The following is the most recent paper that I have composed for school. I, along with two others, made up the Lapis Lazoli group. The goal of our paper is to save EFU's sociology program from being dissolved.
With the sociology department at Eastern Florida University (EFU) at risk of dissolution and being instead combined with the psychology department, the intent of this literature is to show that psychology and sociology are two separate disciplines. The paper will examine three major research topics of psychology and sociology – demographics, crime, and marriage and family – and provide a glimpse of the importance of sociological research in demystifying common myths or perceptions, exposing social problems, and identifying social trends. This examination will not only provide evidence for why sociology is important, but statistical evidence that sustaining and supporting the sociological discipline is more cost efficient than the social costs of crime and family fragmentation.
Importance of Sociology
A Review of the Impact of the Discipline on Society
The disciplines of psychology and sociology are too often misinterpreted as twin disciplines rather than brother disciplines. Psychology, according to the American Psychological Association, is the “study of the human mind and behavior,” and includes “the functions of the human brain” (American Psychological Association [APA], 2009). Sociology, according to the American Sociological Association, is defined as, “the study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behavior” (American Sociological Association [ASA], 2006). While psychology focuses on the internal causes of why an individual acts the way he or she does, sociology focuses on the external influences, including the groups and culture, which affect an individual. The following information provides qualitative and quantitative evidence for the benefits of sociology in our society and the importance of sustaining educational opportunities in this growing field.
As of 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there are approximately 3,700 people employed as sociologists. Of these, 41 percent work for federal, state or local governments as researchers, administrators or counselors. A large percent of sociologists are employed as teachers at all levels of education. By the year 2016, the projected need for individuals who specialize in this field is estimated to increase by 10 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2007).
While government agencies and schools employ a large percentage of sociologists, a large number of psychologists are self-employed: approximately 34 percent out of 166,000 people working in the psychological field as of 2006 (BLS, 2007). Clinical psychologists, who constitute the largest specialty, most often work for private practices, hospitals or clinics. The work they do is vastly different from a sociologist, focusing mainly on the patient instead of collecting numbers and data from a societal standpoint over a long period of time. The benefits of sociology to society as well as differences between the two disciplines can be observed in three research fields: demographics, crime and deviance, ad marriage and family.
In evaluating crime, psychologists tend to evaluate the individuals personality traits. This occurs mainly after a crime has already been committed. Conversely, a sociologist examines the society or groups of people that might lead an individual or group to commit a crime (American Law and Legal Information, 2009). In doing so, sociologists can actually help prevent crimes or violence before they happen, while saving millions of taxpayer dollars.
The most expensive of crimes is a federal murder case in which the death penalty is sought. Totaling $621,000 for the initial trial alone, this case is eight times more expensive than a similar case in which the death penalty is not sought (Gould & Greenman, 2008). According to a report compiled by James Stephens, the average cost of an inmate in state and federal prisons is about $22,600 a year (Stephens, 2004). This, coupled with large court costs for defense lawyers, requires taxpayers to pay delve a significant amount of money.
Fortunately, there have been programs implemented in some cities to better equip law enforcement and social workers with the educational tools to reach out to communities in order to prevent crime more effectively. According to Anthony Braga, the sociologist’s “ability of academics to frame ideas, collect data, and conduct appropriate analyses is, of course, their central role in the criminal justice working group” (Braga, 2004). It is suggested that with the help and education that sociologists can provide, law enforcement does not have to single out an individual in order to prevent violent crime. Rather, the law enforcement can concentrate on recognizing when potentially dangerous situations might arise, whether it is between rival gangs or between family members. The intervention of the law could possibly prevent the violent actions all together. When Boston and Indianapolis sociologists and law enforcement identified causes of crime and instituted programs to counteract it, they saw an overall drop in youth homicides by 60 percent and a total drop in homicides by 40 percent, respectively (Braga, 2004).
Although some would argue that eliminating the death penalty could drastically lower the cost of trials and imprisonment, it is more reasonable to argue that a more efficient and cheaper approach would be to prevent it from happening entirely. A federal murder case involving the death penalty could reach close to $1 million after years of appeals to federal court. This does not include costs of incarceration, however. For instance, if John Doe commits a murder at the age of 18, taxpayers could pay as much as $1.2 million to support Doe during his life, assuming he lives the average lifespan of 72 years. The cost of violent crimes is exponential, but with the aid, research and education that a sociologist can provide to law enforcement, the price can be lessened greatly.
In examining crime, sociologists not only look at the financial impact on society, but the social influences that lead individuals to commit crimes. While poverty and lower socioeconomic statuses positively correlate with higher crime rates, sociologists also emphasize the impact of family instability on crime. Fatherlessness,
a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders (Wood, n.d.).
Studies have revealed that 53 percent of inmates grew up without a two-parent household (No Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy, 1993), 70 percent of inmates grew up fatherless including 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of teenagers charged with murder, and fatherless children are 40 percent more apt to experience child abuse than those in nuclear family settings (Horn, 1997). In 2004, sociologist Dr. Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Dr. Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania found that boys who grow up fatherless are twice more likely to be incarcerated than boys that come from intact nuclear homes (p. 369-397).
Sociological research of marriage and family is not limited to crime; rather, the research opportunities under the discipline are broad. While psychologists conduct research, it is largely on a more familiar scale. Sociologists focus on many areas under the marriage and family genre: demographics, including race, age, and sex are considered in sociological research as well as the impact of social class or social change on marriage, the benefits or detriments of family to society, and the mores, values, and taboos that make up a specific family unit. Recent research provides glimpses on how sociologists are demystifying common myths or theories, identifying social trends, and exposing social problems related to the family. For example, Brown and Roebuck Bulanda, in association with the Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University, concluded that, regardless of demographics, there was no difference in the rates of cohabiters and married peers in being victims or perpetrators of violence. And in 2009, Strohschein, Roos and Marni found that the higher the number of changes in family structure, the higher the high school dropout rates. It was also found that children who had a parent die or parents’ divorce without any subsequent family changes, like remarriage, held nearly the same graduation rates.
