OHHHHHHHHHHHBEEEEESSSSE

Perhaps one of the most obvious dieses that have populated the global population is one that has existed even in the ancient times. However, globalization has been propagated as one of the main culprit as it has changed the diet of the modern society. Alternatively, it has also instigated the world wide realization that such a problem is becoming a major health hazard so much so that if not rectified, it might actually do real harm to the modern society world-wide. Yes, I am taking about the phenomenon of obesity!  

How is globalization linked to obesity? For one, globalization is alternatively known as McDonalization due to the hundreds and thousands of McDonalds springing up world-wide. Without fail, every modern city inherently has one it in. In fact, it has become a status of modernity (along with all others fast food joints) for most countries. Countries that do not have these joints were deemed as backwards thus often occupying the status of third world country. Through my observation (albeit internet-wise), countries like Laos and Vietnam do not have a single McDonalds. Already, these countries are not as economically prosperous as other countries thus this further supports the thesis mentioned.

In has been observed that majority of the obese people reside in modernized countries. In America alone, there is 33.3 % and 35.3% of its male and female (respectively) population[i] were obese. Though they can be considered a minority amongst the entire population, those numbers reflects on the harrowing population of the obese. Furthermore, America is the current leader of all modern state in economic sense (since the success of a country is mainly measure on economic aspect anyway). The term fast food joints were also invented in America which saw the birth of many which has since franchised globally.

This point was clearly depicted in the movie, “Super Size Me”, which saw Morgan Spurlock going through 30 days of a McDonald’s diet. He made his point when he himself indeed put on weight to the point of harming his health. This phenomenon is not only restricted to only America but also other modern countries where such joints reside harmlessly within short distance of residence areas. [ii]

Singapore isn’t spare since the inception of these joints (which has since become another social institution in its own rights) since 1967 when McDonalds opened its stores world-wide. Though relatively farfetched, it has indeed increased the number of the obese since then. Perhaps the main reason as to why consumption at such joints was because it was an American fast food joint. Their ideal of progress (which is linked to their economic success thanks to modernization in accordance to American standards) has materialized by patronizing such joints.

 This is an interesting fact but it has been empirically proven that one in three Singaporeans are indeed obese[iii]. It got so bad that the government has to step in to prevent such global phenomenon from settling down in the Singaporean society.

The government has included steps such as the inception of TAF (Trim and Fit) Programmes in schools. By targeting this institution, it is hoping to educate the future Singaporeans about obesity thus preventing obesity from become a major health problem in Singapore.

Its military isn’t spared as well. In fact, it is the only country which has a training doctrine which is solely catered to the obese. This came in the form of Eagle Company in Basic Military Training School 1 where severely obese recruits undergo 6 months of Basic Training instead of the normal 3. This includes intensive physical training which is progressively increased to aid the recruits to prepare them for further military trainings and also hoping to educate them about the problems of obesity.

Though globalization has taken away some sovereignty of the nation-states, it has other means to regain control. That is, to fight the good fight against obesity.

---

[i] Department of Health Services http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/

[ii] Super Size Me (2004) Morgan Spurlock, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/

[iii]Singapore takes strict steps against obesity Overweight kids singled out for extra exercise in school

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6124732/

E ARGH PEE

Traffic congestion has long been a significant problem of all urbanized countries. This is evident especially during ‘rush hour’ which happens twice a day where people are commuting either to or from work. It is hard to avoid such phenomenon unless one lives and work at the same place. However, this is not to be.

Urbanization called for the spatial division between place of work, living and leisure. This took place even in the ancient city of Rome and transcended upon the design of any modern city. The spatial division was called on so as to organize the city better to enhance the efficiency of running the city by the authorities. Such idea is better known as gridding.

With gridding, the need for roads also took place. This would enhance commuting between places thus adding to the efficiency of running the city. The city has also been separated between sectors of residence, sectors for commerce, sector for industry etc. Obvious reason would be that air pollution caused by the factories would not affect the other sectors (residence for example) as they are often situated far from each other.

