When I was reading chapter six, the previous quote really stood out to me. Especially the statement that people will not get what they do not demand. In some ways, it is a very obvious thing. However, if the people that need/demand things are unable or unwilling to voice their concerns, how is anything actually going to move the government? In chapter ten, Sen then discusses and comes to the conclusion that the reason why "Western liberal ideals" are rejected is due to "authority bias". Due to the way that he framed the argument, it almost seemed like he was implying that the authority was corrupt in some sort of way. But, I can potentially see that it might also be out of ignorance. As a Korean expatriate, I have met a lot of Koreans that still move to other countries out of frustration with the culture and educational system. The underlying issue expatriates see is that the educational system does not foster creative thinking nor opportunities, and as a result anyone that has the means decides to leave. From their perspective, the rational thing to do is to move out and live somewhere that fits better if you are thinking solely in self-interest and want faster results. In a globalized world, it is very easy to try to get a job somewhere else if you have the means to do it. Consequently, those that should be demanding reform to the government are leaving and then the country is not able to develop more. Ultimately, I think that it might be a problem with the attitude of the people and ignorance in the side of governing bodies as well. I wonder what Sen would have to say with this issue and what type of mechanism should be used since the immigrating also is freedom that should be granted to people.
Cristina,
ReplyDeleteI think that Sen would agree with your claim that the freedom to emigrate out of one’s country is important, because that option certainly seems to be a capability that people have reason to value.
I think that Sen offers an answer to your question of “what mechanism should be used” to try to prevent the kind of widespread emigration that you’ve talked about in his “Globalization: Economics, Culture and Rights” section of chapter 10 (240). Sen insists that, when it comes to changing things such as the culture and educational system (which are two things you bring up), “there is a real need – for social justice – for people to be able to take part in these social decisions, if they so choose” (242). People need to feel like they are genuinely able to participate the process of cultural change. Sen goes on to assert that for people to be able to be active in these decisions, they need to be “well informed and well briefed (through free media), and [have] realistic chances of participating freely (through elections, referendums, and the general use of civil rights)” (242).
So, in the case of en masse emigration from Korea, I think that Sen would ask the following question: are the people of Korea able to participate in political discourse? Are they well informed, and can they participate through the genuine exercise of their civil rights? If the answer to either of the last two questions is no, or not really, then I imagine that Sen would want to focus on changing that.
I think that Sen would expect that if the Korean people were both well informed and felt like they were actually able to effect change through the use of civil rights, then they would be much less likely to leave their country at the first opportunity. In your blog post, you make it sound like “people that need/demand things are unable or unwilling to voice their concerns”, and thus they emigrate “out of frustration with the culture and educational system”. It sounds like, in Korea, people do not have the capability to be a legitimate part of the political process. While I think that it is difficult to know what specific mechanism Sen would use, I think it is clear what the specific goal/s of Sen’s mechanism would be.
I believe Sen addresses this concern when he talks about the importance of democracy. Sen first shows that the people care about outcomes and being just. The reason that countries do not always seem to reflect this is because there is little to no discussion or not enough political and civil freedoms. In a democracy, opposition parties will bring to light the ugly unfreedoms, they will be discussed and discarded, and with these new freedoms, new unfreedoms will be brought to light. If there is a problem with people leaving instead of confronting issues, it is more likely that the real problem lies in their ability to change the outcomes. This would most likely mean that there is some unfreedom that restricts their ability to change their country, or at least they believe that there is.
ReplyDeleteNow, you could argue that some people simply don't want to take the time to try to change their country when there's a perfectly good one next door. I might agree with this, except for the fact that the United States is hardly free of flaws. While it may be further along in terms of fostering creative thought, it is well broadcasted in the media that the US is constantly having political, economic, and social problems. Anyone joining a democracy accepts the flaws and accepts the burden that they have partial responsibility in fixing them, if only to vote for people who will. If people are leaving instead of participating, there must be some disconnect in the substance of the democracy.
Cristina, you propose a good example to Sen's claim in the quote you use in your blog post. With regards to the Korean expatriates, or expatriates of any other country in general, I believe that only to a certain extent does this show how self-interested we are and how we do not give up until we get what we demand. I would assume that Sen would believe that if we have the option or opportunity to move somewhere where our demands and desires will mostly likely be fulfilled, then yes we will take advantage of such opportunities, and thus become expatriates. However, if the decision to leave a country in order to pursue our demands allows for great consequences or disadvantages then we may reconsider leaving to fulfill personal or collective desires. For instance, if one does not get what they demand and is later faced with the choice of leaving their country, possibly never being permitted back and never seeing family again, would they become expatriates to fulfill their desires? Would they sacrifice family for self-interest? It truly depends on the family's economic and social situation, which proves my point of how we are self-interested to only a certain extent.
ReplyDelete