To what extent is feminism a single doctrine?

Until the 1960s feminism was viewed as a sub-set of liberalism and socialism rather than an ideology. It is certain that feminism is a cross-cutting ideology, encompassing the three broad traditions of liberal traditions, socialist feminism and radical feminism, but whether it is today a single doctrine or still simply a sub-set of others can be greatly debated.

The core traditions of feminism each contain rival tendencies and have spawned ‘dual-system’ feminism and new feminist traditions have emerged, particularly since the 1980s such as Black feminism, cultural feminism and psychoanalytical feminism. It is easy, therefore, to dismiss feminism as too fragmented to form a single doctrine. Also the fact that these traditions are characterised more by disagreement than agreement suggests that they cannot form a unified ideology and are sub-sections of opposing ideologies that are likely to disagree. Nevertheless a range of common ground themes can be identified such as patriarchy, the public/private divide, equality and difference and sex and gender, so feminism is unified to a certain extent.

It can also be argued that there are rival traditions within all conventional ideologues. Classic and modern liberalism have contrasting ideas in economic versus social liberalism and positive versus negative freedom while socialists are at odds over the goal of socialism and the road to achieve that goal. In this sense feminism is completely typical of conventional ideologies.

The first wave of feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of individualism. Individuals are entitled to equal treatment regardless of sex and so any form of discrimination against women should be prohibited. Liberal feminists also do not wish to abolish the distinction between the public and private spheres and accept that women’s leaning towards family and domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and so reflects a willing choice. The focus in liberal feminism therefore seems to be more on the liberal aspect than the feminist as they see no need to push for the sexless personhood goal of feminism but prefer the equality principle of liberalism. This means that liberal feminism can easily be argued to be only a sub-set of liberalism not a tradition within a feminist ideology.

Socialist feminists argue that the relationship between the sexes is rooted in the social and economic structure itself and only profound social change or a social revolution can offer genuine emancipation. Modern socialist feminists have found it difficult to accept the primacy of class politics over sexual politics. Again it appears that more emphasis is placed on the socialist aspect than the feminist as the main goal of feminism, to liberate women, is placed second to liberating the proletariat. Therefore social feminism can also be argued to be only a sub-set of socialism.

On the other hand one of the distinctive features of second wave feminism is that many feminists moved beyond the perspectives of existing political ideologies. They believed that gender differences were regarded as important in themselves and needed to be understood in their own terms. During the 1960s and 1970s the feminist movement sought to uncover the influence of patriarchy in all aspects of social, personal and sexual existence. Through radical feminism, feminism has therefore gone beyond other conventional ideologies which were viewed as inadequate vehicles for advancing the social role of women and criticised for harbouring patriarchal attitudes and assumptions. Radical feminism signifies an advancement in feminism as it moves from building on the ideas of other ideologies to defining its own ideas that oppose those of other ideologies. Radical feminism is therefore the one tradition within feminism that comes from and is purely dedicated to the ideas of feminism.

Before the 1960s, particularly with the first wave feminism was a set of separate doctrines that took ideas from other ideologies and moulded them for their own purpose. However during the 1960s and 1970s when the radical feminism formed, feminism changed from being a combination of different doctrines to a single ideology. This is because traditions were able to form solely out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand as an ideology in its own right. Indeed the number of new feminist movements that arose in the 1980s such as cultural feminism and black feminism emphasize this point further as they are tradition which build on the ideas of feminism, just like feminism previously built on the ideas of liberalism and socialism. Therefore, though in its early days it was a set of different doctrines, feminism has now grown and defined itself as not just a single doctrine, but a single ideology encompassing a number of doctrines.

Democracy in action: Question Time

In the years since it was first broadcast on 25 September 1979, Question Time has become something of a national institution, offering British voters a unique opportunity to quiz top decision-makers on the events of the day.

The panels are drawn from significant figures in politics as well as industry, the media and entertainment.

But at the heart of Question Time is the audience - both in the studio and at home.

The programme is recorded in front of a live audience from around 2030 each Thursday.

