Nov 26, 2012

Top 100 Movies

 
People ask me many times, what are my favorite movies. I sampled up a list of my top 100 movies. Movies also tell a lot about their viewers. In my case I cannot argue against this predicament. There are many classics in the history of film but I may have not included them in my list for personal reasons. Some classics are just too slow or too prehistoric. It is an obligation to learn to watch movies from different genres, decades and cultures. We also have to try and value movies using different criteria. In my opinion in every movie there is something well made. As a consumers we just have to find it. The following movies I enjoy greatly:

Not in order of preference:
 
1. In the Mood for Love - Wong Kar-wai
2. Antichrist - Lars von Trier
3. The Whale Rider - Niki Caro
4. Mad Max 2 - George Miller
5. Happy Together - Wong Kar-wai    
6. Dancer in the Dark - Lars von Trier
7. 2046 - Wong Kar-wai
8. Jaws - Steven Speilberg
9. Aliens - James Cameron
10. Three Colours: Blue - Krzysztof Kieslowski
11. Three Colours: Red - Krzysztof Kieslowski
12. Three Colours: White - Krzysztof Kieslowski
13. Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese
14. The Shining - Stanley Kubrick
15. The Exorcist - William Friedkin
16. Snatch - Guy Ritchie
17. Matrix - Wachowski Bros.
18. Seven - David Fincher
19. Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese
20. The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola
21. The Godfather: Part 2 - Francis Ford Coppola
22. Schindler´s List - Steven Spielberg
23. A Clockwork Orange - Stanley Kubrick
24. Full Metal Jacket - Stanley Kubrick
25. Apocalypse Now! - Francis Ford Coppola
26. Silence of the Lambs - Jonathan Demme
27. Psycho - Alfred Hitchcock
28. The Rear Window -  Alfred Hitchcock
29. Scarface - Brian de Palma
30. Blade Runner - Ridley Scott
31. Black Swan - Darren Arofnovsky
32. Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones
33. Trainspotting - Danny Boyle
34. The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer
35. Once upon a Time in the West - Sergio Leone
36. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly  - Sergio Leone
37. La Dolce Vita - Federico Fellini
38. American Beauty - Sam Mendes
39. Leon: The Professional - Luc Besson
40. Rosemary´s Baby - Roman Polanski
41. Repulsion - Roman Polanski
42. Casablanca - Michael Curtiz
43. Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino
44. Edward Scissorhands - Tim Burton
45. Beetlejuice - Tim Burton
46. Pieta - Kim Ki-duk
47. 3-iron - Kim Ki-duk
48. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring - Kim Ki-duk
49. Dogville - Lars von Trier
50. Amelie - Jean-Pierre Jeunet
51. No Contry for Old Men - Coen Bros.
52. Letters from Iwo-Jima - Clint Eastwood
53. All about my Mother - Almodovar
54. Talk to Her - Almodovar
55. Bad Education - Almodovar
56. American History X - Tony Kaye
57. Amores Perros -  Alejandro González Iñárritu
58. 21 Grams - Alejandro González Iñárritu
59. Y tú mama tambien - Alfonso Cuaron
60. 007: The Man with the Golden Gun - Guy Hamilton
61. 007: Goldfinger - Guy Hamilton
62. Bad Taste - Peter Jackson
63. Annie Hall - Woody Allen
64. The Shawshank Redemption - Frank Darabont
65. Rain Man - Barry Levinson
66. Basic Instinct - Paul Verhoeven
67. Rambo - Sylvester Stallone
68. Rocky - John G. Avildsen
69. Terminator 2 - James Cameron
70. The Gladiator - Ridley Scott
71. Pan´s Labyrinth - Guillermo Del Toro
72. Magnolia - Paul Thomas Anderson
73. The Wicker Man - Robin Hardy
74. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days - Criastian Mungiu
75. The Big Blue - Luc Besson
76. The Sixth Sense - M. Night Shamalayan
77. Fargo - Coen Bros.
78. Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis
79. Fight Club - David Fincher
80. Philadelphia - Jonathan Demme
81. Being John Malkovich - Spike Jonze
82. Spirited Away - Hayao Miyazaki
83. Seven Samurai - Akira Kurosawa
84. The Man without a Past - Aki Kaurismäki
85. Cube - Vincenzo Natali
86. Citizen Kane - Orson Welles
87. Groundhog Day - Harold Ramis
88. The Forgotten - Luis Buñuel
89. Star Wars - Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner
90. A Prophet - Jacques Audiard
91. Bowling for Columbine - Michael Moore
92. The Piano - Jane Campion
93. The Tree of Life - Terrence Malick
94. There Will be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson
95. Hot Shots - Jim Abrahams
96. The Naked Gun - David Zucker
97. Downfall - Oliver Hirschbiegel  
98. Natural Born Killers - Oliver Stone
99. One flew over the Cuckoos´s nest - Milos Forman
100. The Great Dictator - Charles Chaplin

Naturally I have missed one or two :)
 

 

Nov 23, 2012

Americans in World Politics - and why I dislike them


Sometimes it feels that we treat the Americans more fiercely than they deserve, us Finns I mean. What have they done that is so wrong and foul? Well I cannot say that I represent the majority of Finnish people. Americanization has bred well on our Nordic soil and for some there are no reasons to scorn the Americans; besides, they have mended invalid civilizations and introduced values of cultural and moral importance to everyone (Hollywood being a missionary of this lovely gospel). They have helped us to solve our wars and glorified freedom as a global right. Maybe we should thank them for their generous and loving support. We all have prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes that narrow our thinking towards other nationalities. I have nothing against single (female) Americans but I cannot help disliking the way USA operates in world forums and celebrates its grandeur by oppressing other countries (mainly those of interest) and making difficult for others to build and upkeep true global democracy. This is the major click which makes many people in Europe and elsewhere annoyed. And this image can only change with radical actions and by making swift U-turn in politics.

My main focus in this text was to criticize the role of USA in the United Nations. As the Wikipedia puts it “The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace.” UN includes institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (former GATT). As we have all witnessed, during its life span UN has not been able to meet the expectations or even the requirements formulated after the World War 2. UN has faced serious problems which usually come down to countries like USA, Russia or China who want to dominate one another instead of supporting the progress of a better future and making genuine cooperation between nations possible. Five giants (USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain) have a veto right which they can use to prevent decisions made against their will. It is obvious that especially developing countries have little to say in United Nations decision making. For example in the Security Council it is highly unlikely that five countries with veto right will allow any changes made in the Charter (e.g. democratization initiatives). And so nothing will happen if these countries won´t take part. The same goes with the General Assembly which should have and be granted wider prerogatives. Of course USA does not want to share power with poorer countries because this would mean that they would also need to make compromises concerning their orthodox views on economy. The US policy is that those who pay can also say how things are done. It is not all bad logics in general, but this only means that UN is not working as it should; it does not work on principles of democracy but rises from corruptive and detrimental foundations.

