Qualitative Analysis

For our final group project, we were responsible for attending an event that we wouldn't normally partake in and provide a qualitative analysis of it. Since qualitative evaluation is not an assignment I have been given many times before, I would take this time to explore its purpose and validity further. 

Related to the topic are the two primary categories of leadership foci: tasks and relationships. To me, qualitative research is focused especially on the relationships. This means that while quantitative data allows us to gather facts on what is physically happening, qualitative data is allowing us to determine the perception of those experiencing these happenings. Emotions are relative to the observer, so it is impossible to capture raw data via quantitative methods. 

However, on this same note, qualitative work is soooo much more subjective, because the results are also relative to the person collecting data. Therefore, I think an important component of collecting these results is repetition. In quantitative work, we need this repetition to reduce the chance of error, but in this assignment, it's important that we have as many looks at it as possible in order to get an overarching view of what the "normal" or "average" opinion is. 

What I really don't like about this project is that we've been instructed to attend something that we wouldn't normally go to. I understand that this is to force us to think beyond our daily routines, but I think analyzing your everyday life with qualitative work may be even more valid. 

In a cultural geography class 1 1/2 years ago I had a "cultural geographer" assignment. We were instructed to look around campus and make observations of what was happening around us using all of our senses and analyzing why things were happening. It made you completely re-think you surroundings and have a greater appreciation of the intricacies of things your body and mind may have naturally become accustomed to. 

A better way to do this political geography project would have been to re-think an event you normally attend by having to analyze it. Yes, it's good to limit this by saying the event has to be pre-approved and/or taking out certain options for events. I think that a qualitative project on a football game would not be very productive, because 1. I highly doubt anyone will take notes during the game and 2. there is already a constant stream of evaluation of what is happening during the game made by you and everyone around you. 

I think that the event sought for this project should be one in which there is no clear structure of the event and there is no unity or clear pattern among the attendees. This makes it much more varied when you have it to analyze it individually and as a group. It would give me more of an appreciation for the difficult aspects of qualitative work. Good examples for projects could be: club meetings, free events/lectures on campus (free = it attracts random people), or volunteer projects in the community which are welcome to a wide audience. 

The Wild Cards

...so we call religion and ethnicity in understanding what are the greatest determinants of our opinions are in the world.

Yes, they are important. Race has framed the reasoning for slavery, caste systems, and supposed intelligence level. Religion has framed territorial rights, gender roles, and beliefs or lack of beliefs in equality.

However, I don't 100% believe that these are the overarching determinants of our views of the world. Perhaps, they determine it for many, but as we move into a more multicultural, globalized world, our relationships with those we are invested in become more important. Who was your neighbor growing up? Who was your teacher or your peer? Who gave you a chance for a better life?

I think that personal relationships are beginning to hold much more value in our lives as we marry and live outside of our religion and ethnicity. This is obviously not true in all parts of the world as of now (the Middle East being a prime example of this). However, this is only true, because their level of exposure to those not as similar as themselves during their formative years of childhood was not as high, if even existent. However, if a Kurd who grew up in Northern Turkey with distant family, has his closest relatives in the Iraqi area, he may not show the same amount of compassion to them (even though they are more similar) than to the people he grew up near. Yes, these Kurds in Turkey share his/her religion and ethnicity, but their personal bond could bind them tighter.

Also, when examining our class scenarios, I have a fairly clear opinion:
If the Queen of England and the Pope both arrive in Washington D.C. at the same time, who gets to meet with Obama?
The Pope- as a leader of Europe who has a more direct international impact, politics is what determines importance
If the Pope and the leader of Israel both arrive in Washington D.C. at the same time, who gets to meet with Obama?
The Pope- even more so here, because not only does he have a more political impact, but Israel is extremely dependent upon the U.S. economically
If the Pope and Obama both arrive in Israel at the same time, who gets to meet with the leader of Israel?
The Pope- Obama has more political and economic influence, but he does not have as much political respect across the globe.

So now you're wondering, how do I not strongly see religion as the main factor? I do see it as one but not all-encompassing. I believe it is not purely for the Pope's religious influence that he is near the forefront of the visitors. I believe it is because of his influence across the world as well as his ability  of creating peace and compromise. His religion influences this, but the results of his religion are why many respect him.

If an elderly lady blows up a hotel, but she claims she was only targeting the concierge....

Today, we debated the meaning of terrorism.

