Oedipus. // Critical Readings.

Reading King Oedipus was a joy, well, along with Life of Pi and the Ballad of Reading Gaol. Critical Readings was by far one of my favourite modules so far too. (The only A I ever got in Sem 1

is Critical Readings. HAHA.).

So, for this assignment, we were to read King Oedipus and with a set of questions, choose one and write your point across.
The question I chose was "How is Oedipus relevant in today's contemporary world/context?".

So..enjoy!

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

King Oedipus is one of the greatest tragedies written by Sophocles in 430 BC. Meaningful as it is, many fail to see its relevance in today’s modern context. Even though it was written over 2000 years ago with a storyline based on then Greek society and attitudes, we can still draw resemblances from the story which are applicable to us in our everyday thinking and reasoning. Sophocles usage of themes like determinism and agency, coupled with techniques like symbolism, echoes the relevancy that we can relate to. Humans are creatures of habit and there are some traits that can never be changed no matter which age of humanity they are in. In the words of David Hume, “Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature" (Hume, 1748). 

Sophocles uses Oedipus as the protagonist and we see many stages of his life and the growth of his character in this story. One of the many traits that Sophocles portrays strongly is Oedipus’s arrogance and excessive pride, i.e. hubris, as the Greeks termed it. Sophocles uses the Greek belief that a hero would fall from his own hubris (Ohio University, n.d.), making him the antagonist of the story as well. It’s through this ideology that Sophocles chooses to relate with the audience.

Hubris and arrogance were the catalysts of Oedipus’s own downfall portrayed many times in the story. Oedipus’s refusal to agree to his destiny, from the prophecies given by the oracle is a good example. He leaves Corinth intending to alter the fate of his and the people he thought were his parents (“It is. Loxias…I have fared well” Pg53). This defiance against the “will of the Gods” is proof of the great hubris Oedipus harboured thinking he is better than the Gods (“You have prayed…now, to me” Pg31) and can change his fate. In the same way as Oedipus’s parents who sought to have their son killed to change their fate. Here, they challenged their “fate” with their own free will which Sophocles uses to portray the theme of determinism and agency.

Similarly, in this present day, there is disbelief of the idea of one’s fate belonging to an unknown entity. As children, we were always told that our destiny is always in our own hands and we are the makers of our own fate. It is human nature to try to change what we think we have in our power and capability to change and that we are in charge of our future.

Another technique that Sophocles uses is irony, linking to the theme of sight and blindness. One being the irony that one with sight is actually blinded to the truth and one who is blind can see all. Vision, which can be a theme or symbol, is used to portray insight and knowledge, a quality that Oedipus was proud for. However, Teiresias claims he knows better and what is best for the both of them during their exchange of words, insulting Oedipus in the process. With his hubris affected, Oedipus was angered to the point where he was blinded from self knowledge when the truth comes forth that he is the murderer. Oedipus’s disregard of the truth shows the rhetorical irony when the he claims to see and know all but is indeed blinded to the real truth due to his own character. In the end, this led to him blinding his eyes, as what their use when he could see but was still blind. (“What should I…Away!” Pg63)

Today, many would regard themselves attuned with their self knowledge. However, how many are actually aware of the blindness to their own unknown as a weakness? Though the usage of blindness and sight are used in a metaphorical way in relation to Greek ideology, it is relatable in today’s context of thinking and reasoning. Metaphors like “blinded by lust” or “blinded by the truth” resonates in today’s generation, which is similar to that of the context with Oedipus.

In my opinion, Sophocles uses riddles to symbolize irony as well in the story. In the beginning, Oedipus was famed for solving the riddle of the Sphinx and defeating her. The city of Thebes, and Jocasta were his prize and the citizens praised his knowledge and wisdom. However, at the end of the story, Tiresias ends the argument between Oedipus and himself with another riddle. The price for solving this riddle however proved to be Oedipus ultimate downfall. Irony in the fact that it was a riddle that made him who he was with his knowledge and insight but it was also a riddle that destroyed him due to the blindness incapability to see the truth.