Poor countries usually have no choice but to turn their heads to World Bank and IMF in order to get loans on reasonable terms (?). Once these unfortunate countries become debt-laden they have to conform their economies; cut down services and wages, fix their social structures, optimize their governance, release markets and privatize once public corporations so that they can pay what they owe to institutions such as World Bank and IMF. IMF headquarters is situated in Washington (no surprise there) and in 2002 USA held 17 % of the total votes, which means that they have the upper hand on things (85 % needed for decisions to pass). In World Bank the US figures are nearly 17 % (IBRD) and 15 % (IDA). These numbers give USA the possibility to decline every decision bad for their agenda. A single board member in the IMF is basically without any power, so consensus required between different agents is actually a hoax. You don’t have to be an intellectual to see that there is something fishy in this business. IMF represents the interests of everyone else except the people of countries which are heavily in debt. Usually biggest winners are financial institutions who give them money with conditions. Rich countries, creditors and others can basically through this agreement rule those who owe them. IMF is working in world politics as a saint with demons tail. This disguise gives benefits to those who ultimately control these systems and creates at the same time an false image of freedom being firmly in hands of individual countries and their democratically chosen governments. World Trade Organization is no better. Committees are chosen and discussions held in small and informal groups to preserve the interests of USA and OECD countries, and the system is everything but transparent. A good example of WTOs hybristic vision is GATS contract which allows nearly every sector of human existence be privatized. Contract was of course approved without any public debate on the matter.

In 1980s USA blackmailed UN by refusing to pay their share of upkeep and ever since this has been a common method to gain more influence and make UN more dependent on US money. The worst possible scenario for the US government would be independent UN which would not need to ask permission when in need of executing acute and decisive actions. UNs biggest fault is in its structure which allows those who fund it to rule it. In decision making this is called a dollar-vote-principle. Due to lack of funds UN is forced to be under a leash, and if these economic shackles keep on restraining UNs authority, nothing worth mentioning can really be made. In 2001 USA paid a percentage of 22 of the whole budget of UN. And as a curiosity former Secretary-General Kofi Annan was surrounded with US born advisers when still in duty. We have seen many times how USA just walks over UN council claiming to have rights to do nearly everything they want. This was the case for example when dealing with Iraq (nuclear weapons, yeah?). Is this arrogance and lack of human solidarity? Well, in my opinion it is. Many rational individuals see the previously explained US actions as disgusting and repulsive. US citizens have what it takes to change the views of the rest of us. USA is not in any position to claim that is has the right to play without any rules or boundaries.

When I see change in this political behavior, I will start appreciating the Americans more.

P.s Over 40 % of the US population thinks that evolution does not exist. Nice.  

Nov 10, 2012

Kuolema kertoo miksi syntymässä itkemme




Kuka pelkää kuolemaa? No en minä ainakaan!

Thanatologia toimii ihmiselle mahdollisuutena käydä kuoleman kanssa kasvotusten  

Marraskuu on kuoleman kuukausi. Luonto makaa martona ja lumi peittää kaiken vielä elävän alleen. Talven pimeys on suomalaisille mitä otollisinta aikaa pohtia kysymyksiä kuolemasta. Ja miksemme sitten pohtisi, sillä onhan kyseessä mitä mielenkiintoisin aihepiiri, johon jokaiselta löytyy sanottavaa. Eri asia on, kuinka moni tohtii pohtia kuolemaa päivätyönään tai edes harrastuksenaan saati, että kuluttaisi aikaa sen akateemiseen tutkimiseen. 

Mistä kuolemassa sitten on kyse? Kysymykseen saanee toinen toistaan kirjavampia vastauksia riippuen siitä, keneltä asiaa tiedustelee. Niin hautausurakoitsijalla, papilla, poliitikolla, saattohoitajalla kuin tavallisella kadunmiehelläkin on käsityksensä ja omanlaisensa suhde kuolemaan. Metafyysiseltä merkitykseltään kuolema on ihmiselle massiivinen teema, jota yritetään eristää tietoisuudestamme. Kuka nyt haluaisi ajatella kuolemaa elämän ollessa yhä pahasti keskeneräinen? Vaikka kuolema olisikin jokaisen meistä arkipäivää, on parempi vähätellä sen arvoa, jottemme vajoaisi ahdistusta lisääviin mietteisiin elämän mielekkyydestä ja mielettömyydestä. Kuolemalla ei siis sovi leikitellä, sillä se saattaa viedä keskittymisen pois olennaisesta eli riemullisesta ja loputtoman venyvästä elämästä. Mutta miksi kuolema sitten uhkaa ontologisen turvallisuuden tunnettamme? Miksi vaikenemme kuolemasta? 

Oletettua on, että kuoleman mysteeriin ottavat harvemmin kantaa tutkijat ja sitä useammin kritiikille immuunien uskontojen kirjaviisaat tai mitään pelkäämättömät filosofit. Kuolemaa ei kuitenkaan ole syytä pitää tieteelle vieraana tutkimuskohteena eikä liioin pseudoilmiönä, joka tulisi jättää yksinomaan esimerkiksi uskonnollisten auktoriteettien sanalle alisteiseksi. Liioin emme tavallisina pekkaperusjamppoina saa kääntää kuolemalle selkäämme, sillä tällöin tulisimme kieltäneeksi oman olevaisuutemme, jota kuolema ja sen alituinen pelko läsnäolollaan kunnioittaa ja outoa kyllä, rikastuttaa. Kuolemasta tietämätön ja siitä kiinnostunut voikin aina kääntyä uteliaana tieteelle kuuliaisen, mutta sen harmaalle alueelle asemoituvan thanatologian puoleen.

Thanatologia – kuoleman tiede

Thanatologia on tieteellinen oppisuuntaus, jonka tavoitteena on kuolemaan liittyvien mekanismien kuvaaminen eri tieteenalojen erityismenetelmillä. Kreikan sanaa thanatos (kuolema) käytti jo itävaltalainen psykoanalyytikko Sigmund Freud selittääkseen ihmisen toiminnan negatiivista motivaatiota. Itäiset naapurimme ovat ansioituneet thanatologian saralla laajalla rintamalla. Venäläinen Elie Metchnikoff oli ensimmäisenä vaatimassa laajamittaisempaa kuoleman kokemuksellisuuden tutkimusta. Hänestä voikin katsoa alkaneen kiinnostus thanatologisia kysymyksenasetteluja kohtaan. Amerikkalaisen Herman Feifelin v. 1952 julkaistun teoksen ”The Meaning of Death” myötä innostus lisääntyi ja aihepiiriä eri kulmista lähestyneitä tutkielmia alettiin tuottaa enenevässä määrin – kuten Feifel itsekin oli toivonut. Nykyisin thanotologia on levittäytynyt maailmalla oppiaineena useisiin yliopistoihin ja tarjoaa väylän jopa akateemisiin loppututkintoihin. Suomessa ammatillisten virkanimikkeiden jo valmiiksi sekalaiseen kokoelmaan mahtuvat tulevaisuudessa varmasti ongelmitta sellaiset tittelit kuin kuolemakasvattaja (death educator) tai kuolemaneuvonantaja (death counsellor). Suomalainen eutanasiakeskustelukin varmasti saisi uutta pontta, jos suorassa lähetyksessä asiaa puisi pitkän linjan kuolema-asiantuntija.

