Global Inequalities? So what?

The need to survive is a combination of different elements and characteristics, such as hope, ambition and courage to continue existing. Although the endurance to sustain life can be very difficult to maintain if one lacks the calories, proteins, vitamins, and minerals needed to achieve the essential balance between body and mind. Many individuals are in this situation as a result of global inequalities, caused by the wealthier sector of our global society. Global inequalities is a term that encompasses other subdivisions of this form; world hunger, poverty and child labor. This is an issue that should be looked at and analyzed in a more profound matter, a philosophical perspective would suffice.  As catalysts of global inequalities do we as a society have a moral duty to address this issue and it consequent results, if so do we address them to the best of our ability?

One subdivision of global inequalities is poverty which often triggers subsequent calamities such as world hunger and child labor. Poverty can be divided into two categories: absolute poverty and relative poverty. The poverty we are familiar with “in industrialized nations is relative poverty – meaning that some citizens are poor, relative to the wealth enjoyed by their neighbors”, (Singer, 392). The one that would seem to matter most though is absolute poverty. This is poverty at the very absolute level, “life at the very margin of existence”, (Singer, 392). At this point one realizes that we in fact might have a moral duty, an obligation to assist those in need, especially if we as the wealthier sector are often the cause for this poverty. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening such as poverty than we ought to do it, although this only applies “when nothing comparably significant is at stake”, (Singer, 393). This is where the problem begins people only want to help those in need if it will not affect their personal situation, therefore poverty cannot be exterminated and consequently neither can world hunger.

To further discuss world hunger a stem off of poverty and our responsibility for it, the second philosopher that will be introduced is Robert N. Van Wyk. Van Wyk argues that “wealthy countries may in fact owe reparations to some extent to poorer countries and that we as individuals have a duty to do our fair share to diminish hunger and distress (although their personal ideals may lead them to do more than their fair share)”, (399). As individuals we should try to help achieve the decrease of world hunger, there is one problem though, there is only so much an individual can do. For example if I contribute enough money to provide one child with a meal, there is still another child who is hungry. This situation presents more problems because wouldn’t this then mean that since I have a duty to feed one child, I also have a duty to feed the second, third and fourth child? Helping others can only be done to a certain extent, it is impossible to help every single person because to do so people would have to give up their luxuries and wealth, and there will never be a consensus to do so. Secondly it is argued that “population growth is outstripping food production and also leading both to the depletion of the world’s natural resources and the pollution of the environment”, (Van Wyk, 400). What this means is that if every single person was to be fed and saved, the more misery there would be in the long run. This misery would be due to the fact that all the people being saved would reproduce therefore increasing population and with an increase of population there is an increase for food demand. These food demands would of course not be met making it even more difficult to achieve at least some minimal balance between relative and absolute hunger. Having said this it is safe to assume that our modern society would rather put aside some of their moral concerns about others in order to achieve success and survival themselves.

Survival is almost a reflexive action we as humans perform particularly if we are under poverty and hunger constraints. To be under these two terrible constraints is often what originates child labor. This kind of lucrative labor is mainly beneficial to the corporations or contractors in third world countries such as China and Indonesia. Most of the name brand shoes, shirts and clothes we buy here in America are made in these third world countries, where their workers which most of them can be women and underage children get paid what are often referred to as “starvation wages” and “slave wages”. Now at first glance one might right away object to these conditions and demand that corporations be more sentient towards their employees. This objection would be most reasonable considering that we as the most affluent sector are mostly the ones whom induce these events. This is where philosopher Ian Maitland differs, he argues for the defense of International “sweatshops” (corporations). To support his argument he provides four reasons as to why wages in developing countries or third world countries are morally permissible.

1.      Home –country standards: Even though it seems simple to just go ahead and pay employees higher wages the effects of this action outweighs it perceived benevolence, as it seems to be described by Maitland. If home-country wages by corporations were consistent throughout the whole globe, “they would disrupt the local labor market with artificially high wages that bore no relation to the local standard or cost of living”, (Maitland, 408).