The recording is done in a single take, precisely as if it were broadcast live. Some exchanges occasionally have to be edited out for legal or taste/decency reasons.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/about_the_show/default.stm)

Question time is the public's opportunity to question politicians on their actions and their views on current issues within the UK. It is one of the few ways that the public can directly speak to politicians and is a very often effective debate. The clips below demonstrate some of the topics that have come up in question time. The first video is from arguably the most famous episode of Question Time, with BNP leader Nick Griffin. To read more about the BNP click here. The second video is talking about the recession and the banks bonuses. The third video is about the MPs expenses and second homes. The fourth video discusses Sarah Palin. The fifth video is about the torture of suspected terrorists.

Do you have question time in your country? Do you think it is an effective programme? Leave a comment and let us know!

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 3

In this episode the MPs stay with people who need their help to discover how much power an MP really has.

Nadine Dorries is staying with 69 year old widow Ruth. When asked whether she likes her area, she says she used to but not any more. There used to be a British Legion across the road but "somehow the Somalians bought it and turned it into a mosque". Ruth is frustrated by them parking on double yellow lines and praying on the pavement, so people cannot use it and, as Nadine put it, "the laws that everyone else has to abide by are not being adhered to". Nadine puts on a headscarf and Muslim dress, then goes to speak to the Imam to talk about the problems with obstructing the footpath and parking on the double yellow lines. Despite the Imam defending that they are on their land, Dorries says "tensions begin when one particular group or another feel that they can behave differently or not adhere to the laws that other people have to adhere to." Clearly insulted, the Imam tells Dorries of all the work they have done for the community, such as clearing out the heroin needles and stopping the drug addicts from using the building. Later that night Dorries says "I do want to make people's lives better and when you come face to face with what you do... I've realised that quite often what politicians do is make people's lives worse". The next day Dorries finds out how resentful some of the residents are towards the new Mosque and comes up with the idea of having a barbecue to get the two communities to mix together and talk. Ruth however doesn't think she'll "get much support". Dorries then goes to speak to the Imam, who is very unhappy to see her saying he didn't want to see her again and "was very hurt" by her "tarnishing the building making it feel like we're some suicide bombers" and forgetting all that they have done for the community. Nadine tries goes to other members of the Mosque to get support and finds Anab, who insists that to be with the Somalian community that Nadine needs to get a Somalian outfit. Once wearing the full dress, Nadine says "it feels nothing like me, it feels like a different person". As the barbecue is about to begin, Nadine realises that at the moment only the Somalian community have come and is worried that no one from the estate will join them. She says that "It just dawned me... that I may have made things worse" as if only the Mosque community turns up, things may get worse. Fortunately, Ruth arrives and so do some more eventually and the 2 communities begin to talk. The Imam comes down to see what is happening and admits he is "a little bit impressed". As they talk they discuss the problems and begin to work on building relationships and a better merge of their two communities. Later on, Ruth tells Dorries that "its been lovely having you here, i've really enjoyed it and the things that you've done I think are magnificent".

Austin Mitchell is staying with Lindsey, a volunteer at the last youth centre on the estate called The Chill Out that is in danger of closing down from lack of funding. It provided a safe haven for young people on the estate and rans classes on everything from how to write a CV to putting on a condom under the influence of drink and drugs. Lindsey says that without the club there is a very bleak outlook for the kids and "to have a bleak outlook at 15 is just sad". Austin speaks to one of the youths, asking what it does for him and he said it "keeps us out of trouble, helps us look for a job and is everything we need really. Without this place we're nothing". When the youths ask Mitchell if he can help, he says "there's nothing I can do, it's not my constituency". Unhappy with this response, one of them replies "so just because it isn't your area you aren't going to do anything". Mitchell then goes on the defence saying "you can't turn to me, you've got to help yourselves". When Mitchell asked the youths what they would do went it closed down, they replied "go back to a life of crime". Everyone wants the club to stay open: the youths, the volunteers and the parents. One parent shows Mitchell a used heroin needle she picked up from outside and says "once my daughter came home with one of them in my mouth, she was in hospital every week for blood tests". When the Chill Out closes completely, Austin discusses what he can do with his wife saying "its a serious question, what does a politician do for people, what do government do for people. That's a real problem." The next day Austin tries making calls to reopen the youth club by publicising it and getting public opinion to pressure the council to give them funding. Austin also joins local young offenders on community service, picking up rubbish. He speaks to one of the offenders who is doing community payback for a crime he committed before joining the Chill Out centre and says that now it is closed, he has nowhere to go. If he had somewhere to go, he would be less likely to offend because he would have something to do. Mitchell said he "never realised it was so simple...thought it was giving playstations and such but actually it’s just a roof with a meeting place to sit and talk”. Mitchell's phonecalls and emails have paid off as news of The Chill Outs closure will be broadcast on local television. Mitchell admitted that “politics is a matter of priorities and unless a problem is... kicking you up the backside its gets postponed and gets ignored”.