First, I'll begin with my description from class:

Acts of mental or physical torture by an entity aimed at a particular group or particular groups outside of their own; Intended to bring about the degradation of the targets, the power of themselves, or both. The purpose of the torture must be caused by a clash in the holistic ideals of the group and not because of short-term actions. Basically, in terrorism the exact target does not matter. It is what that target stands for. The main goal is ideological power, and many times this results in the drive for political power in order to achieve it. 

Therefore, one important point to me is that terrorists don't necessarily seek political power. Perhaps an example that might make more sense to you than discussing controversial and personal examples in the real world is contemplating Batman's enemy, Joker.

Is the Joker a terrorist? I don't claim to be an avid reader of comics or fan of any of the TV or movie depictions of Batman. Therefore, I will analyze a few different possibilities for his background. 

What matters more- the Joker's process or what happens in the end? Does the Joker care more about mentally or physically torturing others or does he care about them losing in the end? I believe that in terrorism the methods are not as important as the end goals. What does he care about that happens? If he is torturing them, not really caring if they live or die, then it's not terrorism. Terrorism has an end goal. I think the Joker very much cares about mental aggravation, but he also seems frustrated if people don't follow his logically decided plans for them. If they do something unexpected (such as the two boats who chose to blow each other up in the most recent second movie), he is extremely angry about the results. By these circumstances, he is a terrorist. 

What about the Joker's targets? Do his actions target others for specific reasons that are short term (ex. your boss recently fired you, so you target him)? If so, there are not acts of terrorism. This is why I would say assassinations of individuals or even government bodies (if they have hurt an individual in some direct way and are not provoking a response based solely on their ideology) are not acts of terrorism. The Joker seems to have no exact reason. Yes, there are instances in Batman's adventures in which this is the case. However, he seems willing to kill anyone for no specific reason. 

The biggest signal of terrorism to me is the absence or presence of ideological battles. Did you attempt continued violence against a system, group, etc. because of long-term ideological clash between you and them? Then, in most cases I consider this to be terrorism.

Neo-Colonialism

There are two concepts that are difficult for me to wrap my mind around

1) Global Hegemony

According to our class discussion, the field of International Affairs usually claims that a bipolar world is the most stable. Political Geographers typically scoff this and say that having one global leader (a unipolar world) is the way in which we maximize peace. Based on the Cold War, I would agree. Despite some erroneous claims that this was our greatest time of peace, many proxy wars took place that were hidden from public view, worsening the situation by the fact that there was no attention from media.

Also discussed was (as an example) the idea of bombing North Korea to prove our point in order to create peace. I disagree with this. It's hard to really authenticate my reasoning, but I believe that this is a very dangerous game. Yes, it will bring about the greatest amount of peace, so if you are going for the well-being of many, then this is the heroic act. This is not to say that Korea won't bomb back in revenge or allies won't feel the pain. Even if North and South Korea harbor political alienation, the people don't. They are all "Korean" by history, and they still feel the same today. It is only the elite who rule with such rash decision-making. By bombing them, you are ensuring that once they recover, their retaliation will come directly to you. It is hard to put oneself in such direct risk. I don't believe that bombing them ensures our safety. Perhaps it's beneficial with some countries but definitely not all...

2)Modernization Theory: the idea that we work hard and sacrifice now for future generations

Basically, this validates concepts like child labor, horrible working conditions, and bad pay. There is nothing on earth that makes me feel worse for the fact that I agree with this. I don't believe this is the way things have to be. More developed countries could provide opportunities to less developed countries in helping their economies grow, but this will never happen on a large scale. Hopefully, it can happen with some to prevent those few countries from going through the awful conditions China and SE Asia are now undergoing, but I know that this is extremely unlikely to work even if there was a shot. As media spreads, this also makes it harder for governments to stand their ground. This is the scene in Brazil as internet technology allows for more organized rioting and coerces the government into paying off the poor.

I think that the Modernization Theory works, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I consider myself....

Beginning with this question of "What do I consider myself"? helps frame the larger issues at hand. How we define ourselves tells us how we view the world, helps us define our relationships with others, and aids us in our understanding of the "goods" and "bads" of our society, a necessary introduction to colonialism.

The hardest part about this lesson was the candy bowl. If I have a lot medicine (aka candy) that will help out fellow human beings, do I share it with them for the benefit of all? Or do I keep it to better my own chances? I think that within reason, it's good to help others. If you're down to a limited amount, I don't see anything wrong with protecting your own assuming all people are the same in terms of being beneficial to the world. Even putting that aside, I wouldn't argue with anyone who protects their own with extremely limited resources.