2.      “Living Wage” standard: It has been suggested that corporations should pay their employees wages that “allow the worker to live in dignity as a human being”, (Maitland, 408). This is also referred to as a “living wage”. Now some individuals like De George say that it would be better to provide no job at all then pay less that a living wage. This is where Maitland also differs. He believes it is morally permissible to pay this workers market wages because whether this money a lot or not, it still better than nothing. (So corporations help people in need?)

3.      Donaldson’s Test: Donaldson proposes a test to determine when standards are being no longer ethical. He proposes that the practice is “only permissible if and only if the members of the home country would, under conditions of economic development similar to those of the host country, regard the practice as permissible”, (Maitland, 408). Right away we can see how this approach might be non- efficient as Maitland suggests. This approach contains a major weakness within an ethical code because it sets up managers of corporations for confusion who actually want to act ethically and it provides loopholes for those who do not want to.

4.      Classical liberal standard: According to this standard this would set a wage that is “freely” chosen by informed workers. Well this method also fails because in developing countries where these corporations are at employees might not even have a school education. Also “with massive unemployment, market forces in developing countries drive the unemployed to the jobs they are lucky to land, regardless of safety”, or well informed (Maitland, 408). Any wage that would be freely chosen by the workers may be higher than their local wages and we would not want to disrupt their local economy, would we?

From Ian Maitland’s philosophical point of view it seems that away from deviating from ethical standards corporations are within moral limits and even save people from being unemployed, poverty and in hunger.

            Not only do corporations save people from unemployment but “to downsize a corporation would be morally wrong”, (Orlando, 415). In fact to downsize a corporation would put hardworking employees to go through the emotional and financial hardships of losing their job, according to John Orlando, our last philosopher mentioned. John Orlando argues that it is wrong to close or downsize whole corporations in order to benefit a few shareholders while injuring a greater number of people. “Consider the case where a CEO downsizes under the knowledge that mere news of these layoffs will be greeted favorably by the stock market, and thus cause stock prices to rise…as opposed to the case where downsizing will improve benefits by increasing productivity. Here the very act that harms the workers- loss of their job –itself produces the benefit to shareholders”, (Orlando, 420).  John Orlando even goes on to say that for corporations to downsize would be like using these employees for their own benefits; statement that seems to be a logical fallacy because corporations use individuals as means to their ends regardless of downsizing.

            After having seen different philosophical points of view, two questions might still be in your head: So do we have a moral responsibility to try and decrease global inequalities and if so, do we actually do enough? Well yes, we do have amoral responsibility and yes we actually do enough. We do because in the first place we are the ones that put children to work, we are the ones that contribute to the existence of third world countries and how do we do this, we do it because we are the ones that support the business of corporations by being consumers. Secondly we do, do enough, we do what we can within our limited power; limited power because it is hard to help individuals that are being exploited when their own country allows it for their own benefit. If the home country does not care enough for its citizens then I believe that when a single individual contributes to donations in order to provide a meal for a poor kid that might be starving, he/she is doing in enough. This sounds terrible and it is terrible but it is the reality. If we try to help lessen global inequalities we must realized that its eradication will never be achieved, this is the crude world we are part of existence with. It will not be eradicated because it is due to these workers that we can have such a high standard of living and such affordable prizes to items of name brands (at least speaking within American and European standards).  Global inequalities and the poor people that represent it can be somewhat compared to immigrants which can also be part of global inequalities. Let me explain it is because of immigrant workers that we here in America get the opportunity to buy food specially vegetables and fruits for considerable cheaper prices than in other countries. It is because we pay these immigrant low wages that we can enjoy food at an accessible price, while companies still make profit. Global inequality is a concept interdependent of three subjects; people in need, corporations and consumers.

