Nowadays, there’s a much greater exertion of energy demands whose exponential growth can be paralleled to a booming population. As such, it becomes a competition for every individual to obtain means by which their lives depend on consuming energy, most noticeably seen when any major social or economic crisis occurs whereby sensitive and highly imperative issues such as that of energy resources and consumption becomes a major contention. It goes to show the worth and value we tag to energy fuels that we deem to be essential for our living. Does this mean to say that this argument only stands for the lower income groups, where their day to day living is dependent on the meagre consumption of energy that they use; simple cooking, washing and commuting? Not exactly. For the rich and the powerful, the issue concerning possession of energy resources is equally crucial, or perhaps even considered a greater deal for them. Their association of possession of energy means to power and thus capital makes it a highly contestable entity.

But more importantly, just as I’ve mentioned earlier, how was it possible that people still do not buy the idea of either turning to alternative means of energy or cutting down on their energy usage? Sure there are a couple of factors that have the power to sway people’s opinion: developing countries use the highly overused justification of advancing their economy and pull their nation out of poverty; medium enterprises state that turning to alternatives are too expensive that they risk having to wind up and displace many from their current jobs; countries cite that there are too many structural impediments in the economy  and nation in order to effectively bring about any change in reducing energy consumption. Whiny excuses aside, what seems to be the crux of the problem? Why are people afraid or rather too stubborn to simply take simple measures to reduce their energy consumption or find ways to make a profitable living sans the senseless pollution? Perhaps the notion of individualism as contended by Marx has propelled people into thinking that every man for his own, rendering the obligation towards looking after the welfare of the earth and its people to be futile. But in the context of energy consumption, it is less about individualism but more towards the entrenched notion of survivalism that drives people to consume whatever energy that they can obtain, imperative for their existence. The poor scramble to earn enough to have decent lighting and cooking fuels, the middle-class constrict their tummies to scrape through their car petrol expenses and utility bills necessary to ensure they have a roof over their heads whilst the rich and powerful invest a lot in maintaining their lifestyles via access to energy resources otherwise suffer the consequence of being relegated to ‘nothingness’ once power and wealth are gone.

So how oh how do we salvage ourselves from this losing battle of saving the environment? So much attention has been given to highlight the apocalypse of a decomposing world void of lush greenery and natural resource. Maybe this survival instinct comes along with the idea that men will always be able to adapt to whatever destructive circumstances that ironically we have brought about. Exploitation of natural resources at ridiculous rates will always occur as long as the general consensus is that of ‘what finite resources we don’t have today, man can always superficially recreate it tomorrow’. It is that general sentiment that we have to effectively target because just as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, there is the existence of a social contract whereby the individual is under implicit contract to submit to the general will. Sure there are many hindrances as to gather people to change their attitudes and behaviour but if we can rally people to shed the aforementioned mentality and relate their personal and social problems to negligence towards reducing energy consumption and material consumption then perhaps it’s high time they believe that maybe its not about securing a greener future but simply reveling in a greener present to make their day to day living more bearable.

Technology in that sense shouldn’t come across as an entity removed from the very spaces we have created in our lives. Rather, the essence is that it now becomes a dominating feature of our everyday moments. The alarm bell from our handphones jolts us awake in the morning, the coffee machine dispenses our daily dose of caffeine, we tap our EZ-Link cards to take public trains and buses to school or work and when we finally take a break, we find ourselves tuning in to shows on the tube, blasting our mp3 players and of course more interestingly, connecting with friends via online networking platforms (facebook!). Technology has seeped into so many layers of our lives that we find it hard not to plug in and exploit (or sometimes, become victims to) technological advancements. 

So how did technology manage to penetrate multiple spheres of our lives? And more importantly, how are we as a society affected, whether in a good or bad way, by the pace of technological revolutions? Allow me to perhaps answer these questions with pertinence to the hoo-hah involving my current addiction, Facebook. For those unfamiliar with facebook *scoffs*, it is more than your usual instant messaging and social networking sites. Its services extends beyond merely being able to write on a user’s ‘wall’ or posting personal information, pictures and videos; users can also instantly comment on one another’s activity, play games with their friends and not forgetting ‘superpoking’ them. In other words, facebook allows people to publish live feeds of themselves, to be broadcasted to whomever is allowed access to their profiles.