Do we force it on people when they refuse to take it, and we know it can help them? NO. The only time I can see this being ok is if their health in some way drastically affects the immediate health of those trying to help.

Missionaries of all universalizing religions have had the opposite mindset believing that they know what is best for the world. They seek to sway populations with their bias and convert the world to their way of thinking. I very much disagree with these ideals. I don't blame them for wanting to share their beliefs, but after knowing many people myself who tie service and religion to converting others, it is impossible for me to appreciate their work when it's not really sharing. Sharing implies an exchange. There is no exchange happening many times. The missionaries are giving their ideas and taking none concerning spiritual beliefs. Sure, they might learn a tribal dance, eat the food, or know a family by name, but this isn't the same as trying to understand why the natives think the way they do. I would believe in the work of missionaries more if they were willing to accept that they may be wrong.

All of this is in reference to proactive efforts, meaning that a person/entity goes out of their way to change or provide something to another. One example discussed was the requirement of FSU to have health insurance. Isn't this forcing something that one believes is beneficial upon another? I would say that it's not, because it's completely up to the state system and private schools what requirements and fees they would like to have in exchange for the education one receives there. You don't have to go to school, that state, or even get an education. It is your choice, so I think that you have to play by their rules.

Ultimately, I feel that a lot of the controversy in colonialism comes from its contradictory nature of both trying to help others and forcing something upon people who don't want to receive it. There can be many positives to exchange of ideas, but only if we are willing to receive the other half of the exchange. The largest ethnic religion in the world (meaning they don't seek to convert others) is Hinduism. So much history, life lessons, and peaceful solutions to the world's problems are stored within its values and structure. If we are to only open our minds to hear these thoughts, it would make both the sending and receiving belief systems more solid in foundation and receptive to growth.

The U.S. Election System

Discussing topics such as: voting incentives, gerrymandering, the criticisms of a two-party political system, and "one person, one vote" brings up many controversial and confusing dilemmas to think about. I'll focus on a few highlights.

First, are scheduled elections a problem?

From the President's viewpoint, perhaps knowing that he will be running against other candidates or leaving office in four years will make it harder to motivate himself and initiate change rather than focusing on the end of his term. In the U.K., they only choose to run elections based on popular opinion and on the basis of the Queen's opinion. If Margaret Thatcher was elected only twice in her 18 years of office, was it good or bad?

I would say it's better than what the U.S. has. I think that running elections in 4-year increments creates a constant pressure on the president's mind of: how do I make citizens realize that I'm working towards solutions? instead of: how do I work towards solutions to our problems? There is a large distance between these two concepts. This is why we have representation, rather than a full-out democracy. I believe that politicians are the experts on these topics in comparison to the average citizen, and therefore, I am comfortable putting power in their hands in making some decisions for my life that I might not be fully able to make due to lack of knowledge.

Yes, we have two-term limits for presidency, and I understand the need to keep a rolling cycle of presidents so that none become complacent. However, I propose ten-year limits, with the option of having a new election every five years based on the U.K. principle of public opinion polls. There would have to be strict requirements on who is running the polls so that there are no biased results for the benefit of the current president. Still, I think this would allow true change in the government, rather than a rushed feeling of making a good impression on the people within the term.

Why do people vote?
I think people most often vote when they have a strong opposition to a candidate. Very few seem passionate about the person they are voting for.
Another major incentive would be economic or social oppression, injustice, or pain felt by what people might attribute to the government.

Why do people not vote?
They believe their voice is not heard. That is what mainly comes to mind for me. I was absolutely shocked though when researched this topic and found this article (written by a psychology website makes it a little more interesting I think):
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-psychology-behind-political-debate/201112/why-dont-people-vote
The 15% that don't vote due to illness/disability is extremely surprising to me, although I understand it with so many elderly people being registered and unable to travel out to vote. What was absolutely astounding to me though was the 17% who said they have conflicting schedules or were too busy. This is the most important group, because they are most certainly a major chunk of the working population! How can they be too busy to have the say in what affects their lives more than anyone else's?

I think this is where my reason comes in. It's opportunity cost to them- is it really worth it for your voice to not be heard when you sacrifice some hours catching up at work, the time you have to take care of your children, or the little bit of spare time you get in your day?