            To conclude this difficult matter that seems to have no concrete answer I want to leave you with some important thoughts to consider. First of all when do we actually sit down and think about the real important catastrophes that are happening around the world? Instead of worrying about trivial matters like how we could not buy the nice pair of shoes we saw at the mall today. Is it right for a child to lose her/ his innocence and childhood in order to work and provide a meager amount of money to their family, for a wage almost insignificant, from which corporations make huge profits, yet they do not feel remorse for the situations of their employees. If you cannot help personally this injustices of life and social dynamics at least be aware of these situations. Just because you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist. One should be able to look beyond our context, because our context does not represent the whole world. We must be able possessors of sociological imagination (enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals) which allows us to place ourselves in the situations of others, of course it will never be the same to write a paper on it and to actually experience these global inequalities.

Juvenile ≠ Adult

                           At one point in our lives we have all wanted to be treated as adults. What about if you had committed a crime though (and you were still a minor), would you still want to be treated as an adult? In this case you would probably want to go back to being the minor you are. Ultimately circumstances and contexts shift ones views and preferences. For example in Mark Salzman’s, True Notebooks most of these minors committed adult crimes yet they were not ready to face adult consequences and environments (state penitentiaries). If a minor engages in adult crimes and activities he should be treated as an adult, right? – No he/she should not. Treating a juvenile as an adult will forcefully internalize on the minor an image of his/herself as an actual criminal and unwelcome member of society.     

           Before I had read the articles and the book, True Notebooks I had a different concept on juvenile justice: I believed juveniles should be treated as adults. My argument for this was that at a certain age one develops own criteria, therefore one has the choice to pick a delinquency path or try to be a productive member of society. Then I realized this was a selfish point of view. Just because I had chosen not to commit criminal acts, does not mean the other kids committed them for pure fun. Different factors can corner an individual to turn to deviant behavior. Factors that I probably did not experience myself therefore I cannot compare them to me nor can I judge these juveniles since our situations were possibly different. For example I don’t really recall ever being in a situation in which I had nothing to eat, but some of these minors might have been in a situation like that, leading them to steal.  

           Once I read the articles and the book by Mark Salzman my view on juvenile trials and justice was transformed. I analyzed the situation but this time I placed myself in their shoes, after this it was when I decided adults and juveniles are not the same. They are not the same demographically, physically and most important not the same mentally. The mentality of a juvenile “delinquent” can still be changed for the best. While the mentality of an adult criminal is way more difficult to even try to alter it. This is due to the fact that an adult who has practiced crime all their life for let’s say thirty or forty years has a defined identity by now, a criminal identity. On the other hand these adolescents are still trying to construct their identity. To treat a juvenile as an adult has a lot more implications than simply moving a minor from one location to another.  If you treat a juvenile as an adult you will only corrupt the minor and his/her identity even more. Due to the fact that these teenagers once in state penitentiaries will probably have contact with consolidated hard core criminals, therefore putting these minors to through much exposure. If you treat a juvenile as an adult you might be depriving him/her of an honest opportunity to realize the harm of their actions and become a better person. It does no good to try to teach a minor a lesson on bad behavior by surrounding him/her with individuals that only portray this behavior. If you surround a minor with this context it is more likely that once out the minor will “go back to the same environment as before”, as Steve Mitchell states from his experiences at the juvenile facility. 

          Another confounding factor that also changed my view were the personal and emotional descriptions Steve and Mark both had about these juveniles. Within the book Mark shares with the audience free writes written by these youths making the reader feel closer to the conflicts and feelings experienced by these young men. Mark Salzman shows us the human and compassionate side of these “criminals” by portraying their capacity to feel remorse and want of a better life situation. With time and interaction it was inevitable for Salzman to grow fond of these kids and fret for them, “Not only did I miss them, I worried about them. They were somewhere in the adult prison system now, where they would almost surely be targets for abuse and cruelty”, (Salzman, pg. 211). In this same manner Steve Mitchell confesses that his feelings do influence his job, “obviously you get to know them so emotions do present themselves, it’s human nature”.This is true, feelings do present themselves and I speak from personal experience. I had the opportunity to go up to the juvenile hall where Steve Mitchell works and I got the opportunity to talk to this fourteen year old girl and a couple of boys. From these short encounters I could not abstain myself from feeling distressed and desolate, because this might be how these teens feel. When I was talking to this girl, Melissa, she seemed so innocent and pure. She was in there making lanyards, very intricate ones too, how can she be a criminal? Think about it only fourteen years old and she had been in there since she was thirteen, Melissa can still make a productive and happy future for herself. With encouragement and knowledge not only Melissa but all the other teens in there can build brighter futures. I want to volunteer to help these teens, because if “I am not part of the solution I am still part of the problem”.  