As a result, the need to commute became an increasingly big problem every day. Cities such as Bangkok often result in huge jams which could last for hour. Thus, workers eventually get to work late or if not, they would simply rise up early enough hoping to escape the perils of rush hour. Either way, the standard of living of the urbanites is largely affected because they are not able to enjoy the quality of life (lack of sleep) that urbanization had promised. They were also affected by the air pollution caused by the number of vehicles on the road.

Singapore is not excluded from this.. However, its government had taken measures to curb this issue. One of its foremost policies was to raise the prices of cars by increasing the taxes at an incredible sum. Thus, cars in Singapore were priced around 200% more than those found in other countries. In addition to that, drivers had to pay other fees such as pricey road. However, this didn’t work well as the standard of living of Singaporeans was constantly improving along with their spending power. Hence, such price obstacles were of little effect.

Thus, the government implemented the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system in September 1998 to further curb the jams that were mainly caused by vehicles going into the CBD[i]. This is a good policy in a sense that it actually deterred drivers from driving into the CBD thus eliminating the issue of a traffic jam every morning and evening. While so, it also fuelled of other social implications.

One of the social implications was that it actually created a system of class stratification. Because of it is expensive ($2.50, New Bridge Road gantry)[ii] especially during peak hours, it actually made the class division further to those who can drive (upper class) and those who couldn’t afford to (lower class).

In addition to that, many jobs were also affected. Delivery drivers and also despatch riders (not forgetting the taxi drivers) also had to content with this issue as well as they too had to travel into the CBD to make deliveries or pick up passengers(for taxi drivers). However, this only implicated a higher cost for the companies that they were worked for and often, these companies do not want to foot the bill of this new (annoying) contraception. Thus, their jobs were affected to.

While the Singapore government is constantly trying to come up with new ways to curb the traffic jams in Singapore, its policy had also affected the lives of many as well despite the fact that its main purpose was to improve the standard of living. However, with many drivers now opting to take public transport instead, it has actually caused massive human traffic jams in public transport(such as the MRT) as people are actually crammed in like a can of sardines. Thus, there isn’t much comfort in the process of commuting there.

The rush hour will continually be a problem that needs to be solved as this is one of the greatest bane that urbanization has ever contributed to society: the need to commute.

---

[i] Electronic road pricing in Singapore Road & Transport Research,  Dec 1999  by Luk, J Y Khttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_/ai_n8875414

 [ii]http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/ERP_Rates.html

The tool

Democracy has been the longstanding ideal of an ideology since its introduction to the ‘free’ world. All else that was introduced was viewed as an abomination. The result was the cold war where Democracy, which was the ideology to ‘freedom’, fought against Communism which seemingly in the eyes of Democracy is an ideology of oppression. This was fought through a series of proxy wars in South-East Asia, the Middle East and probably other regions, but never where the fighters of each ideology originated from; especially democracy’s. Therein, itself, unfolds the terrible truth. Democracy is just a tool of the powerful to maintain control over others.
What about communism? Certainly, it is also a tool of oppression. Being in its crudest form, it sets out as a centrally control nation-state to achieve goals in different aspects such as econmoic, military, socially etc. This however, is sanctioned by a goverened body who viewed it as the most efficient method to run the state. Clearly, looking at the economic status of these communist states, it didnt quite achieve the intended results. USSR was made the picture of the clearence of communism.
Democracy henceforth became a noble ideology as to free the people that are oppressed under a tyrant democracy. It promised prosperity to those who adopted it’s ideals. It promised equal rights for all- their voices(of disagreement and agreement) would be heard. Basically, it promised everything that communism couldnt achieve- freedom. This very fact is one of the reasons why american troops are in Iraq today: to free the oppressed people from their tyrant, Sadaam Hussein, though this has no relation to communism. Truly, did the Iraqis really needed it? If so, then why is there so much violence going on in that country? Violence that is directed towards the ousting of the “forces of freedom”.
Noticably, proxy wars are not fought near the countries of ideological trajectory origin. Vietname is so far away from USA, yet it was contested just so to protect key economic interest in the region. Middle-eastern countries too were the same, but they contained a very valube resource: oil. Thus, it can be seen that democracy was fighting communism not because of its key idea: Equality. Rather, it was for economics.
Though the USA is democratic country, it is one of the countries that has a rather high poverty rate. The social class inequality there is very great too. As a result, young children have improper education they badly needed to free themselves from their current state(as normally assumed). Adults do not have the capital to run their own business, be it a small one, or any other means to elevate themselves out of their state of poverty.
Democracy was termed by the Athenians as rule by the people. However, the only power that people have in deciding the state of matters is to vote for a representatives. Often, these representatives will present similar ideas to the voters just to garner their support. Once they are in office, they simply would want to pursue their own agendas: staying in office. And they would take great pains to achieve this; even if it means that they cant represent their voters.
 These paragraphs shown clearly how democracy is merely a tool used by the powerful. It clearly illustrated how it would be used to fight wars that did not even affect the population of that nation-state directly. The powerful also stayed in power by keeping the ‘inferior’ the way they are. In a great sense, it is just a tool as much as communism to keep the powerful, well, powerful.