The overarching issue that I would like to explore here is the emerging construction of individual and collective identity brought about by such a use of technology in online social networking sites (Wilson, Peterson 2002). While there has been a lot of literature on how these platforms offer a bevy of tempting opportunities to be someone whom you’re not, I believe that in Facebook where the option of privacy is available, people will more or less disclose their personal information. Users fill in their political and religious views for the online community to judge, announce to the universe that they are happily in love via their status (“In a Relationship”) and add applications such as “The 30 Second Interview” or “What Colour Represents You?”. Though these identities that they represent may seem very much characteristic to the individual, the very idea of presenting yourself in a certain image reflects the need to be socially included in a particular community, to be associated with these communites hence the birth of a collective identity. We add ‘Pages’ where we declare publicly that we are fans of a certain music group, television show or political figures and post items that we think the whole world should know about.

Beyond simply the creation of a collective identity, facebook has far more reaching ramifications. Its technology has allowed for the emergence of revolutionary communicative and social practices. Surely something has changed in the very nature of our everyday experience, habitual facebooking perhaps, for that to occur. These emergences stem from, for instance, the need to learn how to interact with the online community, sometimes using a lingo, otherwise leading to our exclusion from these groups. Moreover, any minor changes in your profile such as a change in music taste is immediately notified to the online community allowing them to instantly promptly comment. Such communicative practices are even tapped into by brand moguls and political figures in garnering a large fan base in order to advance their interests. What do these all mean to us? Has technology been greatly embedded into our social practices such that what used to be traditional means (face-to-face conversations and attending rallies) evolved into ones that are detached from the physicality of our existence (i.e. online forums and instant messaging)? Perhaps not. While it does feel overwhelming to grasp the idea that technology has managed to penetrate our offline world as well, it boils down to whether we are able to learn how to dissect and understand these pervasive aspects.

Giddens also mentioned about instantaneous electronic communication that was highly resounding: we find that the image of Nelson Mendela may be more familiar to us than our next door neighbour.  A similar circumstance occurs in facebook; I find myself knowing more about an acquaintance’s preferences and dislikes than my own blood relative. Now, how sad is that? 

References

2002 Giddens, Anthony Globalisation, Risk and Tradition In Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our Lives. Routledge Press.

2008  Luscombe, Belinda.  The Truth About Teen Girls In Time: SECOND ANNUAL NATIONAL SERVICE ISSUE, 172(12), 66. ABI/INFORM Global database.

2002  Wilson, Samuel M. and Peterson, Leighton C. The Anthropology of Online Communities In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31, pp. 449-467

People in the lower class find it increasingly hard to cope with an increasing standard of living and find salvation in the idea that perhaps having more children would then enable them to have a source of income and support when these children grow up, which might explain the enigma as to why people of the lower-classes still have a relatively greater number of children despite the numerous economic and health care opportunities that they may not have access to. On the other hand, there are also people in the lower class who believe in having whatever amount of children deemed “beneficial for the nation” as the state imposes (because of the incentives that they can exploit). Cultural definitions of the worth of children as being producers rather than the contemporary definition of children being net consumers coupled with the inability to access certain resources by the poor and not so well privileged give rise to a complicated situation whereby we see population growth patterns differentiate for different classes.

Of course, the parallel that I quickly (and perhaps superficially) made was to that of HK and Singapore. That parallel made concerned, whatelse, but the freakishly many immigrants that flooded both countries. There were not just professionals who migrated to the country seeking to grab hold of the rewarding economic opportunities, but also labourers and plenty of domestic workers who found job openings in the respective sectors of the respective nations. But more interestingly, how both nations have introduced measures to tackle the problem of urban decay tied to immigration by knowing whom exactly they should accept, how should they accept them and under what terms? Apparently, HK erected a Quality Migrant’s Scheme to screen people applying to migrate into the country in order to pick out those who were considered ‘desirable’. In Singapore, the government has provided economic and educational incentives to attract foreign talents by fostering a conducive economic and social environment whilst enforcing strict policies for lower-wage labourers such as limiting work permits to one or two years and deporting women who become pregnant [1]. 