Recently, a great deal of attention has been paid to the effects of family instability on society. Out-of-wedlock births, divorce, and cohabitation contribute to higher high school dropout rates, mental illness, suicide, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, and other pervading issues. Further, the economic cost of family fragmentation is estimated to be at a minimum $112 billion each year, or $1 trillion in a decade. Comparing this number with the current U.S. population of 360 million, each person residing in the United States is paying at least $365 annually to fund assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid, child welfare, the justice system, and housing assistance for single-parent families. In Florida, the costs of family fragmentation are at a minimum of nearly $2 billion annually. Among the 590,000 Florida children in poverty, respectively 70 percent are from unmarried households. Female-headed households make up the majority of these households in poverty. If marriage reduced poverty of female-headed households by 60 percent, a 40 percent reduction could be made in Florida’s total child poverty rate (Scafidi, 2008).
Scafidi’s “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing” was the first attempt at calculating the economic cost of divorce and unwed births. Thus, it is essential that research continue to be conducted to show the effects of the demise of marriage on society. In 2008, Spalter-Roth and Scelza reported the average sociology faculty member earned a mean of $68,857 during the 2007-2008 academic year (p. 3). Thus, it would statistically take $1,377,140 to continue to fund the 20 faculty jobs in the sociology department at EFU. Total spending for the sociology department at Florida State University was $2,735,723, including salaries, during 2007-2008 (Florida State University, 2008). In 2006, Research and Development expenditures by colleges and universities totaled $400 million for sociology, a 7.9 percent increase from 2005 compared with a 5.9 percent increase in the field of psychology (National Science Foundation, 2006). Approximating equal funding for the 629 public four-year institutions in the United States, each public university would receive $636,000 in sociology-related research funding. Thus, estimating EFU’s overall total at the maximum of $4 million annually, continuing the sociology department at EFU would be a 1/500 investment of the total cost of Florida’s family fragmentation costs.
An education in sociology is a valuable tool for current and future students of EFU as they will also be well prepared for demographic research and the processes it involves, including conducting a legitimate study, collecting data from that study and assembling that data in a format that is legible and comparable. The above data would not be possible without the research sociologists in the field of demography, the science of vital and social statistics. Without demography, sociology could not be possible. Demography provides the numbers and factual evidence in sociological studies.
The field allows sociologists the opportunity to interpret data regarding marriage and families, gender, ethnicity, immigration, health and illness, crime and deviance, aging, and a surfeit of other areas of importance. Demographic statistics allow society to be measured in several different ways. From sociology and specifically, from social statistics, derives important information such as crime rates in the state of Florida. For instance, in 2008, there were 1,168 murders in the state of Florida, and of those, 780 were committed with a gun, and 163 were committed using a knife or other type of cutting device (FDLE, 2009). In Duval County (the City of Jacksonville), there were 116 murders, of which 90 were committed with a firearm and 9 were committed with a knife or other cutting instrument (FDLE, 2009). With this information, sociologists then conduct studies to determine ways these types of crime can be prevented in the future.
Demography can also be used to identify other types of social problems, like divorce. For instance, from January to July 2008, there were 89,854 marriages in Florida, while during the same period there were 42,977 divorces (CDC, 2009). In other words, the number of divorces in Florida is nearly half the number of marriages. This could lead to a breakdown of family life in nearly half of all marriages, which would most likely lead to even greater social problems in the future. However, with these statistics, sociologists can begin researching why this is happening and take steps to try to change society’s views on marriage and divorce, possibly leading to a decline in divorce rates in the future.
This literature has merely brushed the impact of the discipline on society; however, it has provided both quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate the importance of supporting the education of future sociological educators and researchers. Sociology gives us a clearer view of the world’s people and their interactions with others on both a micro and macro level. It is critical for students to be able to receive a solid education in sociology in order to continue to identify trends, demystify common myths, and propose solutions to social problems. Compared with the overall social and financial costs of crime and family fragmentation in sociology, sustaining and supporting EFU’s sociology department is essential.
References
(2009, April 03). National vital statistics report. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_13.htm
(2009, April 14) Crime in Florida. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Florida Department of Law
Enforcement Website: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/4f6a6cd0-6479-4f4f-a5a4-cd260e4119d8/CIF_Annual08.aspx
(2009, April 20). Crime in Florida: Duval County. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from Florida
Department of Law Enforcement Website: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/472CD505-276A-4B51-A231-0AB07CC1F08A/Duval08.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2009). About psychology. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
APA website: http://www.apa.org/about/
American Sociological Association. (2009). What is sociology? Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
ASA website: http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/sociologists/what_is_sociology
Braga, A. (2004). Crime prevention research partnerships aid criminal justice.
Footnotes: Newsletter of The American Sociological Association, 32(1), Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://asanet.org/footnotes/jan04/fn7.html
Brown, S., & Roebuck Bulanda, J. (2005). Relationship violence in early adulthood: a
comparison of daters, cohabitors, and marrieds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p20550_index.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2009). Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2008-2009 edition. Retrieved on April 25, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos054.htm
Collard, D. (Winter 2001). Malthus, population and the generational bargain. History of Political
Economy, 33. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from
http://web.ebscohost.com.db08.linccweb.org/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=113&sid=0ff54da9-80ce-4182-9b45-0dd8b243910d%40sessionmgr104#db=bth&AN=5703391
Florida State University (2008). E&G expenditures by budget category, by major object code,
departments within school: college of social sciences, sociology. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.budget.fsu.edu/ExpenditureReport/2008-2009/Expenditure%20E&G/Expenditure_4.03RecentYear.htm.
