Final Reflective Essay

Terrorism, Globalization and Social Justice: An Overview

In Globalization, Terrorism and Social Justice I have learned and unlearned a various amount of information. To start with, I came with many ideas which I was actually very ignorant about; the habit of thinking within the box. However, through inquiry and the use of bracketing, I was able to research and allow new ideas to flow in. I took a critical look at the information I was given and applied it to my life. One of the reoccurring themes in this course was the idea of social justice. Social justice is the equality that can take place for different individuals or groups in society. It enables the equal distribution of rights, opportunities and resources between people. Social justice is a reconstruction of society in order to recognize and eliminate the injustices within it. The people in our society should be guaranteed the same rights as others. However, society is not perfect. Perfection is impossible without objective and subjective change.

To make an extrinsic change, we must understand it on an intrinsic level and acknowledge the amount of impact it has; the sociological imagination. Sociological imagination is the “capacity, ability, [and] quality of mind that allows an individual to understand and connect her or his life with the forces and dynamics that impact it”. What began as a mere definition became an idea that greatly affected my frame of thought. From it, I have learned how important it is that we recognize and accept ideas such as human diversity, limitations and opportunities imposed upon us. It exemplifies how the actions we take on a personal level, can have a societal affect on other individuals. We must remember that we are not only affected on a local level, but also on a global scale; the global sociological imagination. The Global Sociological Imagination is the ability and state of mind that allows individuals to understand and incorporate his/her life to external forces that impact it. It is a topic which needs to be understood, accepted, and utilized for the good of the global society. However, there are times when the realization of the global sociological imagination can have a negative impact on other people.

An example of this negative impact would be the act of terrorism. Terrorism is violence perpetrated in order to reach certain socially motivated goals. Terrorists find no limitation in what extent they may go to attain their objective; terrorism is the only feasible option. Their aim, to influence the general public view, their actions, warlike. After this course I am able to view terrorism in a new light, a sociological perspective. Entering this class, I believed that terrorists were in inherently bad people, they committed acts of violence for their own sick pleasure. However, through the sociological perspective I have unlearned such notions and have learned that to one person these acts are considered criminal and claim the perpetrator a terrorist. To another, this person is fighting for a right, they are dealing with an injustice in society the best they can and in actuality are freedom fighters. Yes, there is always more than one side to a story; many like to claim there are two sides. However, in my opinion, there are always three sides to a story; one side, the opposing side, and the truth. Each side holds its own perspective and each has the capability to mislead people with information. I believe it is up to us to debunk the information we receive, look at both sides objectively and subjectively, not succumb to any pressures and find an understanding, the truth. This understanding and the ideas behind social justice are not just ideas you read about in a book. These ideas need to be put into action in order to realise and feel the impact they have on us on an individual and global scale.

The knowledge gained in this class proved to be very vital to who I am as an individual and how I understand social beings and the social world. I would like to thank you Charles for all that you have done this semester. I do feel you are making change semester by semester and am looking forward to taking more classes with you in the future. Society is ever changing. We have the power to provide change on an external level when we can change within ourselves, on an internal level. When we are ready to do just that, is when society will come to the brink of positive change. 

Video Response

“Nickel and Dimed”

Paraphrastic Response

This video is based around the themes of capitalism. It discusses the impact of the power elite on the working class. According to this video, the poverty stricken working class struggles to make ends meet. The social injustice that people face on a daily basis are overshadowed by the successes of the elitist. Due to the profit driven nature of the elite class, the working class is forced to work at miniumum wage on tedious tasks. The nature of the relationship between the proletariart and the bourgeiousie is based on the traits of superiority and inferiority.  The elite acknowledge and apply their supremacy over the workers and undermine them by failing to appreciate their efforts.

“The comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor”

As quoted by Voltaire and also presented in this video, this quote stood to me almost as a epiphany. The value of the meaning behind this quote helped me put into perspective the animalistic nature of capitalism. A lot of the time after watching videos we don’t take much from them; we have the tendency to simply forget about them and move on. However, when looking back at the video’s watched in class, this quote stood out in particular. The reality of the quote is astonishing. Before watching this video I would not have realised that the rich depend on the working class to be where they are. Due to the ideologies placed within society about the luxurious life and the need to attain more, the working class is given the possibility, albeit nearly impossible, that they to can recieve the comfort of the rich. However, in reality, the more the labourers work, the more they spend the richer the rich get. The elitist have control over buying power, and due to this power they are able to attain higher positions and continue to exploit workers.

Video Response

“The Danger of a Single Story”

Personal Reflections

After watching the danger of a single story, the realization came upon me that the social construction of our society installs a sense vulnerability within our subjective self. What we hear about from our peers and read about in books begins to shape our ideologies. As social beings we become naive and believe anything we see and/or hear. Evidently, we become accustomed to the information we are fed and begin lose the critical component of our thinking. This critical thinking we should inhibit enables to see right from wrong and to see the legitimate from the unreasonable; however we lose this sense of intellectual thinking.