Is it what it seems?

Bertand Russell once said, “war does not determine who’s right- only who’s left”. Indeed, it does. War more often than not leaves a trail of devastation in its aftermath to all those that is involved. Unfortunately, this also affects the non-combatants as well.

Why do people go to war? Many often justify this question by saying that they do it because they want to help a weaker state. That would be a more definite answer to the involvement of American troops in the two world wars. And so it seems that being in a war is alright as long as one believes what he does is right. Unfortunately, that is not to be the latent functions of it all. It seems that dominance, extension of one’s boundaries, ideals and more recently, economic power seems to be the underlying, unexpressed factors that countries like America decided to go to war.

In my encounter with American troops on a bilateral exercise, my curiosity led me to asking them why they are involved in the Iraqi war. They often gave the same reply saying that they are there to help the Iraqi people who have been oppressed by Dictator Saadam Hussein. They want to inculcate the values of democracy hoping that it would free their lives. And every single soldier I asked gave an almost similar response. Perhaps, they have been socialized into this as their superiors have gotten them to internalize these values.

These soldiers signed up for this noble mission of theirs for one particular event: 9/11. This is the overall response that I received when I asked them as to why they signed up in the first place. Many of the soldiers that I have interacted with happen to be “veterans” of Iraqi Freedom. In fact, they happened to be one of the first few when that operation began. Nationalism seemed to have spurred them into action. The collapse of the World Trade Centre seemed to pull Americans together, pulling its young into the ranks to fight a war that is far away from its own land.

As it has been observed in the previous major conflicts around the war, the last war that was fought on American soil was probably the American Civil war from 1861 till 1865. However, the next wars onwards were fought on foreign soils. None of the effects of war ever reached their lands. But why did conflicts affect their actions and decision to enter the war?

One of the main arguments that conspiracy theorist have constructed would be the American government’s interest of economic might. It has been theorized that the presence of WMD in Iraqi was doctored just so that they could convince the international community that their invasion of Iraq was justifiable. However, the conspiracy theory is that they were just in it for the oil. They also could possible gain a new market for the American companies. It has been noted that financially and economically, the year that they entered the war was such a good one. They were in it for the economic gain so it seems.

Did they really want to eliminate these WMDs to protect the world’s populace? Did they want to free the Iraqis from their oppressor? Possibly, maybe they are just another oppressor since they want to instil their ideals of democracy into the people of Iraq. Evidence indeed has shown that every war that the Americans went to benefitted them tremendously. World war two brought them out of a slump that the great depression put them in. Hence, a new war, Operation Iraqi freedom could possibly bring them out of a financial deficit (by the trillions) that the cold war has brought them? Perhaps that is the case. After all, anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

Bertand Russell once said, “war does not determine who’s right- only who’s left”. Indeed, it does. War more often than not leaves a trail of devastation in its aftermath to all those that is involved. Unfortunately, this also affects the non-combatants as well.

Why do people go to war? Many often justify this question by saying that they do it because they want to help a weaker state. That would be a more definite answer to the involvement of American troops in the two world wars. And so it seems that being in a war is alright as long as one believes what he does is right. Unfortunately, that is not to be the latent functions of it all. It seems that dominance, extension of one’s boundaries, ideals and more recently, economic power seems to be the underlying, unexpressed factors that countries like America decided to go to war.

