Cosmopolitanism revisted, some Serenity, birthday greetings, stuff

[shadowkat]

As an aside and before I forget, because I always do, not online often enough to keep track of this stuff - sorry guys : a HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO dlgood Yes, I have finally discovered the "MY LJ" category on livejournal. It only took me a few months. Did they always have it? Don't remember seeing it before this month, but it is more than possible. This nifty category makes it possible for me to read the latest entries on my flist, without flipping to my flist, see the latest responses to my journal without looking at email, and responding to them without flipping to my entries. It also, drumroll, allows me to see people's birthdays - explaining how the heck everyone on lj always seemed to know whose birthday it was and I never had a clue.

Via nifty "My LJ" - I read three people's entries and was moved to nod and smile in complete understanding/comprehension to oyceter - who wonders why she seems to revert back to old selves around family and certain friends, then back to work self afterwards. Felt much the same way over the holidays. As if I have multiple personalities or selves and different ones come out depending on who I am with. (She didn't quite put it that way of course, but that's what clicked.)

Writing this as my radiators gradually hiss to life, hopefully bringing me some heat. Fingers are cold. So are feet. Rest of body is fine and dandy, thank you.


Day not so bad. Was in a decent mood, maybe a shade or too on the tired side, but decent, until I opened up my credit card bill and discovered much to my dismay that a local video store had charged me $14.50. Okay, granted it is only $14.50. But, I have not rented any videos from any video stores since I joined netflix last year. Trying now to remember exactly when I joined netflix. Sometime around June or July, I believe. At any rate one of the reasons I joined netflix, was a local video store was going to charge me a $14.50 dollar late fee for two videos that I not only turned in on time, but turned in "early". Way back in May or July, I told the owner about this and after apologizing profusely, he promised to make the correction to my account. Months go by, I trust the owner has done this, and merrily join netflix. Then today, open up bill, and discover much to my shock, that vidoe store has charged my credit card $14.50 on 11/29 (haven't rented a video at this place since they screwed up in May, at least I think it was May, the months, they blur). I call the store, get a dumb clerk who knows zip and proceeds to tell me to drop by before 5pm on Wed when the manager is in. (Uh, don't get home from work until 5:30, you dolt.) He assures me there's an explanation, I guess it probably is that charge the owner promised me he'd correct.( Stupid me. Should have made him do it in front of me and give me a receipt.) So now what? Do I fight them on it? Do I deal? Ugh. I hate conflict. Hate pestering people. Hate fighting. Have decided to call the nitwits tomorrow while at work and try to hammer the whole thing out on the phone. It is only $14, after all.
Just want to make sure they don't charge me again. What a nifty New Year's Present. Did do one thing though it reminded me of why I joined netflix.

Outside of that and the weather - cold, dreary, constant rain...not that bad a day. Did run into a weird woman in the bodega, coughing up a storm, not covering her mouth, soaked in a warm-up outfit, buying pet food. Couldn't decide if she was homeless or just a crazy person from my neighborhood. Felt guilty for wanting to get as far away from her as possible, which was impossible in tiny bodega. Stringly blond hair, splotchy red face, and bulging eyes. This experience and the bill, made me sort of wish I stayed at work.

So, you are no doubt wondering - okay, how was it a good day? All you've done so far is whinge.
True. Moving on.


1. Finished work I did not imagine I could get done (you should have seen my desk this morning, could barely see any of it, stacks of files and paper everywhere - then when left, clean and clear, just one small stack next to computer and one small stack in in-box. Hee. Oh well, at least I'm busy and cannot complain about being bored. Would much prefer to be busy at work than bored - since not really allowed to play on internet and when I'm bored, I get tempted to take undue risks.)
2. Accepted new work assignment without any flack to boss. (Just gave puppy dog expression, which did not work, okay not sure that counts...)
3. Came out ahead stock option wise on merger (which is good, considering job may or may not exist in a few months, we shall see... One of the pluses about working for huge company merging with bigger company is well, stock options.)
4. Meeting was dreading for Thurs, was cancelled. YAY!!!
5. Kidbro asked how much money I owed him for theater tickets - so do not have to follow-up with him after all. (YEs, one last person to bug. Thank heaven!)
6. Actually wrote a little in my book tonight, writer's block gone! Yay!!! (Hmmm...can undue amount of stress be a potential cause of writer's block? Ponders.)
M