Venäläinen thanatologi Andrei Demitshev uskoo kuoleman olevan tutkimuskohteena ennen kaikkea kulttuurin ja ajatusten tuote. Thanatologia on ihmisen sosiokulttuurisen toiminnan ytimessä; kuolevaisuus tuottaa yhteisöllisiä käytänteitä ja rakenteita sekä inhimillistä käyttäytymistä, joka palautuu jokseenkin jähmeisiin käsityksiin ja kokemuksiin kuolemasta. Aloittelevina thanatologeina kuolemalle on annettava henki, se on elollistettava ja nähtävä dynaamisena todellisuutta muovaavana voimana, joka läpitunkee ihmisen olevaisuutta. On rajoittavaa pitää kuolemaa yksiulotteisesti destruktiivisena elämän vastakohtana, joka on merkkinä biologisen elämän päättymisestä. Thanatologia suhtautuu kuolemaan avoimena konseptina, johon kuuluvat olennaisesti luonnontieteelliset ja humanistiset ideat. Oli tutkimusfokuksessa sitten kuoleman kulttuuriset orientaatiot, kuoleman vaikutukset taiteeseen, kuolema kielenkäytössä tai kuolema sosiaalista järjestystä muovaavana tekijänä, kuolema ei milloinkaan esiinny yksikasvoisena. Kuolema on sosiaalinen, historiallinen ja kulttuurinen ilmestys, jonka osilla on usein summaa korostuneempi merkitys. Eksistentiaaliset, yksilön tajuntaan palautuvat tuntemukset eivät saa toki unohtua, mutta kuoleman puhdas subjektiivinen kokeminen ja arviointi tarvitsevat tuekseen myös tietoa kuolemasta joukkoluonteisena konstruktiona. Kiinnostava on tutkia esimerkiksi niitä vaikutuksia, joita ihmisen tai laajemman ihmisryhmän kuolema aikaansaa muissa ja millä tavoin inhimilliset tragediat muuttavat yhteisön käsityksiä omasta kollektiivisesta itseydestään.

Kuolema keskellämme

Kuolemasta kultivoituneesti keskusteleminen voi osoittautua monin tavoin arvokkaaksi ja hyödylliseksi. Sivilisaatioiden noustessa ja tuhoutuessa on myös kuolema kohdannut alituisia muutoksia. Kuoleman eetos yhteiskunnissa on sidoksissa aikaan ja ajallisiin murroskausiin. Muinoin kuolema oli turvallisempaa luovuttaa niiden haltuun, joilla oli aihepiiristä jotakin koskettavaa sanottavaa ja dogmaattinen pätevyys kertoa, mitä ihmiset tarkoittivat puhuessaan surusta, toivottomuudesta, toisesta mahdollisuudesta, viikatemiehistä, valkoisesta valosta, läheltä piti -tilanteista tai vaikka vaan läheisen poismenosta. Kuolemalle annettu konkreettinen sisältö helpotti väistämättömän kohtaamista. Sittemmin kuolemasta on tullut yksilölle tämän olemassaoloa luotaavien syvän yksityisten kysymysten kohde. Kulttuurisesti kuolema on paljastunut groteskiksi ja vastenmieliseksi ylitsepursuavan viihteellisyyden lakeijaksi. Jotain lohdullista lienee siinä, ettemme nykyisin pidä kuolemaa kaikilta osin vaiennettuna tai tabuna puheenaiheena, vaan voimme löytää ihmisiä, joita kuolema inspiroi niin klassisena filosofisena ongelmana kuin perinteisen akateemisen mielenkiinnon kohteenakin. Omassa ajassamme kuolema on kaikkea muuta kuin kesytetty. Se on hallitsematon pelon, kaaoksen ja epätoivon aggregaatti siitäkin huolimatta, että kuolema on järjellä riisuttu vaarattomaksi.

Uskonnollisissa kertomuksissa kuolemalle on varattu paikka, jota ilman ei esitykselle voida rakentaa onnellista – tai liioin onnetonta – loppua. Kaikki uskonnot ottavat suoraan tai välillisesti kantaa siihen, mitä kuolemassa tapahtuu (tai mitä sen jälkeen), millainen kuoleman merkitys on ja mikä tärkeintä – kuinka kuolema voidaan kohdata tuntematta pelkoa sen vääjäämättömyyden edessä. Oli kuoleman jälkeisenä kohteena sitten paratiisi, taivas, esi-isien maa, kosmisuuden korkein tila tai uusi kiintopiste jälleensyntymien kierrossa, on uskonnoilla esittää yksi jos toinen vastalause väitteelle ”siihen on kaikki päättyvä”. Kriittisimmät voisivat nähdä uskonnot jopa elämänkielteisinä, sillä niin lennokkaasti ne argumentoivat kuoleman avaamien mahdollisuuksien puolesta. Ei ole yllättävää, että uskontojen kärsiessä akuutista luottamuspulasta ihmiset ovat alkaneet pohtia kuolemaa uusilla tavoilla, joissa metafyysisten spekulaatioiden osuus on kavennettu minimiin. Kuolemaa ovat teoreettisesti analysoineet muiden muassa psykologit Freud ja Lacan, eksistentialistifilosofit Sartre ja Kierkegaard, kirjallisuudentutkija Barthes kuin sosiologian jättiläisetkin Foucaultista Derridaan. Se, ovatko he onnistuneet tehtävässään syväluodata ja merkityksellistää kuolemaa rahvasta tai uskovaa oivaltavammin, jää tulkinnanvaraiseksi. Pelottomuus syleillä kuolemaa syntyy kuitenkin kunkin yksilölähtöisestä motivaatiosta tavoitella totuutta ja kuoleman absurdius katoaakin ymmärrystä lisäävien ponnistelujen edetessä. Tulevaisuudessa kuoleman tutkimuksen soisi saavan lisää myötätuulta purjeisiinsa ja kaventavan sitä etäisyyttä, joka uskonnoilla ja tieteellä on lähestymisessään kuolemaan.