Tim Loughton is staying with Adrian who hates the estate saying that there is no safety and he once had a knife put against him in the stairway when he was coming home and there are always people doing drugs. He keeps a large stick in every room for safety. Loughton tries to find out more about the gang violence in his area and finds an organisation called Families for Peace, dedicated to raising awareness of the effect gang violence has on families. Tim met Debbie, whose nephew Aaron was shot outside her house in 2005 and is now stuck reliving the memory. He also spoke to Aaron's father, who showed him the box with Aaron's ashes in it. When talking about the experience later "no one except a robot could have had that experience and not have been moved". Families for Peace put Tim in touch with Jason, an ex-gang member who served 2 years in prison for drug related offences and when he was released found many of his friends had been murdered. He now works for Young Disciples, an organisation that attempts to give youngsters an alternative to gang life. Tim wants to talk to someone of the youths themselves, but the difficulty is finding ones that are willing to be identified. They eventually manage to speak to one boy who keeps his hood up and face down the entire time so his face cannot be seen. Tim asks the youth to explain postcode wars to him. Postcode wars are when groups of people fight one another because of the different areas that they live in. Tim tried to get an explanation as to why this happens, but the youth couldn't give one, only able to say that "you've got to stay loyal" and “you’ve got to protect your turf”. The youth admits that he doesn't feel safe but says that "there's no point in living in fear all your life. You just get over it and do what you've got to do." When asked how to fix the problem, he replied "just give us something to do". After the interview, Tim said he had never before realised "the pointlessness of it all" and called it a "sobering" experience. It makes you "appreciate what you've got and what you've come from" and "you value life more when you speak to people who lost it and who wont have the chance to go back and regain it". The next day Tim goes to speak to more youths to try and find up what they would like to see happen. The suggestion of football arises and Loughton asks about setting up a football tournament between them and the police. Jason takes Tim to see the Young Disciples facilities and on talking to one youth, finds out that the organisation keeps him out of trouble and if it wasn't there, he would be back out on the streets. Later that night, Tim's host Adrian says that he thinks Tim's exploration of the gang culture has really "opened his eyes" and even "shocked him a little bit".

Mark Oaten is staying with civil partners Mark and Alan in their flood damaged flat. Mark Oaten's campaign from the first episode has continued and in fact grown as he has gotten all of his hosts, Cathy, Sloane and now Mark and Alan interested and involved. He puts up signs for a meeting for residents in the evening but then finds out that the council has come and taken them down. A furious Oaten said “it’s like they’re saying we don’t want you to talk together because when you talk together you might get dangerous”. He doesn't give up however, and puts his leaflets through peoples letterboxes instead. Nervous about whether anyone shows up to his meeting, Oaten is excited to find nearly 30 people have shown up and to hear that more people will be coming. Oaten is keen to hand over the campaign to the residents so they can do it when he has left. The meeting begins with the residents voicing their anger about the housing and then begin discussing how to get their voices heard. The meeting attracted the attention of a BNP local councillor who began to give a speech on the horrible mistakes of Labour and basically use their meeting as an opportunity to promote the BNP. He doesn't get to speak for long, however, as Sloane interrupts him saying that "we're trying to get everyone in a positive notion here and you're just negative, negative". The other residents then join in, with one saying she "refuses to listen to the BNP" and that this "is not a party political broadcast". The BNP councillor continues his anti-Labour rant and the residents begin yelling abuse at him, almost leading to a fight. However, he eventually leaves and they get things back into control and focus on becoming active. The next day while Sloane and fellow resident Candy are making posters, a number of police cars and vans pull up to the estate and go inside. They were called to the estate after a fight between 2 families became violent. The trouble was sparked after allegations that a child was hit. Oaten says he has "never seen anything like this before but it must be bread and butter to these guys". Standing with some children, he asks how often this happens, to be told "about 3 times a month" and then begins to comfort one little girl who was scared and began crying. Afterwards Oaten said "kids shouldn't have to see that". Later that night, Oaten says "I couldn't live here."

