This video channel contains a number of videos about lots of topics in sociology, that I hope you’ll find useful. They were originally made to accompany the use of the textbook I’ve written with a number of my colleagues, titled, not surprisingly, Sociology, published by Pearson Australia, currently in its 6th edition. My co-authors are Daphne Habibis, from the University of Tasmania, Karl Maton, and Greg Martin also from the University of Sydney, Philip Smith at Yale University, and Brett Hutchins at Monash University.
Imperialism can be seen as an acid poured into a substrate. The substrate will not dissolve at the same rate because of variances in density, Ph, temperature and other factors. This is when heat, additional acid, or kinetic energy (force) are applied to make the solution uniform. Uniformity of inputs and outputs in central to optimized industrialization. And in the digital production, uniformity of access to users data is also central. What we have seen in the 20th century is the rise of wars for humanitarian reasons. The justification for Western (UK, US, Australian) wars across the world are nearly always based on "good" reasons "for humanity". But if we look at them carefully, its really just that the West found a undissolved mass in the solution that wasn't breaking down. There are many of these undissolved masses and regularly they are targeted for heat, additional acid (culture), or kinetic energy. The Vietnam War is one example. Essentially, "humanitarianism" is the cause for war because these arguments always start by dehumanizing the other as racist, xenophobic, nativist, nationalist, communist, theocratic, etc. These are all labels for groups of people who do not want to be cast into the solution and dissolved. This makes them the "other" and therefore the enemy.
just a thought but isn't the country of America herself a product of globalization from that time period? I mean it took cultures from around the world to create the whole country, not just the English...right?
The view you are expressing was manufactured after WW1 and more so after WW2. But none of the Founding Fathers believed in "melting pot" theory and in fact that term was not popularized until the 20th century by immigrants. The first immigration act (1790) in the US expressly stated that only western Europeans would be citizens. The US was essentially isolationist with a few exceptions where US sailors were being kidnapped. The US was also not a free trade nation. The US rose into a powerful nation on isolationism, tariffs, and strict limits on immigration and citizenship. There was however a constant tension between the manufacturing north (favored protectionism) and the agricultural south (favored free trade). There were of course other major divisions (Puritan and Anglicans) which also drove a friend/enemy distinction. Any discussion of "melting pot" at the time of the founding of the US would have been in reference to Puritans and Anglicans, along class divisions, and rural/urban divides. These were the important divisions at that time.
This would be a really useful video but why are you using these awful photos of 'private school girl' that are inappropriate in the extreme. I even discovered that this is a racist Australian comedian dressed up as a girl. What on earth were you thinking?????
At the time - 2016 - Chris Lilley's work in this program was regarded as a witty, satirical, commentary on private school culture and dynamics, so it made sense to use these images for the lecture. On the whole, the show - J'Amie: Private School Girl - was generally positively received. The research assistant working with me on producing the videos and I hadn't watched Jonah from Tonga, which is what I imagine you're referring to here, and we hadn't yet registered the critique of it as racist. If we're made it a few years later, yes, we would have felt it had become inappriate to use any reference to his programs, so your observation is apposite. I'll see if I can work out how to edit the video, rather than having to delete it altogether and upload a new version. I'll hope that the rest of the video is useful enough to outweigh this concern.
profitable to be at the receiving end of violence, degradation, and uncertainty about one's own safety and well-being? you seem to have a very warped understanding of what constitutes 'profit' and 'victimhood'. do try to be more considerate. often when people think like this they seem to disapprove of the "Attention" victims of DV receive - be it compassion, legal aid, community support, workplace support, etc. - because they believe it is all undeserved. they think it is undeserved because they don't consider this violence to be actually violent, unsafe, dangerous - or, you know - Bad. if any of this resonates with you, I think it would be a good idea to re-evaluate your thinking wrt the topic, since DV endangers and takes the life of way too many people each year for us to not offer them basic empathy and support as fellow human beings.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xUYNB4a8d2U.html So-called globalisation is a phony narrative being sold to us by the big money finaciers and technocrats making us believe that we are no longer distinct in our own cultural identities. Most Africans are not globalised at all but live and work in their own cultural settings, for example, and trade as of old in their own micro-economies divorced from the so-called global newtork. Sociologists enjoy spreading these myths too because they are brainwashed by the superficial syllabi they repeat enbdlessly every year. I have lived and worked in 10 countries round the world and apart from a few lines of English my students have learned, they have their own cultures and once they get through adolescence, they belong to them and not Uncle Sam or John BUll except for a pair of denims or a mobile made in Japan. There can be some identity confusion here and there but ultimately we live in our own cultural villages locally not globally; so let us cut the nonsense and be realistic. The vast majority of the world's population are not globalised - this is a myth. Thank you.
Cultural globalization is an oxymoron. Ever since the end of WW2, with the advent of thinktanks like Tavistock (which was founded in England), culture has been replaced by social engineering, and although much of consumerist "culture" originates in America, social engineering as a concerted effort of the globalists, works on the global level. Globalization leads neither to cultural imperialism nor cultural homogeneity, but rather cultural dissolution and disintegration, with the main factor being immigration. If we define culture as the unity of style of a people based on their racial idiosyncrasies (tempered by time, tradition, hardships, etc.) that finds its expression in their unique art, architecture, clothing, religion, cuisine, etc., then culture, in the highest sense of the word, cannot find any expression in a multiculturalism, another oxymoron, since one can never preserve their own cultural identity in a milieu of various alien races, but rather, over time, homogenizes until what you have is anti-culture. The traditionalist's perspective often confuse history with culture, and present artifacts (e.g. the Gothic cathedral) of their cultural heritage as being proof that their culture is alive, yet as they have no bearing or effect on the person's present identity, they remain as mere spectacle. And as social engineering and globalization become more intensified, each subsequent generation grows more distant from their past, until finally they are completely severed from it. Remnants may remain operant, but they are few and, again, have no real effect on the person's identity and actions.
I have come to the same conclusion. US cultural imperialism is more of an acid than a vector (a direction and intensity towards something). As an acid, it breaks down cultures into a solution that is suitable for processing.
To think Habermas talked about the refeudalization of the public sphere all the way back in 1964. Almost 60 years later and the process is virtually complete. The public cannot make their will heard above the interests of corporations, and now politicians (no matter their party affiliation) are mere puppets of corporate America, who exercise only the will of the almighty dollar. Lobbying for special interest groups was one of the worst mistakes this country has ever made.
XD The sign was funny. Cause they normally receive verbal abuse but now he is asking for it... It might actually work to dissuade bullies from bothering him while keeping his revenue stream coming. It could even make him appear more pathetic in order to increase his income. This sign might just be genius.
Thank you very much for this great overview, it's really helpful! Also, I'm very interested about Bauman's critique of Castell's aproach, could you please refer me to some material where he wrote about that?