In my encounter with American troops on a bilateral exercise, my curiosity led me to asking them why they are involved in the Iraqi war. They often gave the same reply saying that they are there to help the Iraqi people who have been oppressed by Dictator Saadam Hussein. They want to inculcate the values of democracy hoping that it would free their lives. And every single soldier I asked gave an almost similar response. Perhaps, they have been socialized into this as their superiors have gotten them to internalize these values.

These soldiers signed up for this noble mission of theirs for one particular event: 9/11. This is the overall response that I received when I asked them as to why they signed up in the first place. Many of the soldiers that I have interacted with happen to be “veterans” of Iraqi Freedom. In fact, they happened to be one of the first few when that operation began. Nationalism seemed to have spurred them into action. The collapse of the World Trade Centre seemed to pull Americans together, pulling its young into the ranks to fight a war that is far away from its own land.

As it has been observed in the previous major conflicts around the war, the last war that was fought on American soil was probably the American Civil war from 1861 till 1865. However, the next wars onwards were fought on foreign soils. None of the effects of war ever reached their lands. But why did conflicts affect their actions and decision to enter the war?

One of the main arguments that conspiracy theorist have constructed would be the American government’s interest of economic might. It has been theorized that the presence of WMD in Iraqi was doctored just so that they could convince the international community that their invasion of Iraq was justifiable. However, the conspiracy theory is that they were just in it for the oil. They also could possible gain a new market for the American companies. It has been noted that financially and economically, the year that they entered the war was such a good one. They were in it for the economic gain so it seems.

Did they really want to eliminate these WMDs to protect the world’s populace? Did they want to free the Iraqis from their oppressor? Possibly, maybe they are just another oppressor since they want to instil their ideals of democracy into the people of Iraq. Evidence indeed has shown that every war that the Americans went to benefitted them tremendously. World war two brought them out of a slump that the great depression put them in. Hence, a new war, Operation Iraqi freedom could possibly bring them out of a financial deficit (by the trillions) that the cold war has brought them? Perhaps that is the case. After all, anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

the great bruhaha!

The not so recent tariff hike of 21% of Singapore’s electricity bills has sparked off fierced debates amongst the local society. It was seen as the government’s act to further increase its national reserves. Several satirical aritcles has mentioned it as the government’s way of supporting the pay rise for it’s ministers. However, if taken from a different perspective, it might lead to several different opinions: to cut down of the consumption of electricy which is generated from the consistent burning of petroleum.

Before the hike, the Singapore governmetn has indeed implemented several policies to curb the increase of electricity consumption of it’s population. The fact that Singapore has been termed as the ‘air-con nation’ severly perpetuates the government’s view that Singaporeans are consuming too much electricty for their own comfort. Singaporeans cannot be blamed for their utilising of airconditioners as it is a rather hot and humid place to live in. The airconditioner indeed serves its purpose to provide relieve from this environment of some sort. However, this serves to right the discourse that society treates ecology in the manner that it has to be exploited for the betterment for human growth or survival.

Besides this seemingly ridiculous act by the government, it has indeed played its part of highlighting the need to save the environment. Policies such as the recyling campaign where an animated rubbish bin emphasized the need to reduce, reuse and recycle has appered on our television screen several times is probably a nostalgic moment for many of us now. But this rather soft approach has taken almost minimal effect on the Singaporean society. Perhaps, the recent tariff hike might serve as a better impact towards Singaporean which would otherwise serve as a purpose to the betterment of the government (and its ministers)Of course this does not go without due criticism. The use of media too would have probably generated as much pollution (from the generating of electricty and newspapers) as the high consumption of electricty.