Elämän ja kuoleman kysymyksiä

Pelkomme kuolemaa kohtaan on sitä suurempi mitä enemmän meillä on menetettävää ja mitä vähemmän saavutettavaa. Kuolema määrittyy pitkälti suhteessa siihen, millainen arvo elämälle annetaan. Biologinen otaksuma on, että ihminen pyrkii varjelemaan ja ylläpitämään elämää. Samanaikaisesti ympärillemme avautuu kuoleman kulttuuri, jossa kuolemattomuuden tavoittelua ruokkii kuolema. Tällainen kuoleman välineellistäminen johtaa elämää ja kuolemaa epätasa-arvoistaviin toimenpiteisiin. Voisi kuvitella nietzcheläis-schopenhauerilaisen pessimismin sävyttämän elämän saavan kruununsa kuolemassa, sillä jos elämä jo lähtökohtaisesti on traaginen farssi, ei kuolema sitä ainakaan heikennä. Olisi kuitenkin perin luonnotonta todeta ihmiselämän olevan syntymättömänä parhainta mahdollista. On jännittävää huomata, kuinka ihmiset ovat alkaneet ponnistella löytääkseen keinoja venyttää elämänlankaa ja kamppailla kuoleman ylivoimaa vastaan. Mikään ei tyydytä ihmistä enempää kuin kuoleman kukistaminen. Mielekkäämpää olisi ajatella kuolemasta myönteisesti tai konstruktiivisesti, jolloin sen voisi valjastaa elämän käyttövoimaksi. Lähestymällä kuolemaa ennakkoluulottomasti voimme kenties ymmärtää paremmin myös filosofi Herakleitoksen ajatuksen hänen todetessaan elämää sanottavan elämäksi, vaikka todellisuudessa se on kuolemaa. Kun hyväksymme kuoleman läsnäolon, voimme entistä paremmin ymmärtää, miksi kuolema iloitsee eikä itke minussa. 

Luonnossa harvalla elollisella on etuoikeus nauttia luonnollisesta kuolemasta, ihmiselle tämä elämän laki ei riitä. Oletus satavuotisesta elämänkaaresta on kaikkea muuta kuin luonnollinen. Nykyisin ihmisille onkin muodostunut elämän jatkoajan ohella, terveempänä lähestymisenä, tärkeäksi murehtia sitä, kuolenko arvokkaasti ja kunniallisesti. Tästä hyvänä esimerkkinä käy myös Suomessa virinnyt keskustelu eutanasian asemasta ja sen oikeuttamisesta. Tosin Suomessakin keskustelua hankaloittavat ihmisten eriävät käsitykset kuolemasta ja siitä, millainen sisältö kuolemalle annetaan. Kuoleman ja kuolemisen teeman voi katsoa muuttuneen 20. vuosisadalla länsimaissa kipeäksi, sisäistä torjuntaa ja jopa inhoa herättäväksi. Emme ajattele kuolemaa konstruktiivisena vaan destruktiivisena. Tällöin tulemme helposti kiistäneeksi kuoleman luovan ja meitä sisäisesti eheyttävän potentiaalin; jumalallisuuden kaipuu tukahduttaa inhimillisyytemme.  

Demitshevin mukaan se, miten ihminen suhtautuu elämäänsä ja ympärillä olevien elämään, se, miten ihminen ratkaisee oman kuolemansa ja ympäröivien kuoleman ongelman, on maailmankatsomukseen palautuva tyypitys. Kuolemalla on erilaisia kulttuurisesti vaihtuvia ilmiasuja. Yleisemmällä tasolla ihminen on kuoleman kantaja, ovathan  ulkoiset piirteemmekin pelkkää kuolevaa solukkoa. Kuolema hengittää ihollamme. Täten onkin perin kummallista, miksi ihminen tahtoisi mystifioida kuoleman. Se olisi kuin kieltäisi itseään olemasta ihminen. Ihminen ei voi kohdata kuolemaa tai tajuta kuin sen näkijänä. Tämän näyn tulisi kuitenkin auttaa meitä myös harmonisoimaan elämämme yhteen kuoleman kanssa. Vain olettamalla kuoleman voi kuolema käydä lopulta olemattomaksi. Kuten Nikolai Trubkikov kirjoittaa: ”kuolema edellyttää elämää, alkaa elämän kanssa ja elämän kanssa myös päättyy". Siksi en itsekään voi pitää kuolemaa uhkana elämälle vaan etuoikeutena, jonka samanaikainen raskaus ja keveys lisää elämänhaluani ja tuo elämälle sen edellyttämän kokemuksen siitä, kuka oikeastaan olen.  

(Teksti on tarkoitettu julkaistavaksi sosiologien opiskelijalehdessä)

Nov 8, 2012

Take a risk



Risks are measures of danger. Usually we want to avoid taking too high risks and prefer playing safe, at least if unaware of what will eventually happen. Risks have also everything to do with values. It is not a risk if one is not afraid of losing something valuable. While talking about risks I have to agree with German sociologist Ulrich Bech who said that people easily accuse those of perturbation who remind them if the existence and proximity of disturbing facts, risks or other depressing matters (that they wish not want to hear). Negativity is best to keep to ourselves because life is more about joy and catching dreams. I suffer from this disease of being a killjoy: Why do you always have to be in such a murky mood?, they ask me. And when I try to explain they ignore my views for being “just too much and just too weird”. Thinking against the masses is hardly ever easy.

It is obvious that people have both created risks and ignored them at the same time. The future has been set in jeopardy by actions made along with bad judgment of risks. Acknowledging dangers has little to do with proclaiming apocalyptic prophecies or creating unnecessary fear. It is merely a compulsion for withstanding uncertainty, choosing the right and necessary decisions and locating your future position. Risks caused are by many standards long lasting; they are not going to ease or go away anytime soon. The problem with risks is that while living too focused in the present we usually forget that we have a future to look after as well. It is in our biological character not to care about the rights or welfare of the upcoming generations because we are bound to focus on issues temporally and locally close. In a way it is hard to imagine people willingly causing trouble to ones like them. Still it is reprehensible to ignore risks that are both obvious and damaging just by saying “everything will eventually turn out for the better”. Well, it won’t.

I cannot believe that disdaining the future would be our only option when all we would have to do is just slightly evolve and develop our form of thinking. It might take time but there is no other way out really.  At the moment we are not ready to face greater suffering so that we could enjoy or benefit from actions seen dislikable later. This is because we never think further ahead of our own nose or noses of our descendants. The distant future feels less realistic than the near future. We have even a specific risk evaluation in which risks near to us get more attention than those further away. While our orientation is kept tightly within close range it is impossible to focus on questions concerning generations to come. That is why we also make haste and poor decisions which cannot last while meant only to solve problems on temporary basis. In economics it is fairly common to leave the real problem be and patch up the wound. As critical economist Henry Hazlitt says, economy is too often seen only means to provide momentary interest. We should make economics that stand the test of time and create lasting good for many instead of a few. Of course we are glad if things turn out for the better, but it is an operation worth nothing if problems are not solved for the benefit of those coming after us. For example if we only take actions which ease the pain but won’t heal the whole disease, the disease will eventually kill the patient.       

People have strong faith on science. “Problems will be handled over time” is the common belief. This strong optimism may sometimes blind us and make us disregard our problems that would need our urgent attention. In the past it was easy to predict risks and learn how to comprehend changing conditions in our lives. Risks were obvious and controllable. Last 100 years has introduced us a technological boost never experienced before. It has produced innovations and scientific breakthroughs and enabled rapid cultural development in a global scale. Now days we are no longer flexible or fast enough to react to risks - and they have grown beyond our reach. Living safe usually means taking insurances and making preparations for the worse. The biggest risks in our lives are not things like an engine bust up, a washing machine gone broken or even a death of an close friend. We have risks that concern the whole existence of human kind – and these risks should be in the center of our personal and global agenda and intention.