The last episode sees the MPs prepare to say goodbye. Find out tomorrow whether they have managed to really learn anything from their week in the tower blocks!

Click here to read about episode 1

Click here to read about episode 2

Click here to read about episode 4

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 2

This episode gives the MP's the experience of bringing up children in council housing on state benefits and so they all went to live with different families. Jobseekers allowance is £64.30 a week and after paying for rent and household bills, the MPs expenses must be no more than £5 a day. While Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten and Conservative MP Tim Loughton comment on how difficult it will be and how tight they will have to be, Labour MP Austin Mitchell dismisses it saying "I'm not making any attempt to live on that, I think that's silly."

In episode 1, Iain Duncan Smith is replaced (because he found out his wife had cancer) by conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who did live in a council estate until she was 25 but believes things will be "very different" now. She is staying on a South Acton estate with single mums Neesha and Reena and their 8 children. The mums have very strong opinions about politicians: "I hate them because they don't do f*** all for people like me" and "you gotta be a good liar to be a politician". Austin is staying with unemployed Dave, his wife and their 3 children. Dave found Austins refusal to live on benefits for the week "disappointing" saying "anyone could do that".Mark Oaten will be staying with Sloane, her husband Mark, their 5 children and 3 cats. Tim Loughton is staying with Dean and Sarah and their 2 children who live in a 1 bedroom council house, with Dean and Sarah sleeping on the couch.

Oaten goes food shopping with his host Sloane and the family on a £150 budget. He manages to only spend £104 but is then disgusted when Sloane spends the £42 leftover on cigarettes. These vices show up in all of the different families: Dave loves to gamble on the horses and Dean is addicted to cannabis. It seems the episode is questioning the priorities of the families who are claiming to have no money. The MPs are certainly are. Oaten voices his disappointment over the cigarettes with Sloane but he is soon quietened when she looks at his MP expenses online and discovers that the taxpayer paid £116 for two irons for him. She then compared Oaten to Jekyll and Hyde, saying "you're a sweet guy and then I read all this stuff and it's like oh my God I've been lied to". Loughton has a heart to heart with Dean about his cannabis smoking and the cause behind it, finding out about Dean's troubled past, and offers him support. Austin Mitchell refuses to comment on Dave's gambling, in typical defensive politician style, claiming that it is nothing to do with the film. Austin also goes shopping with Dave, who questions him on the prices of different items. After Mitchell fails to guess the price of milk, bread and tea bags correctly, Dave said that "they say how much you need to live on but don't know how much it costs to live".

All of the MPs are then left to babysit the their hosts children. . Loughton and Oaten do the usual job of parents with young children: a lot of chasing after them and cleaning up after them. Mitchell on the other hand, is stuck as he tries to manage making dinner, leaving the baby with a full nappy (diaper). Mitchell soon finds the struggle too much and calls his wife Linda to come and help him saying that "I know it's not fair to say it's woman's work but it's not mine"

Another theme arising in this episode is immigration as Nadine Dorries host Reena has many stories to tell. First, a man from another country came and moved in to the flat beneath her and then his wife came with their "5, 6, 7" children and then on the Saturday morning, they were moved into a house. Reena was furious that after 3 months they had got a house when she had lived in London her entire life, was born in England and couldn't get a council house. Reena's last council house was taken away from her after her housing benefits were unexpectedly cut. Unable to reach an agreement to pay her rent arrears, she and her children were evicted from their home of 15 years. When Reena returned to see her neighbours, she saw that a foreign family had moved into her old house. She talks about when the bailiffs came, saying "they ripped my stuff apart" "they smashed everything right down to my kids toys. I saw them taking my kids toys and just throwing them in the back of a van".

