Blog archive
admin [44 posts]
[22 posts]The Arab Spring and China
In an Al-Jazeera article[1] entitled “The Arab Spring’s Chinese Roots… And Future?,” Michael LeVine discusses the issue of human rights in the production of the technologies that made the Arab Spring possible. Most agree that the Arab Spring would not have happened without current communication devices and networks. People were able to organize like never before. LeVine says that “these ‘immaterial publics’ [technological networks] proved hard to police, and ultimately impossible censor or shut down.” But what about where these devices are made? Are those who made these devices and ultimately, the Arab Spring in its actual form, able to experience these same freedoms? No, they cannot.
The dismal state of Chinese labor laws as well as the even more appalling lack of enforcement is well documented. In the article, Ralph Litzinger notes:
“When we get all excited about the Arab uprisings but we don't really want to know who and what produces the things we're holding in our hands. We want to get on with the business of revolutions and to be constantly reminded of the way things are made? Heavy metal runoff into rivers and ground water, and harsh labour conditions, etc. That stuff stands in the way of the revolution, illuminating a fundamental contradiction that slows down its momentum. But the reality is that the technologies that we use are part of the global capitalist network, which means that ultimately the issues facing protesters in Cairo or Shenzhen are rooted in the same larger processes.”
And the Chinese government is terrified that the Chinese will utilize the same technology to bring about political change.
We recently discussed in class about media consumption and what affects it has on our communities, like supplanting other, possibly more meaningful, uses of time. I wished we had also discussed how our consumption of media fuels industries perpetuating human rights abuses. So often, we wonder how media consumption affects us personally and our immediate communities more broadly, but we do not often stop to think of the international human rights implications for our consumption of technology. It is incredible that several Arab countries have succeeded in bringing about political change, but will China be able to utilize the technologies that they make to foment political change? Or will they continue to produce technologies that make it possible for others to call for their own governments to respect their human rights? These global economic and political networks speak of a wider issue, one that we cannot ignore as we celebrate more democratically inclined Arab nations.
[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122283717273571.html
Comments
Thank you for your criticism of the tendency to recognize the local effects of media consumption, while turning a blind eye to its international human rights implications. Although I agree with the loss related to this tendency, with hope I note that this tendency is not the only voice being heard. Just yesterday (February 14), on the cover of The New York Times, an article said that Apple hired an outside organization to audit working conditions at its overseas factories (particularly in China). This was in response to external criticism including coordinated protests last week at Apple stores around the world and investigative news reports. Thinking in terms of culture flows, I wonder if this outside insistence to solve labor issues and better working conditions might influence a small shift in the Chinese government's terror of change you mentioned, at least regarding the important topic of labor rights?
In a work written by Amartya Sen entitled “Development as Freedom,” Sen writes that “Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means.” Technology has emerged as an important catalyst for development, yet as Brittany noted, the irony of the relationship between the Arab world and China raises many questions. In class we have been asking, “What is the greatest good within society?” It seems as though the answer holds relevance to development. The greatest good that a country values can limit the extent of its freedoms. In China, the people hold values above free speech, and while the economy has seen great growth, can we assume that this is a result of liberalizing freedoms that became the means to economic development?
As Brittany related both issues of human rights and media consumption, my mind wondered about how, in this globalization era, these issues integrate and become contextualized amongst differing cultures around the world. As the Macroanthropological Theory of culture would see culture to be found at the intersection of multiple flows, I too agree with this perception of culture. And as technology is inhanced and media flows potentially increasing, I see the intersection between differing cultures and their understanding of human rights also drastically increasing. When this happens, countries taking a less generous view on human rights will be critiqued from both the outside as well as from their own people. I wonder if, with the increase of media flows, will the general politics of the world become more even and less extreme acorss the board or are there intrinsic characteristics to cultures that will keep the politics worldwide extremely diverse?
I appreciate the recognition of the inconsistency in the fact that Chinese citizens, among others in the developing world, are unable to utilize the technology they produce. This brings up a question that Dr. Miller raised in class: should Internet access be considered a human right? As Frank J. Lechner and John Boli point out in the introduction to the “Globalization and Media” section in The Globalization Reader, a majority of the world’s population has yet to get online. But those who do have access to modern media are very strongly opposed to the idea of relinquishing this freedom, as demonstrated through the recent controversies over the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills. In fact, the United Nations did declare on June 3, 2011 that Internet access is a basic human right, arguing that the Internet is a significant means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression. How long will it be before this view is taken seriously enough that enough that those who have access to the Internet and other technologies are willing to fight to obtain these freedoms for those who do not?
This issue of economic and political tension in China has been linked to the amount of outsourcing done by the West, right? For example, we were shown a video in class advertising for politic senator, Pete Hoekstra [1]. This video contained a Chinese woman in a rice patty thanking Debbie Stabenow, Hoekstra’s competitor, for her spending in exported labor. This video could be highly controversial not only for its message but also for its medium. The medium of a produced high definition video emphasizes the role of technology and its presence in China, not because they produced it, but because the West, in particular the United States, has implemented it into their society. This is not to say that the U.S. is completely subject to all the responsibility of China’s technological advancements, but media has been implemented because an outside source placed it there. Referring to Lili’s comment, could the topic of labor rights be addressed and reformed in China if the West had similar action implemented?
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxw4uZAezaI
Brittany brings up an important issue in her post. The way we treat other humans through the choices we make and the products we buy is important from a faith standpoint. The value of the human is celebrated in many religions. From a globalization standpoint, our choices are all the more far-reaching. However, in the “anarchic” global arena, human rights are a tricky issue. Each culture and state has a differing viewpoint as to what exactly is due to all humans regardless of context. This means that China and the countries around the world that buy China’s technological products will not be able to just one day make a pact saying that Chinese workers are entitled to “such-and such” and everyone will be satisfied. International relations, even in the modern era, or perhaps especially so, are complicated. This uncovers a need for some supranational effective governance and mutually agreed upon rights and laws. Filling this need is one of the most important things that needs to happen in this rapidly globalizing world and is a great calling for the rising generation.
Manuel Castells, in The Power of Identity, identifies what he terms "project identity," a new means of identity construction through which the stigmatized, marginalized and dominated of society redefine their positions within society. It is through this identity construction that, according to Castells, true social change can occur. If this is indeed the case, then is it up to Chinese citizens and workers to reconstruct their own identities and advocate for rights (whether to safe labor, to information technology, or to healthcare) on their own behalf? In my opinion, while this reconstruction is essential to societal transformation and increased access to human rights, it must occur in tandem with the efforts of the elites. That is to say, if Westerners (ourselves included) are still placing such a demand on the market for iPads, we cannot expect companies as large as Apple to make the changes for which we advocate, nor should we wait expectantly for change to arise organically. Realistic, community and locally-based change will only occur when we stop participating in the exploitation of our neighbors and allow them the dignity to redefine and reconstruct their own identities.