We need people who really care about the future of this planet and its inhabitants. The welfare of others does not necessarily mean that we need to give up on our own well-being. It means that we have to try to live like there would be life after we have departed. This also calls for a strong political will. But before that it calls a reevaluation of our risks.   



Oct 14, 2012

Faith - No more



Last week I decided that the time was right for me to depart from the Lutheran church. The decision had come to me already many years ago but it took this long to be permanently executed. In this text I will tell you the reasons behind this relieving personal decision.

I consider myself to be an open-minded and considering person. It has rarely been difficult for me to accept the coexistence of religions, and I have encouraged people to get to know those with different religious backgrounds. Don’t take me wrong, I still believe that we should be tolerant to each other and try to live together harmoniously and peacefully. And I continue believing that religions are not all bad. 

The first and foremost reason behind my departure was the lack of faith, which should be obvious to those who know me even little. Faith is something I value as an interpersonal and a private, self-realizing meditative quality. God might or might not exist – and that´s about all there is to say actually. I believe that people are entitled to religious freedom while having also an obligation not to demand religious autocracy; in other words all religious beliefs should be coequal. Well, as we all well know, this is not the case in today’s world.

Religions are now and in the past used as excuses to justify inhumane actions of violence, repression and tyranny. No religion is free from such a sick behavior which has caused millions of people to lose their lives in the course of human history. The Christians have forced people to wipe out their previous worldviews and replace them with truths taken from the Bible. For example in times of Columbus the Indian babies were killed after they had been baptized; this way they could enjoy the eternal life in heaven. In medieval Europe witches and heretics were hunt down by the holy inquisition, and ALWAYS the evidence against them was fabricated out of thin air. This meant that every living person was in danger to be named an opponent of God, and therefore be tested in order to find out whether this claim was to be true or not. Usually tests were successful and victims were found guilty – or dead.  

Islam is no better, actually it can even be worse – depends on how deep into details we go. Things that we hear Muslims do to others and to themselves go many times beyond our comprehension and imagination. Or can you really claim to be understanding if some fanatic Muslims let young girls die in a burning house because they deserved to die due to broken ancient dress code. It does not matter how seriously people take themselves as Muslims if they continue to believe that everything there is in Quran must have come from Allah. Islam has to undergo a radical inner regeneration like all religions must. Otherwise these religions will eventually vanish trying to attain global dominion. We all have to accept that religions enable all forms of extremist activity. This fear has to be taken seriously by everyone, not just those who fear for their artificial American lifestyles. Religions breed negative side effects. Even those religions with millions of supporters cannot be covered with shields of inviolability. They need to be open for a serious debate.

The second reason to my getaway is actually reason - or the lack of it. It is funny how people section their lives into categories which are diversely managed. People trust in science and reason when they see fit, and use judgment selectively. If I would say that Jesus prepared my breakfast for today, I would be evaluated as a crazy person. Why? Due to lack of evidence. I would have to show some kind of proof to prove my point right. The same goes with claims that I make of reality. I cannot say that there is a rabbit hole in my garden leading to some magical world if it doesn’t exist. We cannot operate on false beliefs or otherwise all claims would be beyond critical evaluation. If I would state that the world is flat, nobody would believe me, but if the statement should point out that the world has been created by God, no matter what shape or size it is, I would gather more than enough supporters to make it official. When people enter the sacred area of religion they forget their reason and leave it hanging till time comes to use it once again.   

Many elements (not all) in religions and especially texts considered holy are nothing but myths. And while there are those who consider these myths to be even partially true, we as a one and only humankind will face never ending problems. Myths have proved out to be irrational, disgusting and most importantly dangerous. Sometimes it feels like some people have gotten stuck in ancient history. I always say to my students how we need to understand people in their historical context. The Presocratic-philosophers for example had no knowledge of the world whatsoever, scientifically speaking. All they had was their reason and empirical affirmation of that time. Keeping this mind we are able to understand why these intellects thought that the world could be formed from substances like water or numbers. They had no evidence to believe otherwise!  

I believe that Jesus lived and was a historical person with flesh and blood. I also believe that he gave an example of how we should treat each other as human beings; love and be loved. All extra added to this image of mine needs greater justifications which would have to resemble facts more than wishes. That’s why I cannot say that Jesus was more than a Jewish chap looking for a way to give people hope in times of despair. We need more people like Jesus to show compassion and empathy, but death is something we need to accept as a natural part of life. Death is evident and concerns us all, we and all our loved-ones have to die eventually. But that is the end of my journey – and yours. Between birth and death we all should treat others with respect and friendliness. If religions cannot adapt to this requirement, in my opinion they should be discarded as useless.     
    
As long there are myths with non-existing divine origin and religious followers who refuse to use their reason and deny the utility of scientific method, wars and disharmony will remain a present state. Religions concealing false truths also obstruct us from building ethics that could have a real fundamental bearing for the future.       

Nipa
  

Oct 9, 2012

Paradise for some, oblivion for many



For a long time I have desired to go to Sri Lanka. The reason has been the serenity and peacefulness of this small and culturally rich island. Now, I’m not so certain of my plans anymore.

People tend to go on vacations to distant countries where they can fulfill their need for escapism; daily life needs a healthy break. Picturesque beaches and little umbrella drinks are what we grave for, and we are willing to pay relatively large sums for our luxury. At the same time we enjoy our vacation in fancy hotels with respectable room service the locals usually enjoy a far more moderate life style.

In 2004 occurred a deathly tsunami in the Indian Ocean causing 227,898 deaths, the worst tsunami in history. This horrible incident was a major personal and communal catastrophe especially for those living on seaside and coastal line of countries like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Many lost their livelihood and habitation as well as families. But the tsunami was not their only tragedy. In Sri Lanka poor fishermen were in some parts unable to return to their home areas because the lands were seized by government officials. They said that new buildings were meant to build on the tsunami cleansed beaches. Tsunami was used as an excuse to get rid of the rubbish caste.  Afterwards resorts were built for rich people to savor. Sri Lanka is becoming a paradise for people with wealth. These privatized lands have once been a home of the native people - but not anymore. We can still do a “once in a lifetime” trip and surf in dreamlike conditions but the truth behind this bliss is an ugly one.

The situation is similar for example in Maldives. It faced the same fate as other tsunami devastated countries, and 106 people died. Infrastructure suffered greatly but luckily there were companies ready to invest innocuous money so that people would get their life in order. Those living near the sea suffered drastically and were moved elsewhere to live. Usually this kind of relocating of deprived is executed by force; the locals don’t want to move. The most important thing is to get rid of those who would oppose the chances to gain profits. Companies want to bring about new customers – and enhance tourism. Money coming in does not mean a rise for those living in need.   