The last issue that comes up is with the politicians themselves. Sloane asks Oaten about the stress politics has on family life and Oaten admits "yeah I screwed up my whole family life, I had an affair and screwed it all up". He talks about the scandal of sleeping with a rent boy, saying that "journalists were everywhere" and "the impact on the children was a nightmare". Tim talks about one of the problems with politics, saying "one comment wrong by politicians and its all over the papers so they have to think twice and really engage their brain before they speak and sometimes therefore skirt around what they actually want to say which is a real sadness in politics”. He also says that people have good political views but don't vote as "these people don’t make a connection between having political views and voting and that’s the fault of politicians I suppose”.

The next episode looks further at the politicians themselves as they see how they can help their hosts. Come back tomorrow to find out more!

Click here to read about episode 1

Click here to read about episode 3

Click here to read about episode 4

Did you watch this episode? What did you think? What do you think about politicians? Comment and tell us!

Political Ideologies: Liberalism - Distinguish between economic liberalism and social liberalism

Here is an essay I wrote while studying liberalism in 2009

Robyn, UK

Distinguish between economic liberalism and social liberalism

The abandonment of economic liberalism and the doctrine of laissez-faire occurred because of the increasing complexity of industrial capitalist economies and their inability to guarantee general prosperity if left to their own devices. The Great Depression sparked by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was the most dramatic demonstration of the failure of the free market.

The UK philosopher T. Green believed the unrestrained pursuit of profit had given rise to new forms of poverty and injustice. The economic liberty of the few had blighted the life chances of the many. Green challenged the classical liberal notion of negative freedom as economic freedom can lead to exploitation. Therefore freedom of choice in the marketplace is an inadequate conception of individual freedom. Green proposed the idea of positive freedom which recognised liberty may also be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality. This is implied a revised view of the state and led to a modern liberal belief in social liberalism.

Economic liberalism reflected the classic liberal belief in a minimal state as Adam Smith argued that the economy works best when left alone by government. Social liberalism on the other hand believes the state possesses a social responsibility to reduce or remove social disadvantages to create more equal life chances, reflecting the modern liberal belief in personal self-development through freedom.

On the other hand, both social liberalism and economic liberalism are rooted in assumptions about egoism and self-interest and both share a preference for self-reliant individuals who take responsibility of their own lives. The difference is that modern liberals recognise that this can only occur if social conditions are conducive to it and social liberalism provides equality of opportunity through welfarism.

The modern liberal belief in social liberalism reflects the modern liberal idea of ‘helping individuals to help themselves’ whereas the classic liberal belief in economic liberalism reflects a belief in egotistical individualism.

A Global Citizen

Cortez A., US

What do you think it means to be a global citizen? Be specific, and use imaginative examples or illustrations. Surprise us.

A global citizen encompasses a broad definition; it branches from ethical issues to international conflicts. Some believe that a global citizen is a person who is abreast of international news. Others believe that a global citizen as a moral obligation, which can create understanding between people of different groups. The aspect that I find intriguing and believe is a global citizen is being able to merge both definitions; in addition to taking action to change the world. It is through recognition and creating action that we are able to solve global issues. Merging the broadness of these two definitions form a more realistic perception of what a global citizen is. Being a global citizen is more than knowing statistics, it is more about trying to create change.

The recent tragedy that has befallen Haiti has brought a lot of collective action. Individuals from around the world, such as entertainers, athletes, political figures and the working class have come together to help the country of Haiti. They have come together to help a country that is truly in need. When looking at this information I consider these people as global neighbors more than a global citizen. A global citizen will be concerned with Haiti years from now. The concept of helping people does not stop after the media has stopped filming, the war against poverty, violence, disease, and economics still continues.