With an increasingly interdependent global economy and the penetration of the consumerist culture that drives people to pursue better economic well-being, such economic opulence becomes an intense magnetic force to pull people away from not just economic but social declination of their homelands. For instance, the middle class families in Burma are breaking their backs to earn enough moola to send their children to tertiary schools in Singapore not just due to the better economic prospects that their children could potentially earn but also the degrading quality of education in Burma’s public schools [2].

So if immigration is sooo economically driven, can we say that perhaps we begin to understand why an immigrant’s assimilation into the country’s social landscape is close to being unattainable? True, society’s inclination to ethnocentrism, reinvigorated by an increasing urbanizing world that threatens to dilute cultural practices and values by eradicating characteristics and features deemed to be backwards and non-progressive, might be a vital factor as to why society is resistant to ‘outsiders’ not just occupying ‘their’ lands but also taking up whatever economic and social opportunities ‘meant’ for the non-outsiders. The notion of ethnocentrism might explain how immigrants have a tough time integrating into their new ‘home’; resistance to other people’s way of life on both the part of the citizens and the immigrants. However, perhaps such difficulties in assimilation is more primarily due to the economic disparity between the predominantly middle class citizens in both HK and Singapore and the upper class expatriates or lower class immigrant laborers that eventually translated into a more visible cultural and social divergence.

In the case of Singapore, from what I noticed, most people find it repulsive to see these foreign labourers creating enclaves in areas like Kaki Bukit where mostly the Bangladeshi workers are housed or at Somerset on a Sunday where Filipino maids congregate and rarely do most singaporeans have even a minimal degree of respect towards them. As for HK, due to my sourcing of halal food, I visited various ethnic enclaves swarmed with people of a totally different colour than the mainland hongkongers and observed the cautious looks, wincing and indifference by these hongkongers towards the immigrants. Perhaps the idea of urbanization or new urbanism that was projected to bring about a more cosmopolitan environment rang true, but even with cities all over the world having a seemingly similar exterior (skyscrapers, parks, above and below ground public transportation) that gives a sense of being a global citizen where globalization and new urbanism has paved the way for perhaps a worldwide homogeneity of our surroundings, there is a sense of ethnic, cultural or national identity entrenched within the individuals who feel that their identities are increasingly threatened with this new wave of urbanism that has exacerbated the transnational mobility of labour.

[1] Asia learns to cope with a rise in the flow of immigrants by David Pilling and Kathrin Hille

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1301662681&sid=4&Fmt=1&clientId=15653&RQT=309&VName=PQD

[2] No future for the young, The Straits Times 11 October 2008

Such social relationships that exist in Singapore which would be noteworthy to explore is the presence of a multicultural and pluralistic society that we have (I find it amusing that the dictionary states that one of the meanings of pluralistic is that it is a system of power-sharing among a number of political parties, definitely not the intended meaning that the government sought to use). Often, it feels as if it’s a taboo to talk about the multi-culturalness and plurality of the Singaporean society that we live in. Is it perhaps an indication that we are all very much consciously aware of the interplay of identities and its extent of influence in our social institutions?

In Singapore, it’s difficult not to come across an instance whereby our ethnic and racial identity is seemingly irrelevant. We carry identification cards that do not even reflect the real identities we adopt, we fill in forms after forms demanding for our racial group and when we take the public transport, we are sometimes inundated by scores of government-related adverts that will somehow showcase the three dominant races in Singapore. It all feels like contradiction in motion; the state wants to instill a sense of Singaporean identity to glue its people together under a common set of values and beliefs yet everyday we are reminded of the differences that exist between the different racial, and sometimes religious, groups in Singapore.

This differentiation may perhaps seek to prove how cultural ideologies constructed under earlier conditions may actually continue to influence people’s behaviour under changed conditions [1]. Even when policies stimulate racial cohesiveness and create a national identity are introduced, the state constructed social conditions did little to genuinely assimilate the different racial and religious groups into a bigger community. These groups may feel as if they are told to abandon certain values and traditions that they honour and to adopt modern contemporary beliefs simply because they live within the same borders. As a result, these groups will make a concerted effort to show that they are unique and distinctly different from other racial or religious groups, from celebrating major occasions to the minutest things like food or music preferences.