Oh, watched the film Serenity last night. Second time for me. Interesting film. Hit on the whole hogomony (or is that hegomony? God, no clue how to spell this word. I can think it, but the spelling just does not look right somehow...so substituting weaker word - globalization), globalization issue. Which I also discussed at length with my mother last night, because it is bugging me. Why? Well, I recently joined small state health care company that is about to become a part of the largest health care company in the US. Big merger. Feel a bit like a tadpole being swallowed by a whale. Also there's all this talk about integration and conversion going on.
So the topic is more or less in my subconscious 24/7.

At any rate, during phone discussion - mother responded very well to a question I posed in my lj - ie: "What evidence can you supply of globalization/hogomization? I don't see it."


Momster:"Well, in clothing, people in other cultures used to wear different types of garb, now everyone more or less wears the same thing no matter where they are on the globe. Granted, some muslims and people in India may wear traditional dress due to religious reasons, but most wear jeans and Western clothes."
Me:"But they chose to."
Momster:"Did they? There's a pressure to conform, to wear what others wear, what the media, movies, tv shows show you. Advertising. Or company attire. How about cell phones and computers? That's another example."
ME: "How so? Not everyone has one..."
Momster: "But it is getting to the point in which everyone must have one. Soon we won't have a choice but to use a cell phone over a regular telephone or to have a computer in order to communicate with someone. I hate computers and cell phones and would prefer not having to use them, but in order to get plane tickets, get supplies, even communicate - I have to use them. I have less and less choice."
Me (pondering this a bit):"Wales is the only friend I have that still does not have a cell phone and she doesn't want one. I don't want one. I barely use mine, but I'm afraid not to have it. I don't feel I have a choice..."
Momster:"Exactly. That's evidence of globalization."
ME:"But cell phones were invented by the Japanese not Americans.."
Momster:"True. But the idea was most likely a Western one. The Western Culture's use of marketing and advertising to permeate every corner of the globe. " (Okay she didn't say it exactly like that, memory isn't perfect).
"Also as for keeping the original, while I agree that there should be more than one variation of a theaterical performance, that is after all what theater is all about, movies...not so much. No problem with more than one variation of Pride and Prejudice, enjoyed those as well. But I don't want them to remake Gone with The Wind or
Casablanca or Wizard of Oz, the originals should stand untouched."
ME:"Why? You still have the original. It's not like you'll lose it."
Momster:"No...but...you can spend time and money on something else."
And I think on it a bit more and think, okay, she has a point. I'm not sure I want to see Gone with The Wind or for that matter Casablanca remade - although both have had lousey TV productions based on them. Further proof that they shouldn't be remade. Nor would I want BTVS or ATS redone.
Momster: "I don't think you can be definitive about this. Some things should stay pure, some not. It's not black and white."

Watching Serenity - I more or less saw the same theme. You can control people. Make them fit a little slot.
Define them. Categorize. Classify. Nor can or should you make everyone the same. Take away the very thing that drives people, makes people unique. More than one sci-fi story discusses this idea - from Philip K. Dick to
well, Ayn Rand. So, I'm not sure Cosmopolitianism fits me either - if it is about globalization and hegomonizing things. I want and crave balance. I want to live in the area in between - the gray. I do not wish to be order or chaos, black or white, pure or impure, preservationist or globalizationist, but in between, walking a tight rope between extreems. I tell this to Momster. Her reply? "We all want a perfect world. But it's not one. Unfortunately."

Comments

[superplin.livejournal.com]

My philosophy professor this past semester, who is a Very Big Name in postcolonialism as well as other areas, hates cosmopolitanism and Appiah quite passionately. His reasoning mainly has to do with the fact that only the very privileged (economically, racially, etc.) can afford to consider themselves "citizens of the world," equally protected and with the same opportunities wherever they go, and blithely assume that everyone else can do the same.