Gould, J., Greenman, L. (2008). Update on cost, quality, and availability of defense representation in federal death penalty cases. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://www.uscourts.gov/defenderservices/FDPC.pdf#page=21
Harper, C., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 369-397. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118799206/issue
Horn, W. (1997). Fathers, marriage, and welfare reform. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Crime causation: psychological theories (2009). Law Library- American Law and Legal
Information. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://law.jrank.org/pages/809/Crime-Causation-Psychological-Individual-influences.html
Crime causation: sociological theories (2009). Law Library – American Law and Legal
Information. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://law.jrank.org/pages/824/Crime-Causation-Sociological-Theories.html
National science foundation, division of science resources statistics, survey of research and
development expenditures at universities and colleges, FY 2006 (2006), as cited in Federal funding for sociology increases relative to other social sciences. Footnotes: Newsletter of the American Sociological Association, 35(8). Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Footnotes database: http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/nov07/indexthree.html#table
No-fault divorce: proposed solutions to a national tragedy (1993). Journal of Legal Studies
2(19), citing Chapman, B. (1986), Fairness for families: an organizing theme for the administration’s social policies, The Journal of Family and Culture, 23(2)
Scafidi, B. (2008). The taxpayer costs of divorce and unwed childbearing: first-ever
estimates for the nation and all fifty states. Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, & Families Northwest. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/ec_div.pdf
Spalter-Roth, R., & Scelza, J. (2008). Sociology faculty salaries, AY 2007-08, p. 3. American
Sociological Association Research Briefs. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/ASA%20Salaries%20Brief%2007-08.pdf
Stephan, James J. (2001). State prison expenditures, 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf
Strohschein, L., Roos, N. ,& Marni, B. (2009). Family structure histories and high school
completion: evidence from a population-based registry. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(1). Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/CJS/article/view/1331/5152.
United States Bureau of the Census (2005). 2005 American Community Survey. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wood, Bill. Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina, citing U.S. house
testimony on child support and fatherhood proposals (hearing 107-38). Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/4-11-02/records/billwood.htm
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Malcom X vs. King
The following is a discussion response to a prompt on Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Civil Rights movement was birthed after two world wars that devastated the first half of the twentieth century. Martin Luther King, Jr. had seen the effects of the war, and had been astounded at the inhumanity of man. King recognized that, for centuries, men had been discussing the possibilities of peace. "But now, no longer can they just talk about it," said King, who recognized the need for action. But unlike Malcolm X, who called for blacks to adopt every available means - even violence - in order to address and curb the problem of racial inequality in America, King embraced nonviolence: "It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence." (Source 1)
In King's final speech, "I've been to the Mountaintop," King describes some of the successes the Civil Rights movement had by using nonviolent methods such as boycotting, peaceful "sit-ins", and protest marches. For example, in Birmingham, Alabama, hundreds of supporters of the Civil Rights movement would participate in peaceful marches. Bull Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, ordered police dogs and water hoses to be used to control the crowds. But that did not stop the march: "...we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we'd go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we'd just go on singing 'Over my head I see freedom in the air.' And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, 'Take them off,' and they did; and we would just go on in the paddy wagon singing, 'We Shall Overcome.' And every now and then we'd get in the jail, and we'd see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn’t adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham." (Source 1)
In terms of King's rationale for how to address violence vs. Malcolm X's, I would have to say that King adopted the more effective, rational, and revolutionary method in nonviolence. After millions had been killed, the world had seen enough violence. Radical behavior, like that of Malcolm X, only hindered the coming social change rather than help it; however, Malcolm X did present a good argument when he criticized the hypocrisy of the United States in advocating violence as a means to social change abroad while desiring nonviolence at home. But it was through the steady, determined focus of thousands of supporters that blacks were given equal access and privileges in American society. The social change took a full century as pre-Civil War ideas were passed through the generations.
Would violence have worked in bringing about such social change? No. During the century it took for blacks to earn equal access in society, new ideas about human rights were adopted. If those involved in the Civil Rights movement had concentrated on violence as the means to convey their message, much of this progress would have been undone. It would have been destructive to the movement.
The idea does address another question: Is violence ever justified in dealing with social issues and if so, when? Making an antislavery statement, John Brown led 21 men on a raid of the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859. He was captured, tried, and hung. (Source 2) Brown believed what he did was right and before his death claimed “I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments.” (Source 2)
While many antislavery supporters did not agree with Brown’s aggressive approach, they did praise him for taking a stand. Of Brown, Henry David Thoreau said: “No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature.” (Source 2)
In a sermon delivered following Brown’s death, Pastor J. Sella Martin of Joy Street Baptist Church in Boston was addressing a crowd of around 4,000 abolitionists. Martin gave a secure and moral answer to the prevailing question of whether or not Brown’s means were justified for his cause. It was concluded that in light of the deplorable “cancer” of American slavery that gave rise to Brown’s decision to operate in order to rid of the “cancer,” Brown chose the lesser of two evils.” (Source 3) Martin also addressed the War that had just taken place to free white men from British oppression. Bunker Hill and Concord were just two of many historical examples where Americans had used violence as a means to bring about social change. Brown, thus, was doing the same thing by fighting for the black men. (Source 3)
It is difficult to determine whether or not violence is the best means of bringing about social change. The answer comes depending upon the situation demanding action, the severity of the oppression on the oppressed, and the cultural belief system of those acting. There will always be someone who wants to use violence as a means of destruction; however, the purpose of bringing about social change is not to destroy, but to mend what has broken. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the limits of violence might vary; however, the value of human life and the human rights that exist for all humanity should be of careful consideration to those taking action. For example, as raping women, genital mutilation, and human trafficking are violations of human rights and should not be tolerated.