But how can mere differences in our identities potentially lead to social disorder? The government justifies its paternalistic policies by using the infamous racial riot to scare people into thinking that multiculturalism could lethally result in violent conflicts that plague almost all countries over the world, whatnow with so much emphasis on the identity of the community and the individual in a globalized world. What we take for granted to be racial harmony existing in Singapore could potentially just be repressed emotions of one racial (maybe not so much on the religious) group on another. After all, as I’ve mentioned earlier on, to speak negatively of another racial group seemed very much a taboo but the reality is that we are all guilty of criticizing other racial groups when we feel there is a sense of inequality and prejudice targeted at our racial groups. Even people involved in interethnic marriages will slant towards a particular racial group that they feel most affiliated to in the CMIO categories.

I believe that in Singapore, it’s interesting how perhaps the government projected its people to have a greater sense of being a Singaporean rather than as a Chinese or a Malay or an Indian or whatever other ethnic groups present here. Rather, as the level of education increases, there is a general pattern whereby either they feel a much much greater sense of belonging to their racial groups (more so in the case of minorities) or they feel that they belong to a community bigger than that of just being a Singaporean, that is they take on this idea of a globalized identity where for them, truly the world is flat. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to break out of that racial and cultural ideology especially when government policies and social institutions still rectify policies and systems that discriminate and differentiate the various racial and religious groups leaving social relationships between different identities to either blossom or sour.

[1] Solidarity, Conflict and Ambivalence: Complementary or Competing Perspectives on Intergenerational Relationships? by Vern Bengtson, Roseann Giarusso, J. Beth Mabry and Merril Silverstein Journal of Marriage and the Family ©2002

Linking this topic back to War and Terror, it seems interesting how democracy has been the tool of choice for countries fighting for freedom and independence in the 20th century. Why is that so? After all, men have pretty much experimented with a lot of different governing systems; the 20th century era of Cold War had become a deadly playing field for people to contend whose system of governing was more ‘superior’. Nonetheless, capitalist and socialist aside, this idea of democracy was slowly taking shape in the world, gradually gaining momentum till by the end of the 20th century, the number of democratic countries have increased to around 100 (Figure 1).

Once countries have successfully managed to implement democracies within their respective nations, the next stumbling block tends to be delegation of powers between different constituents and perhaps more riveting, in wanting to grant certain rights for the masses. The predicament sets in that these people begin to question: How do we ensure a just presentation of rights to society, without upsetting the status quo or interests that different groups in societies hold? 

At this juncture, it would very much be relevant to link back to how class and inequalities are at the helm of this delicate issue of democracy and wanting the rights that come along with it. Let’s be outright blatant and face the hard truth, in most (perhaps arguably ALL) circumstances, some people are just regarded to be more equal than others (I might have taken the conception out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm out of context). But what I’d like to illustrate is my argument that the actuality of life and the world today is such that society is subjected to varying levels of biasedness. It doesn’t matter if democracy meant power converged in the hands of the people or the state, some people will just simply have more rights than someone else (on the assumption that their fight for democracy entails for equality of rights for all).

So it’s a major irony that if democracy meant that EVERYONE IS EQUAL, then why are some people simply more equal? When I wanted to explore this notion, it seemed pretty much straightforward at first: corruption in the governing body, inability to comprehend how a democratic system would fit in with their country’s unique situation, unable to decide to what extent the nation can uphold whatever rights they fight for, etc. But at second glance, the idea became surprisingly abstract (well, IMHO at least). It led me to the ever popular debate that democracy was the tyranny of the majority, where the disparity in terms of privileges and rights for all was a bit more evident. According to Cunningham, democracy after all should be that people rally together, striving to solve a set of common issues and problems. But in the process, unintended consequences, namely this idea that I-am-totally-more-equal-than-you-possibly-are, question the efficacious nature of democracy: is it really fool-proof? Can it withstand political turmoil and social unrest in a bid to save the nation from further turmoils and unrests? 