          Last but not least I want to mention a fact I found most interesting between Mark Salzman and Steve Mitchell. Mark and Mitchell share views about how a lack of a parent, especially a father, can be a confounding factor for the imprisonment of these teens. One of these cases was that of Frontunto, “Dad why weren’t you there?... not having a fatherly figure I turned to the streets”, (Salzman, pg. 299). Steve also agrees that most of the kids in the Youth Facility “have similar upbringing; a lot of them don’t have dads.

          Even after knowing that some of these juveniles killed, robbed or injured somebody I cannot help to feel compassion and sympathy for them. Why? Because not all of them chose to be involved in gangs for the enjoyment of it. Some just wanted to feel protected and accepted. Others did not really understand what they were really doing, they were too young and one naive mistake now has them in prison for decades. Decades sentenced by a judge, because the system decided to treat these minors as adults, even though juveniles and adults do not equal themselves. An adult has lived more than a minor and usually if you’re an adult and you are still in prison is because you have chosen to define your life as a criminal. Minors should be given a second chance, putting aside our prejudices and reflexive nature to condemn others because they made a mistake.

Code of the Street = Crime?

               
                “The study of deviant behavior is one of the most intriguing yet complex areas of sociology”, (ES.Text, 153). What is deviant behavior though? Well deviance can be described as nonconformity to a given set of norms most people in a society follow. In “Code of the Street”, Elijah Anderson provides the audience with “street oriented” examples of deviance. Anderson uses two major theories to explain the origin of deviance which often leads to crime.
                Interactionist theory states that deviance is socially constructed, meaning that deviance is learned through interaction with others. This is why of all problems having to do with interaction, “none is more pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression”, (Anderson, 171). Through interpersonal violence and aggression, such as when children experience it themselves (or by watching their parents yell or hit each other), it’s when interactionist deviance is socially constructed. Individuals tend to become delinquents by associating with people who are carriers of criminal/ deviant behavior. Parents can be the carrier of these behaviors previously mentioned. A child does not learn how to be violent and aggressive by his own thoughts. Children learn and internalize violent patterns by associating with others whom exhibit criminal actions.  This is also known as differential association. No types of conduct are inherently deviant rather these are socially constructed.
                The Functionalist theory views crime as stemming from tensions in social structures. For example if the aspirations of individuals and groups within a society are not equal to the gratification or rewards available “…the despair can be pervasive enough to spawn an oppositional culture, that of ‘the streets’, (ES. Text, 158). This oppositional culture of “the streets” or “street oriented” opt to deviance/ crime as act of opposition that originates from tensions and inequalities between social structures. Elijah considers two groups within the social structure: the “street oriented” and the “decent” people.
                 Anderson describes how these two social structures are different but also similar. Children raised by “street oriented” parents tend to be defensive; since they are often raised in homes were violence is prevalent. These children grow up with a dog-eat-dog mentality, which in their eyes helps them develop “manhood”. On the other hand “decent” parents try to inculcate good values into their children. For decent parents manhood is having the capacity to turn away from a fight. Even though these two societies seem different they are the same when it comes to self preservation. Even as “decent people try hard to be part of the mainstream culture…depending on the demands of a situation many people, slip back between decent and street behavior”, (Anderson, 183). As hard as “decent” people try to be decent, social tensions force people to adopt street oriented attitudes and behaviors. This attitudes and behaviors become necessary to defend and preserve themselves in a predominant violent society such as the “inner-city life”.
                Poverty, social tensions and inequalities often lead to deviance, which then leads to some form of criminality. Sociologists try to understand why crime and deviant behaviors exist and where they originate from, but they do not often come to a single concise response as to why this problem exists. It is a challenge to stop all deviance, because to do so society would have to get rid of divisions between the rich and the poor. If poverty stopped there would no longer be inequalities within social structures so the violence would stop and children would no longer learn deviance and crime through interaction.