It is funny that many westerners bemoan how Thailand has become a new age Gomorra where prostitution flourishes and children are to leave their homes at a very early age to earn money for their families.  Nobody would do this line of work if they would have a chance to do something else – poverty leaves no other options. Investors have generated discontent by hijacking the lands from their previous owners – the people. The people have to adjust to these new rules and work for these companies as well as benefit from tourism in any way they can. This creates forms of ethically dubious activity. We should understand that while we act as tourists with no sense of reality we will keep on upholding these disturbing conditions.

When I was in Phnom Penh, the capital of Campodia, I realized how people had taken actions against businesses with strong agenda to build new houses on the banks of the river Tonlé Sap. “We are not for sale” were written on the walls of huts belonging to those living on the premises. I heard that the Chinese were investing respectable sums of money to restore the glory of this once thriving French built jewel. At that time I realized how loose business ethics can be. The good of the people means only little – if none. I bet that soon after these massive buildings have been built businessmen will flow in and hold important conferences where they decide what to take next. And tourists feel also safer thanks to the reminders (symbols) of our civilized world.   

Next time you go to a five star holiday ask yourself; who does it benefit besides my own need to feel relaxed and privileged.
   

Oct 1, 2012

Of the Importance of Philosophy




Philosophical thinking is something I do in my spare time as well as while working with the young. I would like to share my philosophical insights more often with others but frequently feel people lacking the inspiration or motivation to think issues concerning us all, in depth at least.  It is not a rising trend either. We are more interested in practical matters than metaphysical contemplations, which is understandable to some degree. Who would want to question their whole existence or criticize the bases of our human understanding?  It would drive us mad to doubt all beliefs about reality or to cut ourselves off from the society we live in just because we happen to underrate its significance. But why do we feel such repulsion against philosophy in the first place? Maybe it has something to do with the assumption that people no longer need philosophy to build up their dream lives. In my opinion the self-aware and world conscious individual has turned into a myth. Today’s individual is a being without a true existence. It has lost itself and become an irresolute and disorientated nomad, a lonely soul, who searches peace and fulfillment finding only war and nothingness. Our communal values have been sold to the highest bidder and replaced by the ultimate freedom of choice. We can almost decide everything there is to decide – by ourselves. This includes moral issues as well as choices made in everyday life. We are slipping into nihilism just as Nietzsche predicted 100 years ago.

I feel that we have done everything but looked back. Philosophy is much about history, and history has produced ideas and theories how we should live and converse on the reality. History also explains how we have come to this present situation. In antique people used to think that public good serves also the good of the individual. Every member of the society played their role and did what was expected of them. Politics was a mean to improve the community’s rigour and increase its lifespan.  In Aristotle’s thinking individual´s main purpose in life was to seek happiness by being virtuous and wise. Afterwards many have seen in Aristotle a speaker for our time. Without having a telos, a purpose for one´s existence, life becomes vague, immoral and pointless.    

In the renaissance period man rediscovered himself and reason was raised as a ruling principle to conduct life and to find an absolute certainty in how things were. I consider a French Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) to be one of the most intellectual thinker in the history of philosophy. He believed certainty to be an illusion; instead he chose to be a skeptic. Montaigne saw only a little point in people´s constant desire to be right in everything they say. Because of this obsession Europe was in a state of turmoil that Montaigne despised. People want to believe that certainty is something veridical; our own impression is always the right one. Maybe this is also suits as a depiction of today’s views. People are not willing to admit that they are dim and in many cases just simply wrong; the world just isn’t how we want it to be.

In 1700s marched in the mighty Enlightment. Sapere aude (use your wit; dare to be wise) worked as a command to a man to release him from a self-incurred tutelage. Liberalism was also a prodigy born out of that time. Science and criticism were ways to replace constraining religious beliefs surrounding human condition. Political philosophy also started to create theories concerning themes like liberty, law, rights and property. Reason was a tool of power as well as emancipation from false truths.

1800s was a triumph of positivist reason – until it led to a crisis agitated by few strong philosophical figures, mainly German born Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. They hailed emotions and attacked verbally against reason claiming it to be feeble. Existentialism showed individual how to look inside one´s self and find a meaning (or absurdity) from within. It has given also a lot to me; expeditions to one´s own head are more than encouraged in order to truly know who this subject behind everything is. We have to courageously believe in our own judgment but at the same time accept our high probability to be stupid. At the same time at least for me is easy to understand that life is something delicate and it ends eventually. Life is an open concept and there are no compulsions. Sometimes the extremism behind true existentialism gives me a hard time because it can make things feel indifferent.

1900s brought us wars and demise but it also introduced us a whole new subject. This unique person is an individual in every sense of the word. There are no no-limits or ethical boundaries whatsoever. Many philosophers in 1900s think that crisis of mankind is an inevitable result caused by change in our thinking and behavior. It has also lots to do with the “progress” which many see as a normal evolution of man. Once a man on the radio said that progress is natural. It naturally is easy to go behind evolution argument. I personally feel that mankind is not necessarily meant to find all the answers or break all the barriers found in nature. Maybe we have already crossed our natural constitute. We cherish our glossy and petty lives and value our achievements by using perverted and usually materialistic indicators. And our self-centered life is everything there is, according to many; so we should make the best out of it. This has led to a western world where moral ideals have died and civilizations have turned into fiction, as Leo Strauss (1899-1973) points out. Our lives are more about ourselves than others; every man for himself!

I like to believe that philosophy has lot´s to do with our pursuit of happiness. But is our telos or goal for life twisted? We like to think ourselves as someone who makes a difference but the recent difference made has been for the worse. And because people have become less critical and more easily manipulated they feel that truth can reveal itself just by looking and not by thinking. Marx insisted that philosophy should always aim to change the world, not just to depict it. That is why philosophy will be important cause is never just about speculating; it is all about acting and living up to your values (supported by philosophical consciousness). In my life I try to maintain a philosophical twist - and it means that philosophy genuinely moves me.


Sep 28, 2012

Recent thoughts about money, power and politics




Recent history has shown some pretty bad things happen to countries who have not obeyed the will of the economically fittest or most intimidating. We also know as a historical fact how power usually corrupts and blinds those who get their heads crowned - wrongfully or not. Niccoló Macchiavelli introduced to us in 1500s a new form of leadership in which "the ends justified the means"; rulers were to abandon moral integrity in order to gain success and stabilize power. This meant that there were no moral rules to value because morality was something to keep apart from politics. 500 years later Macchiavellian methods still exist despite our efforts to keep the game fair. It is pure vanity to think that modern politics is something to keep separate from drives of power, money and affluence. Politics are not merely means to promote the commonalty good but the good of some small elite.   

In 1900s Latin-America the people was fiercely plunged under a foreign control against their own free saying. This same happened in Indonesia and even in China, where people have not been granted full "western" human rights ever since. Indonesia should be a prosperous country with plenty of natural resources, but as we know private corporations have taken them all from the hands of the people. This happened fairly quickly when West-favored General Suharto took the lead and showed the country a new road to economic growth and welfare. Capitalism took over Indonesia. Today many enjoy the fruits brought up by the fat decades 1970-1990s, made possible by drastic "liberal" measures in economics. Unfortunately the wealth is everything but equally shared. I have visited Indonesia's poorer parts and the sight is usually devastating.    