Pro-democracy advocates contest that it is a tried and tested way of governing the country. Truly, in some cases democracy does seem to be a plausible option for most societies today but there needs to be an understanding that the system of democracy implemented has to be unique to the societies governing it. It is distinct, and as much as it tries to emulate another nation’s model of democracy (for instance, America who has settled on Liberal Democracy), then they would find themselves drowning in the failures of their copy-cat system of democratic governing until they have learnt to tweak the imitation and make it a clearly separate democracy.

Perhaps modern society’s view of rights being such an idealistic notion (i.e. wanting ABSOLUTE rights for ourselves or for instance our quixotic and fanciful dreams of achieving freedom of expression for all!) might mislead developing nations or third world countries who would then aspire for such a far-fetched and contrived conception of rights that it deviates them from thinking things through: Are their countries ready to erect democracy as their governing system? Are they aware of what democracy entails, in fact what comes with the price of obtaining those rights that they yearn for? Otherwise, when democracy fails, it seeks to prove what James Fenimore Cooper once said, that “it is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute opinion for law”.

References

Democratic Electoral Systems around the world 1946-2000
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/es.pdf

It is despairing to see how mankind pit themselves against one another in violent combats that becomes a perilous game of life and death. Throughout history, wars seem to be a defining feature in the creation (and downfall) of most civilizations and nations. Despite man’s intellect and capacity to establish diplomacy and finding a way to come to similar grounds with one another without having to compromise their own beliefs, undoubtedly, society has a hard time trying to accommodate someone else’s articles of faith and ideologies. There is always a choice in dealing with these differences: either co-existence or waging a war against the supposedly ‘wrongful’ party.

Amidst all these savagery and turbulence, have we ever wondered who falls the hardest? We are often too preoccupied by who emerged as the eventual winner in the war and what their subsequent nation-building policies will be. The occurrence of wars and conflicts are so frequent that it could be argued that perhaps societies that are not directly affected by these disputes have become desensitized.

The trouble with apathy is that these people who fall hardest cannot seek social and economic support to get back up their feet. Resources they once owned have been exhausted or destroyed during warfare thus prompting them to search for new resources to consume. The economic repercussions are self-evident, but what about the social implications as a result of such violent conflicts? Looking at the most foundational level, we see family members adopting unconventional roles in times of crisis. Children have been relegated to serve as child soldiers, men leave their homes to fight in battles knowing that there is close to zero probability of ever returning while women bear heavier economic and domestic burdens.

So if everyone is greatly affected by the outcomes of wars and conflicts, whom can we safely say has fallen the hardest? Soldiers die in the hands of their enemies, politicians beg for the mercy of their new ‘lords’, women suffer in the face of immense adversity while children lay dying fighting for a cause they barely understood. Sometimes society become so obsessed over blaming other people for their wretched disposition that they allow their nationalistic, religious or ethnic fervour to delusion them from the actual gains from war. In ancient times, territorial expansion was deemed necessary to protect their own borders and now, pre-emptive strikes are considered vital so as to prevent further unwarranted bloodshed. Yet the problem with looking at things from a bigger picture, beyond the self and society, is that it tends to miscalculate the degree of impact such wars and conflicts have on the society and individual.

Societies truly have been living a life of irony since the beginning of time. We seek peace and harmonious living for the people within our communities by waging war and invest plenty of time and resources into building up our military capacity rather than addressing social issues that might perhaps truly be the remedy for all the unhappiness and injustice occurring in society. True, often wars derive as a result of other societies or parties whose beliefs and ideals might jeopardize our existence, but as I’ve painstakingly explored, is it worth all the loss of lives and resources just to prove that we were absolutely right? Ultimately, as my all-time favourite cartoon character from Rurouni Kenshin once wisely said: Only history will determine who’s right. But as far as I’m concerned, wars will only determine who’s left. Impoverished, desolated civilians.

I believe society in general, when it comes to dealing with people who commit crimes, have a quick tendency to point fingers and solely blame these offenders for having such a low dignity of the self and at their lowest point could actually resort to committing acts deemed punishable by the law. We rarely(well actually most of us never) really think about whether the crimes that they have committed are driven beyond more than just the self, that they could actually be influenced by events shaped by society.