George Lucas, is one good example to relate to this concept. Star Wars propelled him into an illustrious career making him one of the most successful figures in Hollywood. However, with great power comes great responsibility. He was so blinded of pride for Star Wars however, that it ultimately was the thing that ruined his credibility and integrity as a director. He took complete control of the entire process, ignoring what the fans wanted and expected, added his own idea, and changed Star Wars to the way he seemed fit, resulting in a backlash from the fans and Hollywood. The hubris from his own success was his own downfall when arrogance and denial took over, which sadly, led to him selling Star Wars, his pride and joy and affecting his career. (Robertson, 2016)

Lastly, Sophocles uses the 3 path crossroad to symbolize the theme of determinism and agency as well. It symbolizes a position where one has a choice of a different path, each with different consequences. When confronted with King Laius, Oedipus was given choices, to either confront or walk away. His hubris made the decision for him, sealing his fate, which proves, that sometimes fate is inevitable. Oedipus left Corinth to obsolete his prophecy but inadvertently fulfils it in the process at the crossroads, even though there were other paths he could have taken, both literally and figuratively.

The choices made in life, is what shapes our future. In today’s context, sometimes we are faced with choices that could make or break us, and it’s with our self knowledge that we are allowed to freely choose our path, accepting the outcome. However, what Sophocles is trying to tell us with the crossroad symbolism is that, sometimes, there are situations that are not in control, and to teach us how omnipotent our fates are, and to make us complete what we desperately yearn to rid ourselves from.

In conclusion, as ancient as it may be, King Oedipus, though based on olden Greek society, is as relatable then as it is now. Though times may have changed, and humans have advanced in most aspects, one thing remains constant, our character. Human character may have modernized, but the primal characters still dwell deep in us. The prevalence of hubris is very noticeable today. We see it very prominently for example with Donald Trump, whose ignorance and arrogance, is what propels him. (Jamaica Observer, 2016). The themes shown above are the same ones that society of today still struggle with. Does the path one chooses change one’s future, or is it just a confirmation of one’s fate? Do humans forge their own destiny or is everything already predestined for them? These are the conflicts modern society still grapples with today. The world may change, societies may change, but no matter how much they change, human character and instinct, will always stay constant, be it then or now.

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Social Research // Case Study 4

Our very first assignment in Social Research CCO105 had us choosing between 5 cases. 

After choosing one, we were then to use our knowledge of the 3 theories, which were Karl Marx's Conflict Theory, Emile Durkheim's Structural Functionalism, and Max Webber's Symbolic Interactionism, to deduce and come to a conclusion on the issue.

The case I chose was about the growing trend of Orphanage Tourism in Cambodia and it's effect on the locals and the on a global stage. 

I chose Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim.

“Voluntourism, and it’s the down side.”

Case Study 4: Orphanages in Cambodia: The good, the bad and the exploitive.

Using

Karl Marx’s Conflict Theory

&

Emile Durkheim’s Structural Functionalism

Tourism is finally picking up in Cambodia, voluntourism (volunteerism combined with tourism), to be more exact. This booming industry has caused a 75% increase in orphanages and a 250% increase in foreign arrivals, favoured by voluntourists, who range from the backpackers to the influential. Tourism, worth US$7.6 trillion, with voluntourism a major contributor, is poverty-stricken Cambodia’s saving grace. (World Travel and Toursim Council, 2015). However, tourism is now seeping into a part of Cambodian society that it has no association with whatsoever, orphanages. This dire situation has resulted in orphanages being exploited and commercialized, disrupting the social fabric of Cambodian Society (Hartley and Walker, 2013).

For Karl Marx, society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources and is maintained by domination and power between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. In this case the poor Cambodians and the ones owning and running these orphanages accordingly. This situation provided a favourable medium for Voluntourism to flourish, pacesetting a surge of hoax orphanage businesses. This created a divided society between the poor, the middle class and the rich with inequalities in each group, all trying to better themselves and improve their economic status.