The same sudden development  from sosialism to Free Markets took place in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia where some people were totally unaware what happened in their countries besides that many lost their jobs and became economically enslaved by foreign financial forces. Masses were shocked and paralyzed and after they had recovered their normal state it was too late to undo changes executed by those wanting to make profit and hail free markets as a way to altruistic prosperity. All this happened with a silent mandate from government(s) hoping to gain something out of the process. Capitalism has brought good, there is no doubt about that. The way it has been immorally implemented shows that the masses have had in the past little to say about their own national political affairs. And if they try to make a noise there are always ways to silence people´s voice by force or strategic maneuvers which will crush the opposition (usually these methods have been highly unethical and kept secrets). Luckily we have moved on since 1970s and produced new and more open ways to control these grievances, like the Internet (Wikileaks e.g). As we have also witnessed,  this kind of transparency is understandably opposed by those who not wish to be highlighted as "baddies".  

Now in many arabic countries newly formed governments have had challenging times in balancing new democracies. I bet that also in these scenarios economic issues play a big role whether peace, stability and mutual consensus between different groups of people is really reachable. I can totally understand why people resist Americans. USA is usually causing trouble and offering solutions at the same time. These new democracies will have to adapt and seriously consider what kind of freedom and democracy is worth all lost lives. Does freedom and democracy mean economic dependence and debt slavery or does it mean a society based on real communal values and shared responsibility?    

Change is to a high extent  much about courage and taking initiative. Change can also be seen as a selection of alternatives. Also in Finland many people don´t pay attention to what kind of mechanisms uphold their current lives. They are not interested in politics which makes democracy totally useless. And why should they be interested as Finnish politics seem to be a puppet show. Here politics appears to be a charade played by actors with  no improvising skills. We have a group of parties representing a silent consensus - and we lack the true opposition with alternatives. This is of course in some relation to a recent development where power and the nations right to self-determination has been given away to faceless institutions, such as banks and finance corporations.  

Freedom is very often nothing more than an illusion well maintained. Our lifeforms are something taken for granted. Many don´t know how the monetary system works and what kind of consequences it causes to us normal citizens, if the system  has flaws. This is a not only a sign of ignorance but also a sign of stupidity. How can we hold on to our rights, if we don´t ask questions and doubt answers given to us? At least we should be interested because time after our own will be affected by choices made now.    

Nipa 







Sep 25, 2012

Multinational Companies and the need of consumption pedagogies (Essay written in spring 2011)



Multinational Companies and the need of consumption pedagogies

Of the top one hundred economies in the world, fifty two are companies (Brubaker 2007, p. 27). This gives companies ever imagined power.

I have always been relatively conscious of the two faced nature of multinational companies. I am worried about the fairly recent development in where multinationals are becoming more and more influential. We as consumers should be aware of the consequences that our choices bound to cause. Still I am reluctant to believe that people really are willing to achieve full realization, and to think beyond their self-interest even if they would have a good will to do it. Naomi Klein (1999) talks of a phenomenon of obsessive branding where companies have started to create and sell images, lifestyles and attitudes instead of concrete products. Even children worship brands and use them as tools to build up and process their identities. Our life, and whole existence, is signified by brands and measured with indicators of material well-being. Life is nothing without the newest Apple device or Gucci handbag. The suck of materialism has gotten strong. As a teacher I think that one of my most important objectives is to make my students see that the reality conceals many inconvenient truths worth considering as consumers and moral agents. Today’s problems and moral negligence demands radical re-evaluation of values and methods to become more aware of global consumerism and the defects of multinational companies. In this essay I will exam multinational companies from a teacher’s perspective. Consumerism and global justice are themes that every educator should keep in mind when implementing teaching and giving examples of morally enduring choices to children. Hopefully in the future children as adults would have motivation to change the current course of ugly and repulsive consumerism into something more useful. In the end it is a matter of conscience.  

Multinational or Transnational Companies (MNCs or TNCs) such as McDonalds, Ford, Sony, H&M have substantial power over our lives. I will use the term “Multinational(s)” to cover the essays conceptual versatility. The Multinational is a company that controls operations or income-generating assets in more than one country. They are owned in their home economy and invest in foreign economies. From the nineteenth century onwards have business enterprises controlled the world’s economic order. Within the last hundred years their achievements have been remarkable. The Multinationals developed, manufactured and provided products and goods and put in place banking, trading, and informational infrastructure for the global community. Also transportation and communication network was established thanks to efforts and funding of invest-eager corporations. After the meltdown of the global economy and times of wars the Multinationals started to regain their positions and expand to new potential market areas. (Jones 2005, p. 5; 285; 287.) We cannot argue about the good contributions provided by the Multinationals but still we can raise some problematic features surrounding their rise and the growth of influence.  

Since their birth the Multinationals have had effects on both home and host economies. Countries have gained in income but also had losses because of transfers of resources from economy to another. Shifting production elsewhere has also reshaped domestic economy. Decisions made by the multinational companies have impacts on many levels. In host economies it has been witnessed that companies create employment but suppress the local productivity. Increase of imports has followed expand of exports. Many countries have also felt that importing foreign goods or exchange of commodities is only another form of cultural colonialism. In any case the impact on host economies depends on the features and nature of the receiving culture and the type of the investment. (Jones 2005, p. 294.) Generalizations about the consequences are difficult to generate. In any case the Multinationals have the power and ability to shape any country’s economic state for better or worse. They can be agents of development or catalysts of even more severe poverty and economical inequality. 

The Multinationals have also impacts on areas other than economy. Political and social landscape has also been bound to shape as a result of the emergence and expansion of the Multinationals. Their activities have both positive and negative effect on individuals and human rights. The concern for protecting human rights in poor countries is more than justified but so far the Multinationals have pretended to be handicapped and unable to face their glocally manifest social responsibilities. This urgency for responding global fears must also bring forth actions to create enforcing set of standards how to run up a company. Means of monitor and control are necessary to see justice happen. It is not so much of a question of what but how. Whether the answer lies in restructuring international organizations, linking their strengths, enhancing private actions and media exposure, or creating a single intermediary institution, or regional or global governance, it has to be found soon. The main problem is how the ethical code of conjuction should be made legally binding. Should there be a globally solid jurisdiction over companies and their behaviour? (Monshipouri, Welch & Kennedy 2003, p. 971; 987988.)

This problem may not seem relevant but actually it is one the most critical in the field of business ethics. Are multinationals really putting a real effort to improve the quality of working conditions, wages, labour rights and so forth. Actually it is relatively difficult to discern the real causes of flaws in global capitalism. But anyhow the Multinationals tend to sustain the present situation instead of changing it for the better. Of course they will react when forced to, but it seems that globally people miss to see the big picture. Multinationals would not change their practices if not forced to co-operate and correct the current state. Here even a one particular consumer can make a significant ethical statement and a choice. From the educational perspective we need to understand that the Multinationals cannot function properly without the consumers and their willingness to buy their products. That’s why we have to enlarge our understanding in these issues. I think the question brought up needs to be solved but it may require solutions beyond politics. Education is one of the means to build up and improve the awareness of people This way the Multinationals are also forced to take correcting measures albeit this might take ages to carry into effect.  