On the global scale, OPEC has also decided to cut down on its production of oil ( this is termed as such even though they might just be merely suck oil from the ground) so that the prices of oil would not drop any lower than it already has. Though it might serve them better than anyone else, in the long run, perhaps the latent function of this otherwise capitalisitic act would be clearer. Agreeing to my first point, it might actually add up to save our planet. How does this all add up? Firstly, there would be lesser production of oil which, most probably, might lead to a lower consumption of products made from that resource (due to the increased prices). This might lead to less oil being dug up ( the resource might last longer) and the effect of the pollution might also probably reduce (lesser emmision from vehicles). However, such statements will just merely remain as such until the human society realizes such functions. Afterall, resources from the earth that are extracted daily from the earth are not just mere economic comodities that we can exploit for our economic gains, they are also our source of livelihoods (literally)

Perhaps, more awareness could be generated to aid this function. Till then, the earth (along the rest of the organism living on it) might just be heading towards an amargeddon that has been instigated by ourselves (an irony since that is something that we are working so hard to avoid). In accordance to Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six (its a book), hopefully, an elitist group would not conspire to terminate the entire global populace just to achieve this goal.

Perhaps, fire should be founded in the first place?

Greek Fire

Perhaps, the most difficult form of technology that has yet to be replicated is the Greek Fire. Used by the Greek navy, it would usually burn the ship (that’s affected)down with no way of saving it. Infact, its horror came from the fact that the more that one tries to extinguish it with water (that’s what the ship is surrounded by anyway), to bigger it gets. Instead of controlling the situation, it gets out of hand. In other words, the mould becomes a mountain- a very hot one indeed.

Look around! Everything that one sees is like greek fire. The more one tries to extinguish the development of technology, the bigger and better (and badder) it becomes. There is simply no stopping it. Technology (what has become to know of it) is intertwined to our lives. Imagine if one’s mobile phone is to be taken away. That person wouldnt simply be able to survive in any society. Not even those in developing countries. That is how dependent the individual is to technology.

One does have to wonder? Why the dependedcy? What causes all this? Is there a way to revert all this back? Technology which is one of the forthcoming institutions which has been shaping the society is in fact shaped by the very society itself. Without other social institutions, scientific knowledge wont be taught, research won’t be funded nor legislated. Education, political and economic institutions are very base which technology are born from. But, why? Well, it is simply to benefit the society through the service of convinience.

Think of it! What technology has not been invented with the idea of convenience in mind? Planes, trains, cars, the telephone, computers and the list simply goes on. They were all invented with the big picture of a futuristic life! And this consisted of flying cars ( planes and cars become one thus labeling their former forms as obsolete) or teleportation ( cutting down the troubles of a lengthy journey). Indeed is the power of convience that has erorded one’s mind thus eliminiating the bodily funcitons one by one (think WALL.E).

This however might lead to consequences that one wanted to avoid when the invention of such technology was taught of in the first place. Already, there the rampant problem of pollution that is running riot on earth: causing the earth’s natural ecology system to destabilize. The earth’s temperature is rising, causing the ice caps to melt thus raising the sea level. On the bright side, perhaps this is why thinkers had a flying car in mind. This might result in a highly destabilized society as people no longer have large spaces to live and have to cramp together in dense urban areas. It is only a matter of some unhappiness to spark of the fuel of packed populace into a chaotic frenzy. Not so convenient now after all huh?

The Greek Fire is not so different at all. It was, indeed, invented on the basis of convenience. Instead of boarding the enemy ship to fight ( it might get a lot of them killed), instead, they would light up a jar containing an unusual mixture and then throw it onto the enemy ship. It starts out as a small fire, one that causes the enemy to laugh at the Greeks for their incompetentness( thus lowering their guards). But once they tried to extinguish the fire with water, then they realized the sort of problem they are in.

Thus, technology would only benefit those who invented them because they invented them with their own convenience in mind. The Greeks did it, so did other inventors. The others simply benefited from using these new found technology to their own benefits. This was what they taught, because the way they used it, is causing more harm then benefits. And the more the tired to solve these problems, the more problems are being created by their actions. This is like Greek Fire.

Taxi!!!

Perhaps, one of the most interesting jobs that were “invented” out of urbanization is the taxi driver. Although it may seem insignificant, those who are in this line are as important to many of us as much as that of a doctor.

Urbanization brought the increase of commuting. In the agrarian societies, people just lived on their lands as most of the societies had subsistence farming as a source to provide them with their daily food needs. However, as industrialization loomed over, many flocked to the cities in search of the promise of better jobs in the factories. Population of the cities boomed and it only increased as the industrial revolution swept the world. This invented the ideology that projected a better standard of living for many. How? Well, the jobs in the factories ‘promised’ wages that the individual can use to obtain a better standard of living. Jobs in the cities were often seen as a method of upward social mobility.