Because of the relativity of violence as a means of social change, I cannot adequately provide an answer for what means is best unless I am given a particular situation to research. I personally prefer the peaceful route; however, experience and history provides enough evidence that violence is not necessarily an evil, but can be used to bring about good.
Source 1: http://www.afscme.org/about/1549.cfm
Source 2: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.html
Source 3: http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/martin.html
The Civil Rights movement was birthed after two world wars that devastated the first half of the twentieth century. Martin Luther King, Jr. had seen the effects of the war, and had been astounded at the inhumanity of man. King recognized that, for centuries, men had been discussing the possibilities of peace. "But now, no longer can they just talk about it," said King, who recognized the need for action. But unlike Malcolm X, who called for blacks to adopt every available means - even violence - in order to address and curb the problem of racial inequality in America, King embraced nonviolence: "It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence." (Source 1)
In King's final speech, "I've been to the Mountaintop," King describes some of the successes the Civil Rights movement had by using nonviolent methods such as boycotting, peaceful "sit-ins", and protest marches. For example, in Birmingham, Alabama, hundreds of supporters of the Civil Rights movement would participate in peaceful marches. Bull Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, ordered police dogs and water hoses to be used to control the crowds. But that did not stop the march: "...we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we'd go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we'd just go on singing 'Over my head I see freedom in the air.' And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, 'Take them off,' and they did; and we would just go on in the paddy wagon singing, 'We Shall Overcome.' And every now and then we'd get in the jail, and we'd see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn’t adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham." (Source 1)
In terms of King's rationale for how to address violence vs. Malcolm X's, I would have to say that King adopted the more effective, rational, and revolutionary method in nonviolence. After millions had been killed, the world had seen enough violence. Radical behavior, like that of Malcolm X, only hindered the coming social change rather than help it; however, Malcolm X did present a good argument when he criticized the hypocrisy of the United States in advocating violence as a means to social change abroad while desiring nonviolence at home. But it was through the steady, determined focus of thousands of supporters that blacks were given equal access and privileges in American society. The social change took a full century as pre-Civil War ideas were passed through the generations.
Would violence have worked in bringing about such social change? No. During the century it took for blacks to earn equal access in society, new ideas about human rights were adopted. If those involved in the Civil Rights movement had concentrated on violence as the means to convey their message, much of this progress would have been undone. It would have been destructive to the movement.
The idea does address another question: Is violence ever justified in dealing with social issues and if so, when? Making an antislavery statement, John Brown led 21 men on a raid of the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859. He was captured, tried, and hung. (Source 2) Brown believed what he did was right and before his death claimed “I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments.” (Source 2)
While many antislavery supporters did not agree with Brown’s aggressive approach, they did praise him for taking a stand. Of Brown, Henry David Thoreau said: “No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature.” (Source 2)
In a sermon delivered following Brown’s death, Pastor J. Sella Martin of Joy Street Baptist Church in Boston was addressing a crowd of around 4,000 abolitionists. Martin gave a secure and moral answer to the prevailing question of whether or not Brown’s means were justified for his cause. It was concluded that in light of the deplorable “cancer” of American slavery that gave rise to Brown’s decision to operate in order to rid of the “cancer,” Brown chose the lesser of two evils.” (Source 3) Martin also addressed the War that had just taken place to free white men from British oppression. Bunker Hill and Concord were just two of many historical examples where Americans had used violence as a means to bring about social change. Brown, thus, was doing the same thing by fighting for the black men. (Source 3)
It is difficult to determine whether or not violence is the best means of bringing about social change. The answer comes depending upon the situation demanding action, the severity of the oppression on the oppressed, and the cultural belief system of those acting. There will always be someone who wants to use violence as a means of destruction; however, the purpose of bringing about social change is not to destroy, but to mend what has broken. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the limits of violence might vary; however, the value of human life and the human rights that exist for all humanity should be of careful consideration to those taking action. For example, as raping women, genital mutilation, and human trafficking are violations of human rights and should not be tolerated.
Because of the relativity of violence as a means of social change, I cannot adequately provide an answer for what means is best unless I am given a particular situation to research. I personally prefer the peaceful route; however, experience and history provides enough evidence that violence is not necessarily an evil, but can be used to bring about good.
Source 1: http://www.afscme.org/about/1549.cfm
Source 2: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.html
Source 3: http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/martin.html
Impact of media on society
The following is a response to a prompt that asked about the impact of mass media on society.
For my response, I am going to take the viewpoint of someone who has been a part of the massive network that makes up the mass media. My position was as a staff writer and copy editor for FCCJ's student newspaper: The Campus Voice. While on staff, I learned that there are stories that will evoke both good and bad emotions. For example, I supported John McCain during last year's presidential elections. I wrote some opinion pieces expounding on my opinion on health care, unfair media coverage, and the benefits of a candidate with experience. Depending upon who would have read my writing, my analysis could have been deemed as bias. And, indeed, it was. It was an opinion piece.
Unfortunately, much opinion is being leaked into "hard news" stories and "feature" stories that should be objective rather than subjective. Americans demonstrated that they did not trust the media in 2008 as conservatives argued that CNN and the New York Times failed to give McCain equal coverage. Liberals also complained. When the major news organizations are accusing another news organization of having an unfair agenda, we can be assured that agendas do, in fact, exist.
Mass media is very important in delivering messages. These messages can have positive impacts on the environment, like the pushing of conservation and the green movement. Recently on Disney Channel's popular television series Wizards of Waverly Place and Suite Life on Deck, the importance of recycling, conserving the environment, and the importance of the green movement was emphasized. But mass media can also have a negative impact on society, especially if it is controlled under an autocratic form of government.