The dominance of the multinationals is deeply interwoven with the general progress of globalization which can be summarized as the global circulation of goods, services and capital but also of information, ideas and people (Brubaker 2007, p. 23). Globalization as a historical process has proven its worth but at the same time it has produced number of severe side-effects. Its transplanetary nature provides possibilities beyond imagination but we can also easily identify the problems it brings forth. The current model of globalization has reinforced geographically uneven patterns of development. The inequalities between poor and rich countries have widened even though standards of living have gotten higher in some regions (Perrons 2004, p. 319). Still despite the acknowledged facts it is very difficult to live morally in the global economy where all actions are interrelated. This makes it even harder to show to children how they should live and be responsible and critical consumers. 

What is happening in the world from global point of view then? The appétit of the Multinationals is insatiable and their competiveness fatal. There are several reasons driving multinationals to compete such as a more open approach to trade, globalization of consumer tastes, a willingness to accept product and ideas from other countries, access to information and large scale economic potential. The Multinationals are moving the globe into the direction of similarity and state of convergence. Demographics, trade and media all show us how the world is becoming one instead of many. (Ind 1997, p. 134; 137.) The segments of life are becoming similar everywhere: family types, jobs, sports, luxuries, necessities, communication etc. I cannot see how this could be a desirable course for the future. Even if companies adapt and apply strategies which honor cultural distinctions, risk of permanent losses of traditional values is apparent. Global corporate culture has already put national heritage out of fashion. I already have personally seen how the world is evolving into one homogeneous mass where cultural distinctions are merely decorations. Luckily there are still those who believe the opposite, and I am also destined to be optimistic.

There are many possibilities to challenge the oppressive realities behind the food we eat, clothes we wear or devices we use (Brubaker 2007, p. 111). Through responsible and cognizant choosing we can really choose otherwise. This is a message that should be shared to young people also. On the other hand I should accept the idea of certain kind of cosmopolitanism but again at the same time praise the locality. The global citizenship is a primary goal for education without any doubts. To my knowledge also understanding the principles of global business and consumerism promote children to shape both their moral consciousness and moral personality. This means that children cannot only clarify their own judgments but to become more aware of the rights and needs of others.

I think many of us normal citizens and consumers do lament and feel bad about the situation, but they lack the true insight and will to oppose the domination of the Multinationals when necessary. Luckily we have witnessed how people are ready to march for their cause, but this doesn’t seem to be effective enough.  The people need to empower themselves and gain intellectual resources to form a solid opposition. According to Klein (1999) people should govern themselves. For example workers have the potential to make a change and demand acts of respect for their rights. It is not enough to let others try to make the necessary effort. Problems should be encountered with means of increased self-determination. The world has after mid-nineties witnessed many forms of resistance with varied agendas. Everyone shares the same goal to get justice and oppose the dominant rule of capital giants. (Klein 1999, p. 441; 445.) It gives also to us educators a meaningful signal. We need to see education as a powerful emancipating force. Teachers are the vital source for children to learn how future can be turned for the better.

Education needs to address the challenges children face in the more and more globalized world. Curren (2010) thinks that it is necessary to discuss the ways our actions impair each other’s interests, and how to avoid harming interests of others. Sooner or later there will be necessary adjustments in the ways we live. It is inevitable to take educational steps towards a world of global caring and justice. Children need to hear and learn about things surrounding them, and grow into shared consciousness. Everyone is entitled to a protected and stabile well-being where basic needs are satisfied. So individuals should know how to value co-operation and take responsibility for universally stressed moral obligations. Education calls for criticism and well-informed critical capacity to guard against the strategies used by corporate front groups and others to misinform, discourage, and subvert cooperation. (Curren 2010, p. 7173.) In other words it is important to teach children to think for themselves - critically and in a cosmopolitan manner. 

In a teaching context it is a tricky subject to make the right statement whether to choose this and leave that one on the shelf. It doesn’t happen with a snap of fingers that people would just learn how to address global problems and response in an all-beneficial way. Especially children are hard to turn around after they have tasted the deliciousness of consuming. Consumerism is a monster fed by multinationals. Without manipulation, fulfillment of social and personal needs, and habituation it would not exist at all. Consumerism is promoted by clever people with the obvious assistance of the mass consumers. It gives a sense of belonging and authenticity, boosts freedom and individual expression and helps people to deal with confusions about social identity and life-expectations (Paterson, 2006, 5053). Consumption defines us as human beings: you are what you buy. The main criticism against consumerism is not that it would be bad per se but the side-effects it causes. We cannot erase the fact that the spread of consumerism to some extent accelerates poverty and economic unbalance. Many aspects of consumerism are inextricably linked to the learning and enacting of oppression, and to ecological, environmental, natural resource, and cultural destruction across the planet (Koh, 2011). This should encourage us to question the living habits we share. Critical consumption pedagogies are required so that we could “talk back” to the all pervasive ideology of consumerism that tells us that consumption will make us complete or happy.  

   The Multinationals are in my opinion manifestations of global malevolence. They affect directly or indirectly in lives of millions. They are accused of exploiting underdeveloped countries and ignoring the problems this approach will produce. There is an ongoing debate whether the rich countries should accept the costs of welfare upkeeping or whether it should try to build economic growth on more ethically enduring foundations (Monshipouri et al. 2003., p. 967). Many recognize that multinationals are not only protecting their interests but also giving contributions to those countries in which they operate. Jobs are created and improvements introduced in forms of technology and new innovations. Still companies cannot hide their obligation to carry their part of social responsibility. Individualization, liberalization and free trade are bound to have fatal consequences if people don’t realize that the Multinationals and the mechanisms of consuming need to be changed. As educators we are responsible for the raising of new generation conscious consumers. In essence education holds many answers. My part is to stay focused and send this vital message forward.   
  
References:

Brubaker, P. (2007). Globalization at What Price? Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press. 

Carron, R. (2010) Education For Global Citizenship and Survival. In Y. Raley & G. Preyer   Philosophy of Education in the Era of Globalization (pp.67-90). London: Routledge.

Ind, N. (1997). The Corporate Brand. New York: University Press.

Jones, G. (2005) Multinationals and global capitalism: from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century. Oxford: University Press.   

Klein, N. (1999). No Logo. New York: Picador.

Koh, A. (2011, February). Consumer Pedagogies. Paper presented during the course Introduction to Film Studies, HKIEd, Hong Kong.

Monshipouri, M., Welch, C. & Kennedy, E. (2003, 25.4). Multinational Corporations and the Ethics of Global Responsibility: Problems and Possibilities. Human Rights Quarterly. (pp. 965989).

Paterson, M. (2006). Consumption and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Perrons, D. (2004). Globalization and Social Change. London: Routledge.