Who is Rose? & Who am I?

         
         In Farmworker’s Daughter: Growing up Mexican in America, we are introduced to the autobiography of Rose Castillo Guilbault. Throughout her story she presents us with her struggles and achievements, while describing the process of adaptation in a new country. All these experiences that these struggles and achievements entail come to shape Rose’s identity, just as they shaped mine. Many agents of socialization or factors contribute to the development of an identity. Rose Castillo’s identity was created by many of the same agents of socialization in with which my identity was formed.

          Considering that one of the first agents of socialization is our parents, one must say family does affect one’s identity. Especially within the stage of primary socialization, which is when an infant starts to adopt the different ideas, attitudes, beliefs and habits parents inculcate to them. Parents define a significant portion of our identities as infants and as adults. Even the lack of a parent greatly influences one. Both Castillo’s identity and mine were greatly influenced by our mothers; therefore our identities are similar. Rose and I both gained qualities from our mothers such as: self-dignity/ autonomy, independence and respect.

          In Rose’s case her primary socialization development was mostly shaped by her mother, Maria Luisa. Given that for a while Rose did not have a parental figure. Within this development, my mother Gloria, too, significantly shaped my infant years, consequently shaping my identity. Just like Maria Luisa became Castillo’s model for self-dignity, my mother, became my model. In the same manner and through the same example Maria taught Rose the importance of self-autonomy, my mom also taught me the value of this. The importance of self-autonomy was greatly illustrated by Rose’s mom when she chooses to stop procuring Mr. Brown, to ensure Rose’s safety. Mr. Brown would get annoyed by Rose’s presence, and Maria Luisa could intuit,   “He would punish her by hitting her…I could never give her that kind of father”, (Guilbault, Castillo 30).

          Geography is another very important agent of socialization. One’s location can be a disadvantage but also an advantage to our identity. This is to say your location can limit your views but it can also be the base that composes your memories, which also give meaning to one’s identity. Rose recalls, “We lived in Nogales, Mexico, a hilly town bordering Nogales, Arizona. But my imagination only recalls Vicam, the small Indian village where my mother and I stayed for long periods of time”, (Guilbault, Castillo 1). It was there, in Vicam where Rose lived as a little girl, along with the Indian Yaquis, from which she learned about their traditions. This was a small, humble town where Rose’s rural identity and rural memories were shaped. Vicam also shaped Castillo’s own traditions and customs. For example the Christmas custom was to celebrate with “posadas- elaborate crèches and los Tres Reyes Magos- The three wise Men”, (Guilbault, Castillo 95). This was in Mexico though once Rose’s location changed by moving to the U.S. (Nogales, Arizona), her customs had to be re-adapted. New customs meant new identity assimilations. Los Tres Reyes Magos were replaced by Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman. Even if Rose and her family felt detached from these customs they had to adapt to them “like polite guests”. Having to adopt a new culture and language seems like a drawback but it does have an advantage. Given the opportunity to reside in two different countries gives one the benefit of constructing a bi-cultural identity.

          I too had to move from Yerbabuena, Jalisco (Mexico), a very remote town, to Redwood City, California. I had to adopt a new language, although never forgetting my own. Even when I felt embarrassed singing the Jingle Bells song in my broken English, at school during Christmas, I still sang it. Just like Rose I did not want to be rude or impolite. It was hard work to learn a new language, but necessity makes you learn it faster. Like Rose I also became very successful in school. Through experience I also had the opportunity of constructing a bi-cultural identity. A bi-cultural identity gives one the opportunity to view life through different perspectives, therefore allowing a more open-minded, tolerant perspective. In a way this could be called sociological imagination. Depending on where you live also determines the kind of friends/ people you will associate with.