Twentieth century history gives us a glimpse of the power of controlling the media. Even in a democratic society like exists in the U.S., the government controls information by choosing which information to feed the public and which information to conceal. A recent report was released to law enforcement that warned of radical right-wing extremists. Specific instructions were noted in the report to not release the report to the public; however, a common sensical, intelligent policeman did so.
In summary, the more restrictions and controls on the media, the more limited information that can be released. This, in turn, often leads the masses to begin to think one-sided. And when a governing authority or body has accomplished this, it can often institute its own measures with overwhelming support; therefore, it is essential that freedom of the press in America remain prevalent.
P.S. The fairness doctrine is really not fair, even as glamarous as Congress or CNN makes it.
For my response, I am going to take the viewpoint of someone who has been a part of the massive network that makes up the mass media. My position was as a staff writer and copy editor for FCCJ's student newspaper: The Campus Voice. While on staff, I learned that there are stories that will evoke both good and bad emotions. For example, I supported John McCain during last year's presidential elections. I wrote some opinion pieces expounding on my opinion on health care, unfair media coverage, and the benefits of a candidate with experience. Depending upon who would have read my writing, my analysis could have been deemed as bias. And, indeed, it was. It was an opinion piece.
Unfortunately, much opinion is being leaked into "hard news" stories and "feature" stories that should be objective rather than subjective. Americans demonstrated that they did not trust the media in 2008 as conservatives argued that CNN and the New York Times failed to give McCain equal coverage. Liberals also complained. When the major news organizations are accusing another news organization of having an unfair agenda, we can be assured that agendas do, in fact, exist.
Mass media is very important in delivering messages. These messages can have positive impacts on the environment, like the pushing of conservation and the green movement. Recently on Disney Channel's popular television series Wizards of Waverly Place and Suite Life on Deck, the importance of recycling, conserving the environment, and the importance of the green movement was emphasized. But mass media can also have a negative impact on society, especially if it is controlled under an autocratic form of government.
Twentieth century history gives us a glimpse of the power of controlling the media. Even in a democratic society like exists in the U.S., the government controls information by choosing which information to feed the public and which information to conceal. A recent report was released to law enforcement that warned of radical right-wing extremists. Specific instructions were noted in the report to not release the report to the public; however, a common sensical, intelligent policeman did so.
In summary, the more restrictions and controls on the media, the more limited information that can be released. This, in turn, often leads the masses to begin to think one-sided. And when a governing authority or body has accomplished this, it can often institute its own measures with overwhelming support; therefore, it is essential that freedom of the press in America remain prevalent.
P.S. The fairness doctrine is really not fair, even as glamarous as Congress or CNN makes it.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Aggression and Violence
PROMPT: Is violence and aggression an inherent part of the human condition? Can violence and aggression be controlled? Is peace really possible? What do you think are the major underlying causes of violence and aggression? Can these causes be eliminated? Do you think 20th century modes of telecommunications (i.e. TV, radio, Internet, etc.) work to foster violence or peace? Explain your position in detail and give several examples.
Discussion Response:
Is violence and aggression an inherent part of the human condition?
This is a tough question -one that requires an individual to ultimately answer with a “yes” or “no.” Simply spouting off an answer without considering the depth of the question being asked is impulsive.
Man is born with the natural instinct to want to have his needs met. If man did not, he would not cry as a newborn infant nor set his alarm to wake up to go to work in the morning to earn money so he can at minimum provide for his basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). This desire to meet basic needs can turn into selfishness, the root of all aggression and violence, without proper nourishment during certain stages in life.
“Deprivation of key developmental experiences (which leads to underdevelopment of cortical, sub-cortical and limbic areas) will necessarily result in persistence of primitive, immature behavioral reactivity, and, thereby, predispose an individual to violent behavior… Developmental neglect and traumatic stress during childhood create violent, remorseless children.”*
There are many different theories that attempt to explain deviance (any violation of a social norm) – under which acts of aggression and violence fall. The differential association theory, developed by Edwin Sutherland, argues that individuals learn deviance from their surroundings (i.e. family, peer group, subculture). Another theory, the label theory, argues that “social groups deviate by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender.’”**
Both of these theories, among other theories, focus on outside influences as contributing to someone committing an act of deviance, which in more severe cases includes aggression and violence. This question has been asked, prodded, and speculated on throughout history. I could easily give a middle ground answer as it is probable to argue that because man is wired with basic instincts to provide for himself that improper nourishment can lead into an instable self-seeking desire that results in aggression or violence. But on the other hand, the sociological viewpoint shows that a person’s surroundings contribute to aggression or violence. But I will choose to answer “yes.” I believe a person’s surroundings teach you to either restrain from aggressive or violent behavior or to accept it. The desire to be aggressive or violent (and there is a difference between the two) is inherent as we have all thought about saying something cruel, hitting something or someone, etc. in our lifetimes. It is just what we do with the temptation that determines whether or not we have acted aggressively or violently.
Therefore, it is probable to assume that violence and aggression can be controlled. It is ultimately the individual who predetermines whether or not he will act aggressively or violently. It is easier for someone who has been reared with good self-control, rationale, and morals to choose not to respond aggressively or violently than someone who has not. But because many do not choose to control their actions and respond in dehumanizing mannerisms, the idealized peace of a “McWorld” can never be achieved.
What contributes to the rampant violence in our world? Hunger and disease certainly have a large impact; however, certain religious beliefs or moral ethics (i.e. women are inferior, racial superiority) largely impact such behavior. Contributing to September 11 was a hatred of the west’s ideologies as Al Queda not only disapproved of America’s democratic system but of how Americans lived their lives. Member-states of the United Nations and NGOs are now in operation to not only eliminate hunger, disease, and injustice, but to prevent people from resorting to aggression or violence as a result.