The exploiters who run these orphanages found an opportunity to exploit Cambodia’s poor to their advantage. They convince these poor parents to send them their children with the assurance of food, a roof, education and a better life, in return for money (Goldberg, 2012). This therefore creates a win-win situation for both sides. The poor parents improve their economic prospects by “selling” their children with a false consciousness that they will be well taken care of, and the exploiters getting their “commodity” for their business on the other end. Evidence shows over 71% of “orphans” in Cambodia are not real orphans at all. (Hartley and Walker, 2013) These “bought” children are crammed into deplorable living conditions, receiving neither the food nor proper education promised to their parents (Davidson, 2014), but instead forced to perform and tug at the hearts of the good-willed voluntourists who flock to see them, and who pay to “help” and improve their lives. These payments and donations however, go neither to the children or the “orphanage” but into the pockets of the exploiters. This detrimental situation creates an unending repetitive cycle. In hope to ease their financial burden, families resort to the selling of their children for money. This cycle continues when these children reach adulthood, reintegrate back into society and start families of their own.  Without proper education or means of a livelihood, they are stuck in poverty, leaving them in a position to be continuously exploited by the exploiters, who continue to progress. This results in the phenomenon of the poor staying poor and the rich getting richer, proved by the fact that a third of Cambodia’s children are still under the poverty line (UNICEF, 2003). These beliefs and mindsets are why these cycles of exploitation and poverty continue to prevail, resulting in the distinctive class division in Cambodian society.

The children are suffering the brunt of this. It is known that children as products of their environment (Carlson, n.d.). Hence, the basic lacking of family affection and healthy environment (Shine Education, 2013) leaves children vulnerable. The process of being “sold” by their parents, to live and perform in deplorable conditions by their “caregivers”, and receiving temporary affection from the many voluntourists, causes a negative psychological and emotional effect. This invokes a sense of abandonment, anger, helplessness and resentment. The children perceive themselves as just temporary companions and “journey trophies” for voluntourists, worth only as much on how they victimize themselves to be. All of these accumulated into an estrangement from consciousness and morals and a detachment from mankind.

On the other hand, Emile Durkheim believes society is maintained by consensus and conformity, and has a larger scale perspective. Voluntourism in Cambodia is successful as the organic mutual interdependencies between the proletariat and bourgeoisie provide a stable environment. Both parties have a specific role but rely on each other to survive. In this case, exploiters rely on poor families to surrender their child, while the poor families rely on the exploiters for monetary returns in exchange. Since the children are a demand, exploiters then in turn make use of them to perform and earn their living with. However, most importantly exploiters depend on the donations and payments from voluntourists which is the basis for exploiting voluntourism in the first place. The children depend on voluntourists and exploiters for their survival or die on the streets. Cambodia’s Tourism industry depends on the millions of kind-hearted voluntourists who flock to Cambodia, who in turn depend on Voluntourism. It gives them a sense of accomplishment and achievement that they have done something to make a difference someone else's life. This social cohesion of willingness to co-operate for their survival is the only thing keeping Cambodia from crumbling.

This is a dangerous phenomenon, where the traditional foundation and role of an orphanage is being removed and substituted with an exploitative prospect. The fact that the Cambodian society now treats this as the new norm while actively allowing it has resulted in a blur of consciousness within the Cambodian Society. The lack of Government intervention and legislative implementation has resulted in a breakdown of the true nature of Cambodia’s social structure which is a tight-knit family oriented one (Detzner, 1999). Moreover, with the blurring of one’s accountability in society, it has turn to a treacherous fight for survival. Moral values and consciousness are thrown out the window with selfishness and self-interest taking over with little regard on how this may affect others.

            Marx would claim that the Cambodians should be treated equally, and have the equal opportunity and circumstance to improve themselves. This, however, could have resulted in the emergence of individualism in the families and capitalism and in this case, the manifestation of the exploiters. Durkheim as well agrees that all Cambodians are equal too, in the sense that each one had a specific role to play in society and were equally important to each other to make a cohesive stable environment and satisfying the status quo.