Unfortunately for most of the U.S., that's exactly the problem- there's no incentive for re-prioritizing your time.

Domestic Elections: Does geography determine the elections more than individual beliefs?

Do politicians make decisions based on the area they represent or their own personal opinion?

This is the question of partisanship. Do we elect officials to represent the majority opinion of their constituency or do we elect them to make decisions that we expect to be best for us even if it's not directly what we agree with?

I personally side with the second option. This is why we are a representative democracy and not a pure democracy. This allows room for error. We are not all political experts. Those who are typically find themselves in some sector of government for part or all of their career.

That aside, once the representatives are in these positions, do they vote based on the overarching well-being of the communities they have an obligation to or do they keep national interests in mind? I think that most support regional interests. This is exactly where geography comes into play. I have never noticed the importance of geographical factors in politics until our discussion last week, but it is certainly a prevalent aspect of voting behavior in government.

We discussed three political cultures in the U.S.: moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic. I can't speak as much for the first two viewpoints, which are more based in Northern parts of the U.S. However, I have a lot to say about the "traditionalistic" viewpoint.

First of all, it is shocking. I think of Southern politics as the exact opposite. Our regional politics supposedly reveal that we think elites in society are the only ones who should extensively participate in government and politics. I think that there is fine dividing line that this problem doesn't address. People THINK they have a lot of say in government and that they make a huge difference with little actions. The viewpoint of many politicians rests in meeting the basic needs of the large populations that live rurally and have little education. Then, the people believe that their actions are having an effect, while the government ensures stability.

I do agree that many in the South believe that "most governmental functions should not exist". Once again, this comes from rural education and the simpler, traditional way of living in the South. If the direct purpose cannot be seen in something, then of course there is no need for it to exist! (according to many minds here)

Overall, I think that these trends in state governments do exist to form regional patterns of government behavior, however, it is no wonder why you don't get many college students agreeing that they represent these on a personal basis. College is meant to help us see beyond our own views and stretch our minds to understand opposing viewpoints. Even if moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic patterns exist, you are not likely to find them represented in higher education.

Mind Control

Who should vote? ...the question of today's dilemma.

I am not of 100% conviction about my decision, but I lean towards the answer: those who are informed. How this could be tested and determined, I'm not 100% sure. I do like the idea of having to (to some extent) write in names and answers on voting ballots so that one is forced to research more before coming in to give their opinion. 

This might seem harsh to some, but there are two many times where I see clueless people adamant about giving a vote when they don't even know anything about the inherent debate to what is going on. The last time I was standing in downtown, waiting in line three hours to vote, I watched as a woman on the sidewalk brain washed person after person. She told them to voice their opinion: Vote "no" to all of the amendments, because we don't want  changes in our system!

.....Depending on the wording, voting "no" could mean an answer that would be deemed a "yes" to an amendment. No matter what, saying no is still a vote!!! I can't believe this lady had the nerve to stand there and tell people that. I'm not saying that she is one of the clueless people. She was obviously too well informed. Perhaps it conveniently fit her political affiliation or candidate she was supporting to tell everyone to vote "no". The fact that people could legitimately stand there and have a conversation with her appalls me. I would never stand there listening to it. 

Now comes the question of Sunday voting. Is mind control real? Could there be circumstances in which religious or spiritual leaders sway a population a certain way politically for a long period of time and then provide an easy transportation for them to go vote, with that peer pressure and religious/spiritual duty (what is the right thing to do morally?) mentally looking over their shoulder as they fill out the ballot? Yes, religion has influence, but there is no way to divide the line between those who believe in what they are hearing and those who are being pressured. The people themselves might not even know. 

With this said, I think that removing Sunday voting would help this. Yes, it would be very inconvenient for many people, but it would remove the moral pressures of Sunday. Those who have religious influence but more strongly believe in it, will vote the same on all other days of the week. 

Eliminating the Divides: Supranationalism

Deciding what systems should be collectively or individually controlled is a hard assignment indeed. When it comes to dilemmas like these, it's strange how we think we know all the answers when these topics are being debated. Sure, we know when someone makes a comment that completely agrees or disagrees with us. How many times do we sit down and think it out for ourselves though to the exact detail? In the ideal world, how would you have it?