Also, with the world becoming more interconnected with revolutions in technology, what is media’s influence in fostering violence or peace? We know the potential devastation violent video games can have on players. Columbine suspects, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were thought to have committed their acts of violence because their parents had cut them off from their violent video games. And to a lesser extent, violent video games can also desensitize players to violence.
According to the APA, children viewing and identifying with violent TV shows are more likely to act aggressively as teenagers.***Here are the startling results:
“Results show that men who were high TV-violence viewers as children were significantly more likely to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their spouses, to have responded to an insult by shoving a person, to have been convicted of a crime and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such men, for example, had been convicted of crimes at over three times the rate of other men.
Women who were high TV-violence viewers as children were more likely to have thrown something at their spouses, to have responded to someone who made them mad by shoving, punching, beating or choking the person, to have committed some type of criminal act, and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such women, for example, reported having punched, beaten or choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women.”***
*http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/aggression_violence.htm
**http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/violence.htm
***http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html
Monday, January 26, 2009
Essay prompt on Iraq War...
(1)
Apply the system-level, state-level and individual-level of analysis to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq. Which do you believe is the best level for analyzing why the US went to war with Iraq?
Racing on the interstate are semi-trucks that carry messages from the companies they represent. Sometimes these semi-drivers are traveling so fast that other drivers on the road find it impossible to read the messages written on the side of their trucks. This leaves other drivers only guessing what the messages on the trucks said. Just like these speeding semi-trucks, the clear message to why the United States decided to go into war with Iraq in 2003 is diluted by speculations and mixed messages sent by the President and Congress. What is the real reason the United States entered into war with Iraq? This question can be answered by applying system-level, state-level, and individual-level analysis. Is one better than another for uncovering the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq? The purpose of this essay is to discover as much.
In terms of individual-level analysis, it has often been questioned whether President George W. Bush’s push for an invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein stemmed from rage over Hussein’s alleged attempt to assassinate his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1993. Along with his father, Bush’s mother, Barbara, and his wife, Laura, could have been killed. In an interview with CNN, President George H.W. Bush explained that he hated Saddam Hussein: “I don’t hate easily, but I think he is – as I say, his word is no good and he is a brute. He has used poison gas on his own people. So, there’s nothing redeeming about this man, and I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him.” Shortly following his father, Bush “mused” at a Texas Fundraiser, that “there’s no doubt he can’t stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.” (Baker, Peter) Upon hearing this, White House officials “quickly issued assurances that the president did not mean to ‘personalize’ his campaign to depose the Iraqi dictator.” (Rourke and Boyer 56)
Inevitably, Bush did bring his bitterness and natural, yet justifiable, hunger for revenge into his decision to invade Iraq; however, he did not allow his family’s past with Hussein to overshadow his vision to bring the chance of democracy to an oppressed nation, dismantle weapons of mass-destruction (WMD), and topple Hussein. On November 8, 2002, the United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which decided that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…[and] to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions of the Council.” (U.S. Department of State) At a joint news conference with Bush in January 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441, and “the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable.” Acting on power dictated in Resolution 1441 to respond to Iraq without a second resolution passed, Bush announced that he would not hesitate to act in attempts to disarm Iraq. (Bush, Blair: Timing running out for Saddam)
Bush’s seriousness was seen when alongside Britain and smaller regimes from Australia, Poland, Spain and Denmark, the United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. (U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait) While the offensive was launched because it was believed Iraq was harboring WMD, the CIA released its final report in 2005 providing that no WMD had been found in Iraq. “‘After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,’ wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group…‘as matters stand now, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.’” (MSNBC) After this report, the United States’ motive for invading Iraq, especially Bush’s, came into question.
Nearly six years later, President Barack Obama is promising to withdraw troops from Iraq. With Hussein having been captured and killed, no evidence of WMD found in Iraq, and the Iraqi government struggling, but making slow progress towards being self-sufficient, why does America remain in Iraq? An even bigger question has been asked to why Americans, including Congress, supported Bush in the first place? The appropriate answer to the latter of the questions is in the term coined the “rally effect.”
State-level analysis “emphasizes the characteristics of states and how they make foreign policy choices and implement them.” (Rourke and Boyer 57) In this system of analysis, the “rally effect” is the likeliness of the public to follow their leader during a time of crisis, especially a leader who proved to be strong and firm in his response to the September 11 attacks. Even current Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton voted in approval of the 2003 invasion on Iraq, although she later admitted her mistake.
Additionally, looking at the United States’ “missionary impulse” might have contributed to one of its reasons behind entering the war with Iraq. This “missionary impulse” is described as “zeal to reshape the world in the American image(Rourke and Boyer 59) This ideal of spreading the American-system of democracy is explained in a Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs discussion paper, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,”: “The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn’t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions. First, as human beings, Americans should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States…Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty…Given its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of liberty…Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United State cannot insulate itself from the world…The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.” (Lynn-Jones, Sean M)
In perspective with Iraq, the invasion was likely, by system-level analysis, a result of four factors. Firstly, the injustice seen in Hussein’s deplorable treatment of thousands of Iraqis was reason enough to respond. With American philosophy based off of the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Americans throughout the decades have made a point to liberate the oppressed. Secondly, the United States “missionary impulse” to spread the American way of democracy is done out of an underlying desire to not only help the oppressed, but further America’s power and influence in the international community.