His argument is obviously a lot more complex than that, but it ties into your conversation with your mom, in that cosmopolitanism tends to completely ignore the power of corporate or national hegemony.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

This is my problem with philosophy, I like bits and pieces of each theory, but the whole theory just doesn't work in reality. I start to see the flaws.

Appiah's argument in theory sounds quite lovely - accept everyone, provide everyone with choices - what he doesn't realize is we really don't have choices or rather only the very wealthy do, and even them? Not really.
What he overlooks in his argument, which my mother stumbled upon and I wasn't seeing but saw quite clearly while watching Serenity and going back to work today - was "societal" pressure. The pressure to buy a TV set, a cell phone, a pair of blue jeans.

There's a fascinating couple of science fiction novels written by Maria Doria Russel called The Sparrow and The Children of God which more or less turn Appiah's lovely theory on its head. The characters journey to another world, they crash, and start to innocently plant a garden to feed themselves. They meet the locals and innocently teach them to plant a garden and learn their language. Then they discover, to their horror, how population is controlled on the planet. They attempt to interfer and chaos ensues. The novel asks the question - does sharing our culture, our world with another culture - irretrievably hurt it? Were the citizens of that new world really given an informed choice or was that choice made for them by the visitors? I see the same thing in my own company, we - as in the employees and the customers - make the decision to become a part of the giant company, that choice was thrust upon us. And in Appiah's example of his native Ghana, he forgets that Ghanians also did not have a choice. Europeans came to their land and persuaded them - sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently, to trade. It's far from simple. Yet, many philosophers want to simplify it - make things definitive, black and white, forgetting human beings aren't simple and there isn't a perfect formula to follow.

At any rate, I've come to conclude that while Appiah's philosophy has some interesting and valid points, (hey who wouldn't want to be a citizen of the world?) It tends to be a tad niave and falls apart under further analysis for the reasons you state in your post above.

I keep wanting to define my world and keep realizing it may not be definable.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Just dashing in to say I've been enjoying the discussion in your LJ! It's interesting because in the Canadian election, the PM keeps talking about this being a country of minorities - the idea being no one culture dominates. It's not actually true, but it makes me wonder whether multi-culturalism, or cosmopolitanism which strikes me as multi-culturalism lite, can work with having one dominant culture.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

Picked up the Economist to read about the Canadian election. Don't quite agree with the Economist on many things - although to give them credit they tend to be more moderate than some publications. But by the same token, I get a sense that they prefer money to people all in all - which makes sense, I suppose, they are after all called The Economist.

I agree with what you say here. I'm not sure you can have a multi-cultural atmosphere when you are in a place where someone is telling you via all sorts of outlets what you must where, what you must buy, and how you must live.

In my own workplace - for example - they had a "diversity day" - complete with cookbook, t-shirts, music quiz. But when I look around the company on a day to day basis - people all wear more or less the same uniform : "business casual", they all have the same cubicule set-up, they are given the same id's, they are told to a degree what they can and can't display in their cubicules (ie. what may be offensive to others), and they have to speak the same language. All of which makes logical sense, but does not necessarily promote diversity - at least not beyond the "legal" definition.

Whedon's film Serenity haunts me a little and not necessarily in the ways Whedon intended. I keep remembering River's statement, "we don't like to be meddled with" - but what Whedon forgets is we do however love to meddle. Even the Serenity gang is guilty of this - in their decision to impose their knowledge of what happened on Miranda on everyone else, no matter if they want to know or not. It goes back to the prime directive dilemma posed on Star Trek over and over - to what extent can we interact with another culture without imposing our own culture upon them? To what extent can you show a tape of BTVS to a teenage friend from a far away place who has never seen such a show and who may be affected by it in a detrimental way - by say, just seeing what Buffy wears and wanting suddenly to wear it too?