Urbanization gave birth to both inter-city and intra-city commuting. It is much a common sight to see people travelling to and fro work in the morning and evening respectively. As observed in Singapore (this is also common in other cities in the world), people no longer lived at the place they work unlike those in the agrarian societies. Urbanization created a spatial distinction between places of work, the home and also places of leisure. Thus, commuting from one place to another became a large part of our daily lives.

Walking from one place to another (especially tens of kilometres each day) was too troublesome for anyone. This can be seen in ancient times where only the rich resided in the cities because they could afford horses and other modes of transportation if they needed to go somewhere. However, those who couldn’t, namely the poor, stayed on their lands and survived on subsistence farming only. Even if they did travel, they would walk.

This can be conceptualized into the modern concept through the observation that only the rich or well –off are able to afford cars for their own travelling means. However, those who couldn’t afford cars had to find alternative means of commuting. With the creating of spatial division, people had to travel from their home to their work place on a daily basis. The rickshaw (or bechak) was one of the earliest forms of taxi in Singapore. In fact, it also existed in since ancient times. Ancient cities such as China had the rickshaw while Venice had its gondola along with many others.

What prompted for the creation of such an occupation? Well, the need to commute within the cities itself. While it was viewed as a form of luxury to travel in one back then, nowadays, it is quite reasonably priced to travel I one back then. While in can be seen that travelling in one is one of great convenience, it is really a sign that people want to isolate themselves from the rest of society. People still take the taxi despite the fact that Singapore has one of the most excellent public transport systems in the world. Everywhere is within walking distance either from MRT stations or bus stops.

People who own cars too have their functions. The manifest function of it is for the convenience of commuting. On the other hand, its latent function is also to isolate themselves from the rest of the society whilst commuting (this can be observed widely today). The taxi is no different. In fact, it was on this very basis that more taxi companies sprung up recently as the demand for taxi increased. People no longer want to travel with others; they just want to do it comfortably in their own stride.

Whose side are you on?

Despite this fact being made known time and time again, i still want to begin with the fact that September 11th, 2001 changed forever how we would see one another again. Perspective of others changed tremendously with the heightened state of security as the result of the fear that has been deeply embedded into us. A fear that translates into a fact that at any time, we could be victims of a terrorist attack.

Putting that aside, many questions were asked the wake of that attack. Who are these terrorists? What is a terrorist? Why do these terrorists do what they do? What did the people of America do to deserve such a tragedy? There were probably many other questions asked by the citizens of that nation. But the above-mentioned questions were probably one of the few main ones asked by many.

Analysts shortly came on air to “analyse and discuss” about the tragedy. Many did so willingly, some even appeared enthusiastic about giving their two cents worth despite the fact that over 4000 of their fellow citizens had just perished.

Answers that was given slowly shaped the identity of the terrorist. Hence, the identity or perception that people had towards terrorist were socially constructed by the “intellectuals of America”. Firstly, they were enemies of the United States of America. Immediately, many countries, including Singapore, made public condemnation to that act of mass murder and even announced their alliance to the USA. Secondly, these terrorists were known to be believers of Islam. Several books were written alongside forums on television regarding the truth about Islam as to how a peaceful religion it really is.

Point is, nobody wants to be the opponents of the USA. The USA has set out 2 clear camps ever since the 9/11 incident: the “good’ guys and the “evil” guys. As cliche and ridiculously movie-like as it may sound, this is actually the reality of the situation.

“Good” guys support the ideals of the USA. Democracy, liberty, economic propserity, western ideals and whatnots are the characteristic of the good guys. The bad guys are simply the exact opposite. USA sent out a clear message, either others were with them or not. Those who identified with the same ideals were labelled as good guys thus enjoyed economic prosperity and also security against any perpertrators who decided to cause error in their country. Countries that didnt suffered greatly economically(this in a great sense would harm all other institutions as it is one of the primary social institutions). Some even got invaded (Iraq and Afghanistan).