Thirdly, with growing hatred towards the West, especially the United States and Europe, America and its allies acted in defense to try to dismantle any effort that could harm the United States in the future. With other countries increasing their influence in the world, the United States struggles to maintain grasp of its dominating position. Bush did not have the United Nations Security Council approve the invasion because he knew the combined veto powers of France, China, Russia, and Germany, all of whom were against the United States’ request to invade Iraq, would cause his request to fail. ““The urge to escape the U.S. orbit also may help explain why France, Germany, Russia, and China were all opposed to U.S. action against Iraq in 2003. Certainly those countries objected to the war as such, but it was also a chance to resist the lead of the hegemonic power.” (Rourke and Boyer 65) And fourthly, Bush’s handling of 9/11 so inspired trust in the American people that they supported his decision to invade Iraq.
Whether or not Bush had personal reasons behind entering the war are now coupled by questions to whether oil played a large role in his decision to invade Iraq. To answer this question, system-level analysis is used. System-level analysts propose that a state’s economic realities often contribute to its foreign policy decisions. The United States depends heavily on foreign oil. “As U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III explained to reporters, “The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf, and we cannot permit a dictator… to sit astride that economic lifeline.” (Rourke and Boyer 66) With the United States depending heavily on imported oil from the Middle East, constant negotiations and meetings are held with major oil-controllers like Saudi Arabia. When gas prices rose to four dollars a gallon in mid-2008, Americans were outraged at the high price of gas. Alongside gas tank costs, food prices and electric bills soared. This outrage only glimpses America’s level of dependency on foreign oil.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in his autobiography The Age of Turbulence, proposes that he thought the excuse of WMD was “utterly beside the point.” In an interview with the Guardian, Greenspan said that he thought the purpose of the Iraqi invasion was to protect Middle Eastern oil reserves. (Adams, Richard) Was the war really over oil? Evidence exists for both positions; however, oil cannot be looked at as the single defining reason behind the United States’ decision to invade Iraq. In fact, neither individual-level analysis nor state-level analysis is sufficient to accurately predict the reason behind the invasion. Rather, looking at the big picture is the best way to predict the reasons behind the invasion. This big picture intertwines the arguments from all three levels of analysis. Individual, domestic, and international reasons are all evident. While the United States made critical errors in its invasion of Iraq, it is comforting to know that many factors, rather than revenge on the side of Bush or selfishness on the side of America in its desire for oil, contributed to the invasion rather than one underlying factor. Unlike an absolute government, the United States has such a system of government that many spheres agreed on the war in Iraq. Bush cannot be solely blamed for his decision. Rather, there is a community to either praise or blame.
WORKS CITED (1)
Baker, Peter. "Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies: U.S.; Iraq Continue to Experience Aftereffects of Their Confrontations." The Washington Post 31 Dec. 2006. The Washington Post Company. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000663_pf.html>.
Rourke, John T., and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage. 7th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
United States. U.S. Department of State. Text of UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002. By Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. 8 Nov. 2002. United Nations. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm>.
Bush, Blair: Time running out for Saddam. 31 Jan. 2003. CNN. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/>.
"U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait." CNN.com 18 Feb. 2003. Cable News Network LP, LLLP. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html>
"CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq." MSNBC 25 Apr. 2005. The Associated Press. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/]>.
Lynn-Jones, Sean M. "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy" Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Mar. 1998. Harvard University. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0aZpwysvP6MJ:belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html+The+United+States+should+attempt+to+spread+democracy+because+people+generally+live+better+.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.
Adams, Richard. "Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan." The Guardian [London] 17 Sept. 2007, sec. International: 18. Guardian.co.uk. 17 Sept. 2007. The Guardian. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil>.
Apply the system-level, state-level and individual-level of analysis to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq. Which do you believe is the best level for analyzing why the US went to war with Iraq?
Racing on the interstate are semi-trucks that carry messages from the companies they represent. Sometimes these semi-drivers are traveling so fast that other drivers on the road find it impossible to read the messages written on the side of their trucks. This leaves other drivers only guessing what the messages on the trucks said. Just like these speeding semi-trucks, the clear message to why the United States decided to go into war with Iraq in 2003 is diluted by speculations and mixed messages sent by the President and Congress. What is the real reason the United States entered into war with Iraq? This question can be answered by applying system-level, state-level, and individual-level analysis. Is one better than another for uncovering the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq? The purpose of this essay is to discover as much.
In terms of individual-level analysis, it has often been questioned whether President George W. Bush’s push for an invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein stemmed from rage over Hussein’s alleged attempt to assassinate his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1993. Along with his father, Bush’s mother, Barbara, and his wife, Laura, could have been killed. In an interview with CNN, President George H.W. Bush explained that he hated Saddam Hussein: “I don’t hate easily, but I think he is – as I say, his word is no good and he is a brute. He has used poison gas on his own people. So, there’s nothing redeeming about this man, and I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him.” Shortly following his father, Bush “mused” at a Texas Fundraiser, that “there’s no doubt he can’t stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.” (Baker, Peter) Upon hearing this, White House officials “quickly issued assurances that the president did not mean to ‘personalize’ his campaign to depose the Iraqi dictator.” (Rourke and Boyer 56)
Inevitably, Bush did bring his bitterness and natural, yet justifiable, hunger for revenge into his decision to invade Iraq; however, he did not allow his family’s past with Hussein to overshadow his vision to bring the chance of democracy to an oppressed nation, dismantle weapons of mass-destruction (WMD), and topple Hussein. On November 8, 2002, the United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which decided that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…[and] to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions of the Council.” (U.S. Department of State) At a joint news conference with Bush in January 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441, and “the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable.” Acting on power dictated in Resolution 1441 to respond to Iraq without a second resolution passed, Bush announced that he would not hesitate to act in attempts to disarm Iraq. (Bush, Blair: Timing running out for Saddam)
Bush’s seriousness was seen when alongside Britain and smaller regimes from Australia, Poland, Spain and Denmark, the United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. (U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait) While the offensive was launched because it was believed Iraq was harboring WMD, the CIA released its final report in 2005 providing that no WMD had been found in Iraq. “‘After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,’ wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group…‘as matters stand now, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.’” (MSNBC) After this report, the United States’ motive for invading Iraq, especially Bush’s, came into question.