I keep thinking about the merger situation I'm currently in, which in some ways reminds me of the US's invasion of Iraq - all the marketing data says we are making a better world by doing this, more affordable product, safer people, etc - yet people are losing jobs, livilihoods, morale is at an all time low and in Iraq, people are losing lives....yes, in the long run, everything might be fantastic, but at what cost?

The more I flip the concept of multi-culturalism and cosmopolitanism over in my head, the more I wonder how niave this is? It feels a bit like a politician's pipe dream or marketing speech - all style, little substance, pretty words, nice ideas, nice theory, but does it actually work in practice?

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I do believe multi-culturalism can work - though that could just be my own privileged position talking. I think though that both sides have to be prepared to give a lot up, if traditions and customs are blended they are going to lose some of their meaning, there's no help for that, just as power has to be given up by a dominant culture.

The discussion reminds me of a discussion a few months back about default assumptions, I think it was about how on occasion it feels like male authors assume their readers are male, the default is to believe everyone is just like you. I think that definitely happens culturally, one assumes one's cultural ideals are shared or desired by others. Right now the default setting seems to be American, a hundred or so years ago it would have been British, in another hundred years it'll be Chinese. Which is why it's important to remember that there's always another perspective.

Maybe post-modernism should be thrown into the philosophical mix, I think I need to be constantly keeping context and perspective in mind.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

only the very privileged (economically, racially, etc.) can afford to consider themselves "citizens of the world"

Yes, this sounds a bit like those people who are all 'we're postmodernist and beyond trivial distinctions of gender now': whereas for the vast mass of people (e.g. all those women earning less than male counterparts/getting lower severance pay/being denied birth control by pharmacists etc) gender is still a pretty significant factor in their lives.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree it is very easy for people who do not have to deal with difficult situations to believe everything is wonderful and it is far from an old idea.
During the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette was rumored to have been so unaware of her subjects pain and hunger - she stupidly said "let the eat cake". It was a rumor, if memory serves, it was not true. But the disconnect certainly is.

Very few women get high profile or high paying jobs and the one's who do, are paid a lot less than their male counterparts. TV dramas, movies, pop cultural references, and advertising still promote a specific view of how women should act and still place women in a box of sorts. Saw a clip on the news last night about a gym class for women to get used to walking in heels, because they have to wear heels in the winter and not sandles or flip-flops. If you "don't" wear heels - you just aren't fashionably correct. You aren't as attractive, etc. A statement that has always annoyed me. I refuse to wear heels unless absolutely necessary - for several reasons: 1) I don't see the point, 2) they hurt like hell 3) I tower over most people already, why add height? 4) they are more expensive than comfortable shows and get damaged easily. And it annoys me when people thrust this expectation at me.
"You have to wear heels!"

Or the fact that some health care companies will pay for men to get Viagra but not for women to get birth control.

One of the problems I had with Whedon's shows (can't remember if you followed them or not - if not - one concerned a female superhero) was the patronizing attitude the writer/director/creator has towards women - an attitude, to be fair, he's been taught over time and is no doubt unaware of. The hero is the small adolescent girl or child who falls for or becomes involved with on some level the much older, worldly male anti-hero. Women are in some way controlled by, changed, used, or overseen by men. A concept Whedon did not create so much as pick up from X-Men comic books, Westerns, and other male dominated creations. His patriarchial attitude comes from his culture. It's not that surprising that the one show on TV that in a way copies Buffy's formula, also has a female heroine who more often than not is at the mercy of or overseen by men, and has almost no female role models or positive female acquaintances - Veronica Mars.

In my own work place, I'm very aware of it. Yes, we have women in leadership roles - but they remain supporting ones - Legal Counsel, Public Affairs, Operations...Human Resources, Paralegal...they aren't heads of Marketing, Sales, Medical, or the Corporation itself. Yet, I'm happy they are in some leadership ones. It's better than nothing. But still not good enough.

And I often ask myself, after more than one heated discussion with my own gender, if we, women, are as responsible for these discrepancies? If we have bought into the party line? And if so, how do you change that? Can you?

Sorry, not sure how on topic that was. Bit in a venting mood tonight, I'm afraid.