A global citizen is someone who works tirelessly to make international issues known. They promote international dialogue which can break down negative perceptions of different people and their country. A global citizen does not allow bias to consume his or her actions; he/she knows that as this happen someone is being hurt or misrepresented. A global citizen is concerned with every aspect of international equality from war, healthcare, to basic living necessities such as food and water. For example, statistics show, a total of 350,000 South Africans died from HIV/AIDS which is reported from UNAIDS. A global citizen would find ways to make this number known across the world via media, building coalitions, or organizing fund raising events. A global citizen would try to solve the problem by educating South Africans on the danger of unprotected sex and even implement programs to increase awareness. Doing this will help get to the root of the problem instead of idly sitting back and watching numbers increase.

A global citizen is not concerned with personal gain, but is instead concerned with the personal well-being of others. A global citizen knows that as he sits back lives can be possibly lost. A global citizens knows that he/she has unlimited potential to change the world and works tirelessly to do so. A global citizen knows that the end justifies the mean, and any help, aid, or support is welcomed. We must realize that we are an interconnected world that works hand and hand; it is bigger than the clothes on our backs and the business deals that are made internationally. A global citizen works tirelessly to fix issues that they see globally.

What do you think it means to be a global citizen? do you agree with Cortez? comment and let us know!

International Relations and the Politics of China and East Asia

Joshua, UK, has been applying to Universities to do International Relations, many of which have a year abroad. For one University he had to write this essay on why he wants to study International Relations with a year in China/Hong Kong.

"Why are you interested in the politics of China and East Asia and what do you expect to gain from studying Politics and International Relations with a Year in China/Hong Kong?"

The East and the West are polar opposites that excite intrigue of the other. I have been born and raised surrounded by the interesting world of western politics and affairs; from democratic ideals, to John Locke’s political philosophy on liberalism and Hobbes’s social contract theory. There is no denying these ideas of western politics are engaging, but there is a differentiation between the political west and the political east. Never the less I am fully aware that the politics of the west is, in many cases, inexplicably linked to that of the rest of the world and that of China and East Asia. However, I feel that there is a whole new dimension of challenges and depth when they are studied in the context of the East alone, allowing me to gain a better understanding of international relations in a global context. Likewise acquiring knowledge of the various areas throughout the world individually, will allow me to establish a greater and deeper understanding of the international arena, in which I hope to venture into in the future.

One could ask why I have chosen China and East Asia as opposed to other equally important, interesting and politically complex countries. One of the reasons I begun to look into the Politics of China, and therefore East Asia, was a result of the Beijing Olympics. Here we have a country that was considered somewhat underdeveloped and most definitely not a country in pursuit of, as many would call it, super power status putting on this show that stunned the world. Subsequently China arguably became the most spectacular Olympic host ever seen. Most important for me however is that the Olympics served as China’s announcement to the world and indeed it caught many people’s attention, including mine. As a result I was compelled to look into the historical context of China’s political situation and how they had risen in power, wealth and influence on an international scale.

It is no mystery that China is the world’s fastest developing economy, despite the global recession, and this is perhaps due to the fact that they still have a significant domestic market to cater for the 1.3 billion inhabitants of China. In the context of East Asia, China are the pre-eminent power in the Far East/Pacific basin, indeed it appears that only Japan are in a position to rival China. Likewise Japan does have superiority in terms of technology, but their peace treaty that resulted at the end of WWII hinders their ability to rise into the upper ranks of ‘superpower status’. For example despite Japan’s peace force being invariably large, powerful and heavily financed it is, unfortunately, almost unknown and is not written about. Moreover it plays a small role in the operations of the UN, particularly in comparison to China who in 2007 reapplied to the ROC to gain full UN membership. Overall they are held back by their history and in turn Japan does not have the same unrestrained position as China, whom in a hundred years time could potentially be the world’s pre-eminent power. Thus the opportunity to experience, contribute and be a part of the country that is perhaps going to be the driving force behind global affairs in the future is unparalleled. In addition to this, the fact that China’s prominence is potentially on our horizon warrants a wealth of study and would allow me to step outside of studying the dynamic political systems of the past, and experience the study of a present day developmental marvel. This is not only exciting but intriguing in the sense that it is very likely in my career in British Intelligence, the EU, UN, NGO (UNICEF) or other suitable international role, this knowledge and experience will be directly applicable to current affairs. Thus this gives me an advantage in tackling the issue at hand and allowing me to contribute to my personal development, career and hopefully the world around us.

