitalism, those who have control or have capitals and resources are concentrated in the center, those who have little or no capitals are marginalized; they are barely surviving on the boundary. Those who are marginalized are those who occupy the lower class. Class is a stratification, or ranking system base on socioeconomic status. The more capital one has, the higher their class is and the closer to the center they will be which translates into more power and control. Lastly, welfare can be related in terms of the stigmatization of poverty and low class which accompanies welfare, as mentioned by one of my group members. Although welfare refers to the wellbeing of the population, however, today welfare is highly stigmatized. When people think of welfare, they tend to think of poor and lazy people.
Perhaps this group project and the course text have taught me that we can not simply define a word as it is “just” this or “just” that. A term as commonly used as capitalism captures so many endless meanings. It is not clear to me what I am supposed to take from this project, to understand the terms? Is it to enhance our vocabulary and to better understand a term which we think we understood already? Or is it to learn how to be random and creative in the ways we think about everyday things. If these were the goals of the task, then I believe I have achieved it.

Capitalism

The housing and economic crisis which our country is experiencing at the moment has struck fear in many American households. Many, like me, are reminded of the great depression which swept through America in the 1930s. As I was learning about the Great Depression in my Social Welfare class this past quarter, I could not help but think that if the government had intervened at an earlier stage, would the depression progressed into such devastating stage? The White House staff were well aware of the thousands of Americans who were starving and suffering from the famines across the nation. Yet, the President who was Herbert Hoover at the time, refused to distribute direct government aid. Rather, he laid the country’s future in the hands of the free market system, or as it is commonly called, capitalism; believing that the market will fix itself and the country will recover from the depression. After all, capitalism is believed to be the “one best way.” Of course, the market “bounced” back, but the social condition continued to suffer.
After reading and rereading the keyword capitalism nearly a dozen times in order to make an understanding of why any leader or individual would base the future and lives of millions on a market system even though there is urgent and clear signs of intervention needed, I have to conclude that I cannot give a singular meaning for the word for capitalism. Some things are more complicated than what first comes to the eyes, and capitalism is one of these “things.” I have heard capitalism used in several different ways, however it has mainly been used to refer to the market or economic system, I believe this is the definition that the majority would agree with. However, as stated in Keywords, for some individuals, the term capitalism is thought of as a class conflict, others may see it as a political arrangement – there is no singular meaning or definition since it is such a contradicting word.
When President FDR began his term, he established numerous governmental programs in order to resolve the social and economic problems. I believe that without these social programs the economy would not have “bounced” back, I really question the capability of capitalism to fix all social and economic problems. Now that history seems to be repeating itself, what should our government do? Should we wait for capitalism to “fix” the economy or should the government intervene in distributing social welfare?

getting the text

Buying books for classes is always frustrating; today's experience was no different. Like several students who were in class this morning, I rushed over to the bookstore after class to purchase the required text. Upon arrival, I stood in line to wait for a locker (this is typically a dreadful routine during the school year since the line can be very long) to find out, several minutes later, that it was not necessary to put our bags in a locker. I was a little irritated that they did not inform us earlier but I brushed it off and proceeded down the stairways to get the book. Once I found the "UWP101" section, I walked over and scanned the shelves for the text. A student from the class walked over and joined me in the search for the book. A few minutes later another student came by. After a short conversation about the necessity of the bookstore to order more copies we went our ways. On my way towards the stairway I caught sight of the book in the arms of another student. I asked her if her copy was the last one. She said no and pointed me towards the shelf that I can find the book; who would have thought that a UWP101 book would be shelved under ENG3! I was a little frustrated but was glad that it was cheaper than the expected price so I once again forgave the bookstore staff for being unorganized. Hopefully the other students who were searching for the book found it as well. I really like the concept of the text since I’ve always wondered where certain words originated. I only hope the course will not be as difficult to grasp as the task of purchasing the text.