The removal of this exploitation between Cambodia’s poor (proletariat) and the exploiters (bourgeoisie) and to emancipate the perspectives of families in Cambodia’s poor societies is Marx’s vision. Durkheim on the other hand argues that this structure is perfect and has a goal and reason, which is conformity. Though having little regard for the individual, the success of the overall structure and its workings is all that is needed.

With globalization and modernization, the fabrics of societies around the world, will continue to evolve. Humans always feel obligated to help those who are not as privileged as them. However, this does not remove the reality of those from these underdeveloped societies obligated to advantage themselves from such situations. This is a global social phenomenon and it will only continue to manifest itself more. Societies need to know and understand that even though, their intentions are good, it does not mean that it will benefit the recipient society. Until then, social phenomenon like these will be a major global problem. 

World History // Modern Day Slavery

World History was one of my favourite modules of semester 1. 

Our first essay was for us to choose an international issue on "Modern Day Slavery". 

And this was my essay.

“Child Labour in Cocoa Plantations of Western Africa”

Chocolate brings sweet joy to everyone. It has become an integral part of our lives in such a way that it’s no longer a luxury but a common commodity. What is not known however, is how this soaring demand for this “joy” is a catalyst for the modern day slavery of children in West African cocoa plantations.

Ghana and Ivory Coast produce 70% of the world’s cocoa, the primary ingredient for chocolate, making these two West African nations major contributors to the growing $100 billion Chocolate Industry (Dogbevi, 2016).

As the industry continues to grow, so does the pursuit for cheaper cocoa by big chocolate corporations. Surprisingly, West Africa is still poverty stricken even with such high exports, with the cocoa farmers themselves under the poverty line (Soley, 2015). To make cocoa a viable livelihood and to make ends meet, the cocoa farmers cope by acquiring cheap labour. This comes in the form of children as slave labourers.

Majority of these children are trafficked from neighbouring Mali, Togo and Burkina Faso. Traditionally, it is culturally acceptable for young children to work to ease their family’s economic predicament as education is expensive (Chanthavong, 2002). In the cocoa plantations however, it’s a different story as parents are often misguided on the actuality. While some of these children were coerced by their family to work or fooled into getting a good paying job, others were abducted and sold to traffickers or farm owners. Whichever it may be, all were trafficked across borders into the cocoa farms of Ghana and the Ivory Coast. The age of these children can range from 11 to 16 but there have been cases of children as young as 5 found working in the plantations. (United States Department of Labour, 2015)

Many of these children go through what the International Labour Organization (ILO) calls “the worst forms of child labor.” These are methods “likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of children” and include the use of “hazardous tools” and any work that “interferes with schooling.” (Kuma, 2013). The worse part, is majority of these children are not paid, held against their will and have no option out.(Chanthavong, 2013).

Research shows a 46 percent increase in child labour in West Africa from 2009 (Tulane University, 2015) and the figure appears to be growing with approximately1.8 million child labourers currently slaving in cocoa plantations. (Tulane University, 2013)

Efforts are set in place to combat the situation by the Western African governments and international labour groups. Like the $US10 million from U.S. Department of Labor to the governments of Ghana and Ivory Coast to help ease the reliance of children for labour (O’Keefe, 2016). However, there has been little progress on the ground. Local governments have issued many a legislation on regards of child labour and trafficking but do nothing to implement it further. It’s a tricky situation as corruption runs deep in these countries with the government, traffickers and cartels all involved. Even with the help of NGOs, it’s a challenge. Many of the farms are small, remote and numerous making it hard for any help to get to them.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is important as they set the standard for international labour rights norms, and have created programs like the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) just for this. Both countries have been ratified by the ILO, and requested the ILO’s assistance in many instances.(International Labour Rights Forum, 2008)

The Harkin–Engel Protocol is another international legislative amendment formulated in 2001 by US Senator Tom Harkin, Rep Elliot Engel, and the cocoa industry, to eradicate in West African cocoa farms the worst forms of child labor. However, it has changed its initial objective from funding a “no child slavery” label, to the eradication of child slavery by 2005. Sadly, progression was stagnant and it had to be extended twice to 2008 and then to 2010. As of 2011, progress is still unclear.