If that is so, is it safe to say that somehow, in some twisted ironical sense, our actions as a society will influence the events that happen in our society therein resulting in the creation of opportunities for some, and loss of these opportunities to others? It seeks to reinforce the idea that “people whose opportunities for enlightenment and achievement are blocked—by the organizational and operational shortcomings and cultural biases of social institutions—are at risk of falling into crime as they try to cope with the stresses imposed on them”[1].

As a result, it seems that crime goes beyond the superficiality of people being pure ‘evil’ or ‘reckless’ (of course there are the exceptions); there is irrevocably a bigger force in motion that pushes people to carry out whatever crimes big or small. Inequalities, as we have discussed in earlier weeks, may evoke the possibility that people could be driven to the brink of poverty hence perhaps giving them a reason to resort to alternative means of attaining more wealth for their survival.  Moreover, the idea of alienation at work as contended by Marx could be a force to reckon with as people find it increasingly frustrating to be labouring for something they cannot appreciate doing thus searching for outlets to vent such anger and depression, outlets that often are crime-related.

Of course, this is not to say that other factors as to who is to be blamed for acts of crime happening in our societies do not play a role. The point that I wish to highlight here is that it is disturbing to know that while societies have certain values that seek to uphold harmony and order amongst its members, somehow crime seems to be a feature that transcends all the different societies, regardless of time and space. In the modern context, nowadays we see increasing numbers of white-collared workers charged with fraud and corruption in their bid to acquire more wealth to support a materialistic lifestyle. It gives testament that crime is not just carried out by poor and physically displaced people; it is the playground of both the rich and poor, the young and old and just about anyone can be a player.

Perhaps an issue of relevance that is often overlooked that could help us understand how society influences acts of crimes is by exploring the gray areas in crime as I call it. A simple reference would be that of the tale of Robin Hood which seeks to question, is it justifiable to rob the rich to give to the poor? Such thought provoking issues of crime and justice is also portrayed in popular culture such as in movies like the not-so-recent The Dark Knight whereby the two groups of people onboard separate ships were given a choice to dictate who should live: the boat full of civilians or a boat decked with ex-criminals.

Either ways, one thing everyone knows for sure is that we are all bound to the law. Yet sometimes, for some of us in certain societies, the law just doesn’t seem to exist.

While the problem of overburdened women desperately juggling work with household issues have recently grown momentum, what people tend to overlook is that this concept of a ‘supermom’ has existed for eons of years already. Agrarian societies frequently require the services of the women on the field so as to maximize productivity in helping the family yield more crops and products, while the dawn of the industrial revolution saw a phenomenal trend in women taking up industrial job opportunities in seeking to support their family (sometimes breaking their backs just so to pull their family out of poverty).

The question is, if gender roles have always been so pronounced, why is it then that throughout the ages, females not just have the task of nurturing their young at homes, but also to work and provide income for the family? Sure there are instances whereby women do stay at home and feel obligated to conform to social expectations of being a homemaker. But the reality of the world today and as it has always been is that not every woman enjoys the privileges of having excess income for household expenditures. Just as enforced by Arlie Hochschild, most women are implicated into the second shift of paid work and housework in order to channel more income for the family.

The type of working women that I’d like to explore further would be those whom it seems that they NEED to have a job otherwise without question they’ll be slumped into a life of poverty, dragging along their family as well. The situation that they’re entangled in is really an eye-opener even for white-collared working women who thought they had it bad. How do societal norms on gender roles affect the former? Does there even exists certain expectations, based on gender, on how they should handle domestic problems and how best to eke a living? The dilemma of the feminization of poverty: family versus livelihood.

What is truly troubling is that these women work for such low wages and slaving for hours on end, earning a meager sum of money that may or may not sustain her’s and the family’s expenses for a day. There is little contact time between mother and child, wife and husband thus generating a series of never-ending social problems whereby mothers end up leaving their children in orphanages, to be raised without the tender love and care of parents, children are being sent to work in order to make ends meet, husbands become abusive as they feel detached from marital bliss.