Peers/friends an agent of socialization and part of the second socialization stage can also shape one’s identity either positively or negatively. Karen and Erlin, Rose’s friends, became the model that Castillo did not want to follow. These two influenced Rose’s aspirations in a positive way even though they were setting a negative example, by not caring enough about their education. “Hey we’re not intellectuals like you. You know what you want to do. Karen Sue and I, we just don’t any burning passion to study one thing or another”, (Guilbault, Castillo

         Rose and I both wanted an education the difference is that she already received her education/ career and I am still in the process of obtaining it. Even though my friend’s do not really seem to influence my choices or identity, they are still an important part of my social context.

Becoming independent, introverted, extroverted, conformist or persistent are all aspects of an identity influenced by family, geography, and friends. Sometimes though, your family is only composed of one parent alone, hence the case of Rose and I. For a while my mom was my only friend, the only one that would not exclude me because I could not speak English. My mom was the only one that understood the significance of my tears, when I came home from school. Maria Luisa did not always have the right thing to say to Rose but she was always there, and her presence was enough to reassure Rose. My mom did not always have the right answers either, but she always told me, “the sacrifice you are making will be worthwhile, mija’. Now I see that my struggles just like Roses paid off well and the exclusion and uneasiness we felt was only temporary, but our solid identities are permanent. 

What makes Identity?

An identity is not innate. An individual is not biologically
born with an identity, this is not a gene. An identity has to be formed through
the individual’s consciousness of his/her interactions with others. A social
process is required in which primary socialization is needed to develop a sense
of social self and self consciousness, thus creating an identity.

In Mind, Self, and Society: The Self and the Organism, by George
Herbert Mead, he states that the social process of creating a complete self
includes communication and understanding of others. “The self, as that which can
be an object to itself, is essentially a social structure, and it arises in
social experience”, (Mead). Social experience refers to the interaction between
the individual and others. This social experience is also acquired through
primary socialization. This is the socialization “an individual undergoes in
childhood through which he becomes a member of society”, according to Berger and
Luckmann in The Internalization of Society.

Once primary socialization is acquired, comes secondary
socialization. In this process “already socialized individual is inducted into
new sectors of the world of his society”, (Berger and Luckmann). Although
sometimes within this world of the individual’s society he/she becomes to feel
trapped. This feeling calls for the need of sociological imagination. “To be
aware of the idea of social structure and to use it with sensibility is to be
capable of tracing such linkages among a variety of milleux… to possess
sociological imagination”, as C. Wright Mills describes it in The Sociological
Imagination. Let’s elaborate, sociological imagination allows the individual to
have the capacity to shift from one perspective to another. In this way,
individual can feel he/she has options, not just context or stage they find
themselves in.

By placing individuals in new sectors the opportunity for more
interaction, communication and understanding among others is possible. These
three aspects of socializing are very important since it is through interaction,
communication and understanding of others that an identity starts to be shaped
and formed and consequently “finalized”. Different people and different stages
in the life of an individual help the formation of his/her identity.

As humans we all go through stages. These stages help us create
a sense of “social self and self consciousness”, as Giddens and Duneier describe
in Essentials of Sociology. “The ‘I’ is the unsocialized infant a bundle of
spontaneous wants and desires. The ‘Me’ as Mead is used the term, is the social
self”, (Giddens and Duneier). Note that there is a transition in language from
‘I’ to ‘Me’, suggesting transition through stages of childhood and then to
maturity. This transition hints to the culmination of an identity/self. The
individual gains concept of self consciousness.

The amalgamations of different factors (family, school,
relationships, and work) contribute to the creation of an identity, according to
the authors previously mentioned. These factors just noted may also be called
agents of socialization. “Agents of socialization are groups or social contexts
in which significant processes of socialization occur”, (Giddens and Duneier).
The agents of socialization are part of the social process such as; primary
socialization and the complete achievement of self consciousness. This is to say
individuals create and “finalize” their identity by becoming as others see them.