Tackling this issue will not be easy or fast. Progression is slow. Issues of poverty and tradition runs rampant and needs to be uplifted in order for this cycle to dissipate with the commitment from all involved.

Major chocolate corporations are obligated to keep their promises and not profit billions from the backs of children. To quote filmmaker Miki Mistrati “the companies have not had the will to end it for many years. Only empty words and expensive advertising instead of using money to pay back to the children on the ground”. (Halgage, 2015)

Everyone has a role to play from the parents, to the cocoa farmers and governments, to the chocolate corporations and us as consumers. Till then, chocolate will only be the blood, sweat and tears of the millions of children of West Africa.

Firstly, let's think and reason.

This is the very first ACADEMIC essay I have ever written in my entire life. 

As you can see and read further on, I have basically got a long way to go in terms of academic writing capabilities. My approach to writing was rather "reflective" and very, crude and "unprofessional".

Well, when you are down, there is only one other direction you can go and that is up!

The topic was about drones and how their increasing use on modern warfare is one for good or for worse.

Enjoy. Haha.

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Drones are not all bad – but what if Isis starts using them?

 
Drones are good, but only in the right hands.

         Mary Dejevsky seems to think so and also says cyber warfare is here to stay even if we do not like it. So, Drones are the future of Modern Warfare. This wondrous technology could disintegrate anything instantly, without ever stepping foot into enemy lines.

Modernized, accurate, safe (for the good guys) and dangerous (for the bad guys). So, what’s the fuss about? Exactly. The killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, as controversial as it seems for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, and the lack of any reaction or questions from the world confirms what Dejevsky is saying. Drones are now taken for granted, and I agree with her. The world seems to be content with the given knowledge that those killed were “terrorist”. “We’re saved!” or “Terrorists deserved it!” is all the pacification needed. Looking at this report of the 150 “militants the US had killed in Somalia just recently this March (G. Greenwald, 2016). All that was said is that they were Al Shabaab, and they were attacking US personnel, without evidence but assumptions and hunches. There was no official proof to back up the accusations except from US “officials”. However, life continued and the world thought they were safe because the “terrorists” were annihilated. “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.”(G. Greenwald, 2016, para 3) Statements like this show that we are a very ignorant, malleable, naive bunch.

The Somali attack does raise concerns on whether the US had jurisdiction for it. Furthermore, even with evidence of no war between the US and Somalia and that Al Shabaab is focused on Somalia (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 8), was there justification? Looking back at Pakistan, Dejevsky mentions John Kerry justifying the attack because Mansoor was a threat to US personnel. She also mentions of Reyaad Khan who was killed in Syria by Britain on the same grounds; he’s a threat. Period. However, were they? And, as Dejevsky puts it, where is the line between self-defense and murder by State drawn?

Hence, these attacks leaning towards illegality is something Dejevsky fails to mention. From above, no evidence is needed except the “credibility” of authority, in this case, the US and Britain. An article by The Spectator (I. Hardman, 2015) tells us no evidence for the attack or the legality was shared in Khan’s case. Furthermore, it was made public only later that he was a threat to Iraq instead (I. Hardman, 2015, para 3). So, was the ruckus about British defense just to silence everyone on the illegal attack in Syria? The US is not at war with Pakistan and Somalia (J. Keating, 2013), nor is Britain with Syria (E. MacAskill, and R. Norton-Taylor, 2015 “How was the decision made” para 1). So, on what basis where these attacks given the green light and without consent from the attacked state?

“Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 8). “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”(“ Joint Resolution,” 2001, Sec 2, para 1) This does not justify attacking Al Shabaab, who only came to existence after 9/11. Accusations of “being a threat” are not justifiable enough without providing proof or grounds. This also brings us back to how the world just takes for granted the usage of these drones. It’s bloodcurdling to know they can just attack anyone, anywhere and anytime without a reason but their own justification claiming “survival”.