And these women are particularly vulnerable to being abandoned by their husbands if the children are deemed to be more of a burden than an asset; knowing that abandonment would render them utterly void of financial support, working becomes a necessity. Not just that, what happens when that financial support crumbles in the face of adversity, left alone to feed not just themselves but their younglings as well? After all, in a recent report done by the International Labour Organization, figures seek to prove the idea that women had a greater likelihood of unemployment as compared to men whereby the female unemployment rate stood at 6.4 per cent as opposed to the male rate of 5.7 per cent[1]. According to the report, women, especially those in the lower rung of the social strata have limited job opportunities, working in “the less productive sectors of economies” thus earning lesser than men.

It doesn’t just stop there, the jobs they are in don’t even surmount to being defined as a “decent work” whereby they are excluded from fundamental privileges such as social protection, basic rights and having a voice at work. Yet even in these darkest hours exists the beauty of the female sodality:  we search for social support offered by women trapped in a similar situation as us.

So can you measure a woman’s worth?

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.  Luckily, this is not difficult.”  ~Charlotte Whitton

When work has become part and parcel of our daily lives, we seldom question the inevitable: Why the need to work? True, the answer simply lies in the fact that we strive to eke a living. Yet, what is not so simple is the idea that we find ourselves in a position whereby unlike in the past where producing finished goods gave a considerably good amount of salary, such means of work has been devalued and replaced by an economy that gears its workforce towards knowledge-based production.

Such an economic shift leads to, arguably, a penultimate solution of simply stepping up our game in order to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to adapt to changing economic times. But sometimes, the rate at which the economy is progressing becomes too fast for people in the lower-end industries to catch up and employment becomes a rampant social problem as companies seek cheaper labour elsewhere.

Perhaps we must come to understand that in a cut-throat world full of competition as a result of capitalistic principles of the need for lower cost of production via efficiency, unemployment and cheap labour exploitation come hand in hand. The reality dawns upon us all that the job we have today may easily be replaced by someone else tomorrow.

In addition, I thought what Emile Durkheim brought up about solidarity amongst workers who were involved in the same task was interesting. It’s sort of a I-can-totally-relate-to-how-you-feel-about-this-job-that-we’re-doing that has led to people with similar job natures to congregate. What I’d like to question is, we may be romanticized by this idea of solidarity, but does that seem to be the reality of our working conditions nowadays???

Physically and tangibly, we do see unions and welfare groups who claim to represent the interests of the workers in rallying for their well-being. In society itself, we do see office workers who eat out in groups during lunch hour, cleaner aunties and uncles who have a nice chat while cleaning after people’s rubbish and factory workers making use of their break times to have a smoke and grouse about whatever nonsense in their workplace. Let’s ask ourselves, is this solidarity or mere societal inclination towards communicating with people but not necessarily attaching a value of sentiment and sincerity in their communication with fellow workers?

So then can we argue that behind the façade of society’s so-called solidarity, there are actually pent-up feelings of alienation as argued by Karl Marx? What Karl Marx was trying to put across is that the capitalist essentially controls the labour process and that workers market their ‘labour power’, hence whatever the workers produce is in actuality alien because it is not the product of the worker but the product of the capitalist.[1] Maybe, but what we can be certain of is that the degree of alienation experience by workers in different industries and in different countries especially varies. Perhaps there is a co-relation between how well the welfare of the workers is tended to and the magnitude of alienation. In industries or countries where the worker’s welfare is dissatisfactory, people feel as if they have been neglected by their big bosses and seek to change conditions for the better via their unions or in a worse case scenario, labour protests.

To link back all these work issues to class and inequalities, sad to say, in my opinion, the majority of society living in poverty are not empowered enough to stand up and fight against horrid working conditions at minimal wages. True, for them alienation is a reality and solidarity is but a fragment of the imagination of the rest of society who may not understand that while they (i.e. those not living in poverty) whine about how work ethics are in the hands of capitalists who manipulate them, no one has felt the graveness of this statement more than these poverty-stricken people. For them, truly, the job they have today may easily be replaced by someone else tomorrow.