Chimamanda Adichie addresses issues she herself experienced growing up. Due to the fact that Adichie was only exposed to Americanized books, she only had one perspective of life out there. Travelling to America she had come across many opinions of her motherland, Africa. To many, Africa was simply known as a jungle full of animals and chaos. Americans believed the ‘so-called’ bewildered nature of Africa rubbed off on the citizens as well and they were seen in an animalistic light. These beliefs shocked Adichie completely. A woman who had never seen a lion in front of her eyes was believed to live in the ‘jungle.’ After reading books about her heritage and her surroundings, she understood this cycle of understanding and ‘single stories,’ and could finally write about her own reality, what she believed to be the truth.

Adichie focused in on the idea that everyone has a ‘single story.’ From what people experience in their lives, comes their take on reality; therefore leading them to have certain beliefs and certain stories to call their own. This young woman also had her own ‘single story.’ When she first arrived in America, she did not only come with suitcases, but also her own views and evidently her own stereotypes. She had certain beliefs which she had evoked on the people she came across. For example, she was constructed to view Mexicans as people who jumped over the borders to get into the United States. After viewing this video, it has come to my attention that we, as social beings, are vulnerable to the manipulation of information which we consider valid. We are so easily persuaded by the stories we hear and fail to see that things are not always what they seem. Just because we read something in a book or magazine, hear something on the news or on a personal level does not give it legitamacy.

In my own personal experience I too have come across the repercussions of a one sided story. Being born into a Punjabi family comes with people following certain stereotypes of my ethnicity and heritage. When I was younger I had many friends awkwardly mention arranged marriages. Many would ask me if I to were going to have an arranged marriage. I was shocked that this is the view they had on me and my family. My parents had always encouraged me and my siblings to find and marry for love; arranged marriage wasn’t even a question. It was surprising that people would assume this because this is what they ‘heard’ or saw in the movies.

Video Response

“Army of God”

Personal Reflections

This video presents an introduction to an HBO show on a low level fundamentalist terrorist group; The Army of God. The AOG seems to be a product of the detriments felt by certain individuals after the ruling for abortion laws were passed. These individuals were prolife and were radically against abortion. They took part in highly publicized acts of terrorism varying from simple acts such as super gluing clinic doors shut to building explosives to kidnapping doctors and seriously injuring and/or killing them.

Many experts believe the group “is not so much an organization” but more of “a shared set of ideas and enemies; these ideas being “pro life.” However, after watching this video I feel this group of people, in fact, highly contradict themselves. A terrorist group who is against abortion, against the killing of babies, against the killing of the human race, is conveying their message by murdering doctors? This seems quite ridiculous in my opinion. A prolife group should find more self-enhancing tactics to distribute their message. The tactics they are taking make a grand statement about the group itself; it portrays them in a negative light. The topic of abortion is a very touchy topic, without stating whether I am for or against abortion, I would just like to say a group who has good intentions, saving unborn babies, is taking the wrong road in order to be taken seriously, by killing other people. As quoted on their website, the idea that “kil[ing] one [to] spare a thousand,” is unjust. If a group is prolife, they have no other choice but to be against any kind of murdering of any human being, whether it is an unborn baby or a grown individual.

In order to stand for something, something one believes is unjust, we cannot carry out other unjust acts in order to get a point across. To kill an unborn child is murder, to kill a grown human being is also murder. A group who stand against the killing of unborn babies, yet takes it upon themselves to murder the doctors who take part in such activity, has an ideology that is based around a web of contradiction. This group cannot be taken seriously, unless it moves away from its destructive ways. There is a difference between making a public statement, to make a difference and hurting someone to make a difference. I believe if somebody has good intentions to change something in society that in unfair, they must go about this change in a peaceful and affective manner.

Class Discussions

Lecture 4: One Person’s Terrorist is Another Person’s Freedom Fighter

Affective Response

Terrorism is defined as violent actions taken against certain forces or governing bodies in order to relay a message. People take part in warlike tactics against non-military populations. The actions carried out by individuals and/or organizations use violent methods in order to influence the general public view and attain political aims. However, we must also consider that there are always more than one side of a story. Typically people believe there are two sides, yet, it has come to my attention that in reality there are three sides; one view, the opposing view, and the truth. One side may believe that these acts of violence and opposition are in itself terrorism. People are destroying societies in order to relay a message. These people will go about using different forms of violence and intimidation tactics for the pursuit of political aims. What they are doing is unjust, extreme, and completely wrong. However, the opposing view sees these acts of violence to be justified. Individuals living within the society may believe that these so called “terrorists” are, in actuality, fighting for their rights. These ‘terrorists’ truly are not terrorists. Instead, they hold a graven image; they are heroes. An individual who puts his or her own life at risk for the good of the people is nothing but a hero to them. This person should be worshiped; they are evidently this society’s freedom fighter. If it wasn’t for this individual the society they live in and the people that reside in it would continue to be oppressed by a higher authority. The third and final view, the truth, is a more touchy topic and more difficult to determine. The truth relies on looking at both sides of the story, placing yourself in their shoes and making a decision based on an unbiased opinion. Once we can understand why a person does what he or she does, what he or she gains from it, and what she feels with or without the fight helps to determine their true intentions. These  intentions then allow us to see what is actually just and unjust. So there we have it, what one person may consider a terrorist may actually be the hero of other. Although some may declare certain individuals to be wrong, it does not mean they are immoral. It is in fact our responsibility to not succumb to societies pressures and make any rash decisions. But rather, we must view all sides of a situation to truly understand the truth behind it.