Technology is perpetually advancing, warfare included, says Dejevsky. Drones started with George W Bush however, under Obama, their usage has more than doubled. (“Drones: What are they”, 2012, para 5) And the list of countries incorporating them into their military is rising steadily (C. Dillow, 2016, para 8). This shows how integral drones are for modern warfare’s future. However, is it an unfair advantage as Dejevsky suggests? She does however continue that it has never stopped countries in the past to miss out the opportunity of advancement for fairness. Obsolescence is a guaranteed by product for advancement with all its callousness and in all true honesty, I do agree with her to some extant. Superior technology has always been the forefront in winning and ending wars throughout history. Ethics, she says is a double-edged sword with fairness, or your citizens and assets. However, if we want to talk about ethics, were the attacks discussed above, ethical? The emphasis that these countries are not at war cannot be made clearer.

Dejevsky talks of the precise accuracy of the drone capability and how it spares both civilians and fighters on both sides. Though her mentioning of open questions still remains, I believe there is evidence to suggest that both the accuracy of the drones and its “safeness” can be disputed. Apparently, 90% of those killed in drone attacks are not the actual targets (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 13 & M. Fang, 2015). From the words of a drone pilot himself, when “a missile fired from a U.S. drone hits an area, bystanders rush to the scene to help the wounded, and the drone, still overhead, kills the rescuers.” (C. Friedersdorf, 2016, para 8). Let’s not forget Aleppo and Kunduz where hospitals were “mistakenly” targeted. The severity of which I feel Dejevsky fails to emphasize. The many cases of “accidents” like the wedding party in Yemen (H. Almasmari, 2013) and the tribal meeting in Pakistan (“US drone strike kills 40”, 2011) are just a few of the countless reports out there. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published “reports fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration’s drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.” (M. Sledge, 2014, para 5). To add, the “killing anonymous men who appear to be associated with terrorist or militant armies through observable behavior — comport with the bedrock principle of distinction founded in international humanitarian law”(M. Zenko, 2016) proves how unethical it has become. “Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association. A drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.” (M. Fang, 2015[1]) shows how shocking their “justification” is.

No matter how accurate it may be, humans are still the master puppeteers. And yes, humans make mistakes. There’s no questioning the precise accuracy of drones, but whether or not we are "ethically" safe from it, is extremely debatable.

Dejevsky argues the only reason ISIS and other groups have not attacked with this technology is because they lack the capacity. However, she also mentions of how the western countries are developing counter measures for hostile drones. Why would defense measures be necessary if she claims so? This is where Dejevsky has fallen short. The list of countries acquiring drone technology is getting longer everyday. And with China producing cheaper drones (C. Dillow, 2016, para 3), it’s only a matter of time before everybody acquires it. And the West knows it.

         Lastly, another issue I disagree with Dejevsky is her stance of no risk to the combatant. Every action has a consequence and the extensive usage of drones is only going to have an adverse affect for our future. Drones will soon be a mainstay and that will plunge us into endless nonstop conflicts (M. Mazetti, 2014). This “downward-spiraling” possibility is a risk if drone warfare continues at this rate, for both user and receiver.

To summarize, I believe Dejevsky brought up agreeable points like drones taken for granted. However, to claim they will fly freely till the “enemy” gets them is something that draws concern. I believe international regulations and legal frameworks should be set now instead of waiting for the gap to be narrowed. From my analysis above, it shows that drones are causing more harm than good even in the hands of the “good guy”. Moreover, at the rate at which everything is spiraling, I would not want to stick around when the gap is narrowed.

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

My usage of certain words like "blood-curdling" and how I'm very subjective and showing an inclination to a certain side and emphasizing it, are things that I need to take note of.

I've got a long way to go.

However, I really did enjoy CCO101!
One of my favorite modules so far.