Nearly six years later, President Barack Obama is promising to withdraw troops from Iraq. With Hussein having been captured and killed, no evidence of WMD found in Iraq, and the Iraqi government struggling, but making slow progress towards being self-sufficient, why does America remain in Iraq? An even bigger question has been asked to why Americans, including Congress, supported Bush in the first place? The appropriate answer to the latter of the questions is in the term coined the “rally effect.”
State-level analysis “emphasizes the characteristics of states and how they make foreign policy choices and implement them.” (Rourke and Boyer 57) In this system of analysis, the “rally effect” is the likeliness of the public to follow their leader during a time of crisis, especially a leader who proved to be strong and firm in his response to the September 11 attacks. Even current Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton voted in approval of the 2003 invasion on Iraq, although she later admitted her mistake.
Additionally, looking at the United States’ “missionary impulse” might have contributed to one of its reasons behind entering the war with Iraq. This “missionary impulse” is described as “zeal to reshape the world in the American image(Rourke and Boyer 59) This ideal of spreading the American-system of democracy is explained in a Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs discussion paper, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,”: “The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn’t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions. First, as human beings, Americans should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States…Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty…Given its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of liberty…Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United State cannot insulate itself from the world…The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.” (Lynn-Jones, Sean M)
In perspective with Iraq, the invasion was likely, by system-level analysis, a result of four factors. Firstly, the injustice seen in Hussein’s deplorable treatment of thousands of Iraqis was reason enough to respond. With American philosophy based off of the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Americans throughout the decades have made a point to liberate the oppressed. Secondly, the United States “missionary impulse” to spread the American way of democracy is done out of an underlying desire to not only help the oppressed, but further America’s power and influence in the international community.
Thirdly, with growing hatred towards the West, especially the United States and Europe, America and its allies acted in defense to try to dismantle any effort that could harm the United States in the future. With other countries increasing their influence in the world, the United States struggles to maintain grasp of its dominating position. Bush did not have the United Nations Security Council approve the invasion because he knew the combined veto powers of France, China, Russia, and Germany, all of whom were against the United States’ request to invade Iraq, would cause his request to fail. ““The urge to escape the U.S. orbit also may help explain why France, Germany, Russia, and China were all opposed to U.S. action against Iraq in 2003. Certainly those countries objected to the war as such, but it was also a chance to resist the lead of the hegemonic power.” (Rourke and Boyer 65) And fourthly, Bush’s handling of 9/11 so inspired trust in the American people that they supported his decision to invade Iraq.
Whether or not Bush had personal reasons behind entering the war are now coupled by questions to whether oil played a large role in his decision to invade Iraq. To answer this question, system-level analysis is used. System-level analysts propose that a state’s economic realities often contribute to its foreign policy decisions. The United States depends heavily on foreign oil. “As U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III explained to reporters, “The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf, and we cannot permit a dictator… to sit astride that economic lifeline.” (Rourke and Boyer 66) With the United States depending heavily on imported oil from the Middle East, constant negotiations and meetings are held with major oil-controllers like Saudi Arabia. When gas prices rose to four dollars a gallon in mid-2008, Americans were outraged at the high price of gas. Alongside gas tank costs, food prices and electric bills soared. This outrage only glimpses America’s level of dependency on foreign oil.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in his autobiography The Age of Turbulence, proposes that he thought the excuse of WMD was “utterly beside the point.” In an interview with the Guardian, Greenspan said that he thought the purpose of the Iraqi invasion was to protect Middle Eastern oil reserves. (Adams, Richard) Was the war really over oil? Evidence exists for both positions; however, oil cannot be looked at as the single defining reason behind the United States’ decision to invade Iraq. In fact, neither individual-level analysis nor state-level analysis is sufficient to accurately predict the reason behind the invasion. Rather, looking at the big picture is the best way to predict the reasons behind the invasion. This big picture intertwines the arguments from all three levels of analysis. Individual, domestic, and international reasons are all evident. While the United States made critical errors in its invasion of Iraq, it is comforting to know that many factors, rather than revenge on the side of Bush or selfishness on the side of America in its desire for oil, contributed to the invasion rather than one underlying factor. Unlike an absolute government, the United States has such a system of government that many spheres agreed on the war in Iraq. Bush cannot be solely blamed for his decision. Rather, there is a community to either praise or blame.
WORKS CITED (1)
Baker, Peter. "Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies: U.S.; Iraq Continue to Experience Aftereffects of Their Confrontations." The Washington Post 31 Dec. 2006. The Washington Post Company. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000663_pf.html>.
Rourke, John T., and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage. 7th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
United States. U.S. Department of State. Text of UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002. By Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. 8 Nov. 2002. United Nations. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm>.
Bush, Blair: Time running out for Saddam. 31 Jan. 2003. CNN. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/>.
"U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait." CNN.com 18 Feb. 2003. Cable News Network LP, LLLP. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html>
"CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq." MSNBC 25 Apr. 2005. The Associated Press. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/]>.
Lynn-Jones, Sean M. "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy" Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Mar. 1998. Harvard University. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0aZpwysvP6MJ:belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html+The+United+States+should+attempt+to+spread+democracy+because+people+generally+live+better+.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.
Adams, Richard. "Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan." The Guardian [London] 17 Sept. 2007, sec. International: 18. Guardian.co.uk. 17 Sept. 2007. The Guardian. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)