Class Discussions

Lecture 1B: Free Will v. Determinism, Good v. Evil

Dialectic Response

What questions did this lecture raise?	How did this lecture define these questions?	How do these answers match my own ideas and experience?
Are we captains of the ships our destinies or victims of circumstances? Are we inherently evil or are do we possess good within ourselves but can be influenced to take upon evil acts?	Free Will is the idea that we are the constructors of our own lives and our own destinies. We have agency, autonomy, independence and most importantly individuality. “You have no one to blame, but yourself” and “you can be anything you want to be” are some of the ideas people who are for free will go by. On the other hand we have Determinism. Determinism is the doctrine that we are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. We are at the mercy of powerful forces beyond our control. Human beings are powerless; they are dependent on others and are constrained in their actions and choices. The idea of determinism also falls into the hands of fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable. We believe such things as: “the fault in not in us, but in our stars” and “the devil made me do it.” What we do, who we are, is predetermined, it is destiny and it is fate.	“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will,” a quote by former Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In my opinion, the situations we find ourselves are in fact pre-determined. We are placed in a particular place and a particular time for a reason. As a society we all come across similar instances in which we are given the choice, or the free will, to make the decision we deem correct. Many individuals find themselves in situations in which they are able to make the wrong decisions. For example, take part in a hate crime. If we had an individual of Indian decent placed in an urbanized Caucasian society, there would be a high likelihood that this individual may face the ramifications of racism. However, it is also evident that people have the ability to make the right choices. We are not inherently evil; the way we go about making our decisions shapes who we are. We must consider that the decisions we make are highly affected by the social construction of reality. We find ourselves attaching meaning though social interaction with others. Our subjective views deter our objective reality. Our culture, history, political and economic sphere are all influenced by our experiences and internal beliefs. We are almost programmed to think and act a certain way. It is how we take that knowledge and apply it to our everyday life that can help detach of us from the assumption that we are inherently evil. If our free will and agency allow us to react to the pre-determined situations in our lives in a positive manner, we can see that we are in control of our destinies and that we have good intentions. However, if we make the decision to take part in wrong-doings, we can see that we are still in control of our destinies, yet, we can be evil.

Class Discussions

Lecture 1: The Obvious

 Affective Response

Peter Berger’s definition of the Obvious includes 4 different premises. Firstly, things are not always what they seem. What we are given on a visual level may not give all information of the object and/or person on a subjective level.  What we receive on a personal level does not hold the true intrinsic value of what we are give. Secondly, what seems to be obvious is only the first step in analyzing what is truly going on. Something we can easily perceive and understand, what seems to be clear and evident may not be so. Seemingly obviously objects or situations or the sort, is only the first step in the determining of reality. What we believe to be common sense may actually be a distorted version of the actuality of it. Thirdly, social reality turns out to have many layers of meaning. When we discover the different layers, each layer changes the perception of the whole.  So what seems to be something, may be something completely different. What was once obvious is only a clue into the true meaning. As we discover new meanings and new layers, we then are experiencing the full perspective of this object. Lastly, Society is seen as a facade. What we see on the surface level is a front, it conceals the inner truth behind the idea/object/person at hand. When we take time to look past the ‘obvious’ and surface realities of the inhabitants of our social world, then we can see and acknowledge the truth of the situation. “All that glitters is not gold.” This aphorism, on a literal level, shares that everything we see that shines is not as valuable as gold. On a symbolic level, we can see that in life the things we come across are not always what they seem to be. Sometimes we are deceived by physical attributes and may be mislead into believing certain ideas. We can apply these ideas of the “obvious,” into our everyday lives, and our society itself. To be more specific, we may believe a certain group of people are terrorists due to the way they look, due to the culture they reside from, and because of the actions of other people who are their “kind.” However, it is up to us to take what seems to be obvious and unravel the full truth and the real objective and more importantly subjective reality. As we unravel the mysteries behind certain prejudices and stereotypes, we can see that each individual is different. Just because of is one bad apple in the tree, does not give anyone the right to claim the apple tree is poisonous. It is up to the people who reside in our society to refute certain ego and ethnocentric views and realize that just because people belong to a certain group of people, does not make them good or bad without any further investigation.