This is not a new phenomenon as it is a known fact that people would rather identify themselves with the superior side to reap the benefits that it might provide: mainly stability. Hence, they would take great pains to achieve a similar identity just to gain recognition. Call it sucking up to others if you will. That is simply how things work in order for the inferior to survive.

The good guy bad guy camps were used to extreme measure in world war 2. Just because of a different identity, millions of Jews were executed or worked to death in death camps(where else?). Hence, it has been almost every nation’s great interest to identify themselves to a superior one for the sake of survival else they might just perish as millions of Jews did in the hands of the Nazi’s.

Identity=Stability

The human societies have always conformed to an identity one way or another. Be it in the form of a religious identity, one with a country or state or even to just cliques, the individual within a society always identifies himself through the rules or norms of that society, the values and the beliefs. These three aspects will greatly shape him through the continuous and intensive interaction of socialization. What has to wonder then, what prompts this individual or the social actor to wanting an identity to conform to?

 Often, identity is with a purpose. It has been carefully constructed by those in power in order to serve to their needs. For example, time and time again, Singapore has carefully crafted out historical facts that might be conveniently serving the purpose of the government. It has been repeated countless times saying that Singapore has no natural resources. In fact, its only resources come from its people. Singaporeans identify to this by setting goals for themselves first in their education. Through it, they have to excel in the education system else they might just be another worthless part in this great big machine affectionately known as Singapore Inc.

Globalization may have perpetuated identity in aspects of making almost everything similar. Mcdonalizationis a widespread phenomenon that has been in existence ever since globalization became a widely accepted fact(but this does not mean that it is widely appreciated). It is evident that there’s a McDonald’s restaurant in almost every country whose citizens have some level of proficiency in the English language. It not only serve American fast food(in fact, it coined the term fast food which people readily identify with nowadays), it also served as a hangout joint for people of all ages. Thus, it simultaneously became a new stage for socialization to take place.

Why do people readily conform to a certain kind of identity? Because identity provides these actors with clear rules, values and beliefs any deviances from it might bring serious repurcussions to the deviants. This implication means that there is some form of stability for each and every actor if they were to identify themselves with that certain identity.

Scott Sernau readily mentions that fundamentalism is gaining popularity with the masses. Though “old” and “backward” in thinking, it’s very strict basic means of doing things means that it leaves any deviance from it with little room to maneuver. Even though analysts earlier on confidently mentioned that such a movement would not garner much attention much less support, the exact opposite is currently happening. Terrorism is one of the byproducts of Islamic fundamentalism as these extremist now feel that it is actually time to rid the world of infidels.

Though basic in nature, religous fundamentalism is quite the hypocrite. It is getting political action as religion is now being used in our daily political lives. Sucide bombers who subscribe to this fundamentalism are actually being used by the high authorities to achieve purposes that would really infact benefit those in power(especially so since the bomber would be blown to pieces anyway). He wouldnt know that he is being used in the first place though because he feels secure with some sort of stability that identity has brought him.

Identity is ever changing in this global society. People no longer want to subscribe to an identity that is imposed onto them. But one thing for sure is that should that identity bring about a great degree of stability, people will ignore all else and subscribe to that identity just as long as it promises them stability.

Damn…

Im in a great deep shit of getting zero for my midterms. All thanks to the confusion on my part as well as others. I’ve already uploaded all the entries. Its just that i’ve uploaded it to a different page. Dont people know how to explore one’s space even for a little teeny-weeny bit?

 Haiz…Oh well. Let’s just hope something can be salvaged out of this. At least there is comfort in knowing that people know that i always do my assignments on time. Heck…on time! Specialist creed 101- We are always late, but then, we are always ahead of time anyway. So…Prof, just give it a check ya? But in any case, i redid this blog so that there wont be any more confusion in the future.

A note to all others who refuse to update your blogs that landed us all in this great deep shit? Please do your work on time ya? You couldnt possibly be even busier then i am. Trust me, i juggle time like nobody’s business. Rugby(school, club), school, assignments, project, work ( 5 times a week) and then the significant other who constantly cries for attention. haiz…plz ppl, consistency is the key here. trust me. or i’ll throw you all into the army. Then you’ll know how to work.