In collectivism vs. individualism, education seems to be one of the more confusing topics. Private vs. public school? Force everyone to take the same classes all across the country when they are the same age? Specialize vocational and academic routes? Do we standardize all lessons within a certain course across the country? Standardized testing? Allow teachers to have flexible teaching methods?

This is my suggestion: In every public school across the country (private schools can still exist), classes will be required to hit certain checkpoints in what they should be teaching. Perhaps some classes will have time to go more in-depth on topics than others. The point is to have a holistic outlook on what is being taught and allow a large amount of flexibility in the class concerning the textbook and how the teacher presents the material (we all have different learning/teaching methods). 

I think standardized testing is quite dangerous, but it is not a topic I am quite as sure of. Teachers spend so much time teaching to accomplish test objectives, rather than teaching for student comprehension. It really defeats the purpose of being educated on these subjects if no student can retain it. However, I can see that it is a case by case issue. Some states and counties need more structure and guarantee as to what their students are taught. Therefore, I suggest giving states the choice to create standardized state tests, mandate that all counties standardize tests, or do neither. Students should not be required to do BOTH state and county exams. It should be one or the other. I also think that this should only be for elementary, middle school, and perhaps, lower high school classes. Tests, such as FCAT (Florida's standardized test), only inhibit students who must concentrate on their mid-terms and exams in later years. 

Students should most certainly NOT be required to take the same courses as other students their age. If this inhibits a student from a small town in competing with students from cities, I would say it's fair. I say this being from a small town. Most likely, if you're forced to keep up with certain classes throughout your school years, your teachers are not as qualified to teach a class full of both more advanced students and lower-level students. Plus, in small schools there is not the opportunity to separate these groups into separate courses. I'm not saying that students should be allowed to take the same class for multiple years, but there should be enough variability created that ensures they keep moving while allowing them to jump back up to higher level courses if they take summer classes, study through dual enrollment or a special program, etc. I wouldn't want students to be tracked a certain way from a younger age when that can change so much throughout teenage years. 

Finally, vocational school in college should exist. I haven't researched the recent decision by the Miami-Dade area to go in this direction, but I believe that it is a good idea to not force intense academic courses upon students who are clearly not going to use them. To me, this is a waste of resources, inconsiderate to students, and a huge inconvenience to teachers who spend all their time trying to teach those that don't want to be taught. 

Ultimately, I think our education system would benefit from being individualized but with certain guarantees in place to ensure progress for all students. 

La misère aime le compagne

I have to say that watching Les Misèrables and comparing Hugo's hopeless world to that of Marx is not a dull way to start a Political Geography blog.

Perhaps it was a little confusing to talk about the Les Mis characters at first. When we're declaring which of the tragic characters had a miserable life, are we speaking from their perspective or ours? Are we taking the standpoint that they were miserable unto themselves or miserable to society as a whole?

Going with my viewpoint and a societal standpoint as the answers, I really enjoy contemplating the situation of the Thènardiers. Such happy and carefree people they are, mooching off the lives of others, they are very much a misery to the French society. They steal, they lie, they cheat, they beg, and they only return that which they believe will benefit them (such as Cosette for Jean Valjean's money).

Now, looking at an individual standpoint, who is the misery unto him/herself? Low and behold, it's the "beloved" daughter of the innkeepers, Eponine. We did discuss her symbolic sacrifice as the true miserable character of the story. At first, I was thinking that the innkeepers and Eponine should almost not be separated. The Thènardiers raised their daughter into the very lifestyle they thrived in, did they not?

However, I don't think this quite fits the bill. We missed one point in class that this is not just about individual characters.  Perhaps Hugo did not even intend it, since he did write the character profiles rather distinct from one another. I think Eponine represents the deep, engraved face of lawlessness, immoral, Godless, whatever-you-deem-it people. Her situation cannot be understood on its own. You have to see that what makes the Innkeepers such miserable people to society is not the money they take from strangers, the food they provide from leftover hash, or the bonuses they nick from the consistent passerbys. What makes them awful is how this lifestyle has triple-folded upon their daughter, creating a miserable, internal life for her.

This movie is indeed hopeful, because just indeed as the men of the barricade fight against the government, the Proletariat fight among their own people that bind them, parents included. In this sense, I do see the American Civil War aligning with the French. Values were pressured upon family members that were not quite prepared to receive it. The hope within society is that the oppressed are able to rise against it. (Who the oppressed are is another story in some cases...) Perhaps Hugo would not believe in this revolution being the right path, but I do.