Another reason why I have an interest in the politics of China in particular regards its political system. Other countries in East Asia do not offer such a unique, alternative political train of thought. For example Malaysia adopts a multi party idea run under a federal constitutional monarchy, and Singapore and Vietnam take on the ideals of democracy. On the other hand China is a vast country, and the political system of China is dictated by its size. Thus in order to maintain control of a large space China must retain a strong central bureaucracy to govern each state. As a result China has a communist political system, but remains unique because of its implementation of a capitalist economy. Naturally from the perspective of a person who is interested in politics and international relations the individuality of China’s political system sets it apart as a dynamic place of study. With its rare culture and politics that contain numerous aspects I have never come across and now wish to understand.

Notably for me Communism is somewhat of an untouched subject, something that I have always known about, been aware of and wanted to learn more about, but it was never tangible. Thus I believe that the only way to truly experience and understand a communist system would be to live, and even study, within one. My interest in communism within China specifically was heightened following my reading of the events of Tiananmen Square, in which I begun to contemplate democratisation with regards to China. The protests which were sparked by the death of the democratic figure Hu Yaobang initiated the people’s instinct to call for reforms within the Chinese political system, reforms that took a democratic slant. What is even more interesting, yet unquestionably shocking, is that the Chinese government attempted to quell the rebellions by proceeding to shoot their own people. Such an audacious statement compels me to try and find the motivations and reasons behind such an act, never the less these motivations are complex and it appears they can only be deciphered in an environment of higher education that delves deeper into Chinese politics.

Furthermore upon learning about the event I began to question the idea that democracy as an unassailable good that should be seen as fundamental political intent within all countries. Instead it appears that it is essential to take into account the cultural implications with regards to the political system. Specifically in the case of China and the ideas of Confucius one could argue that democracy is not a principle embedded in the culture and general mindset of the Chinese people. Indeed China has been ruled as an empire because of emperors for numerous years through out its history. So it is no wonder that the Chinese people may not be accustomed to democracy. Never the less it is a flourishing nation on the rise and communism, despite common belief, can be argued to be working on a number of levels. Although to make this statement definitive, would be to look at China in a superficial context, it is true that while their economy is on the rise so is their rate of inequality. In addition China’s communist state causes them to censor their media exposure, which some would argue is an infringement of human rights. Taking these points into consideration it seems that China has a duality in which it is hard to ascertain if, in the grand scheme of things, their method of ruling is for the better or worse. I for one look forward to seeing China in the future but in the present – through higher education – I will endeavour to understand how China reached the position they are in today, so I can help understand where China will be going in the future.

As an emerging key player in the global arena, it is very likely China will begin to branch off into other countries. Indeed as a person who wishes to work in international relations it is likely that I will be required by many employers such as MI6 to possess competency in Chinese (Mandarin). Similarly employers such as MI5, GCHQ and UNICEF state Mandarin is a highly favourable attribute. Likewise as I wish to apply for a British intelligence position upon graduation the opportunity to become highly competent if not fluent in such a desirable language would be of my complete benefit. Aside from my career, I am intrigued by the world and I wish to learn several languages, of which Mandarin is perhaps the most challenging, hence becoming fluent would enhance my ability to learn yet more languages. Furthermore the difficulty of the language also means that unlike Spanish or French it is unlikely that I will have another opportunity to learn Mandarin outside of the academic environment. Particularly as my knowledge can be compounded by the year abroad, a principle that I feel is integral to learning such a complex language and a feature that is very hard to replicate outside of this course. Overall regardless of its difficulty, the language will enhance me personally as well as professionally.

Ultimately for an international relations applicant the experience of studying in China is invaluable. China to an international relations student is what the brain is to a medical student. A place of undiscovered study that will be at the forefront of research in the future. The prospect of learning the language so early in my career, gaining a deeper understanding of Chinese politics, along with analysis and interpretative skills, independence and a new outlook on global affairs that reaches beyond the headlines, can not be found elsewhere.

What do you think about China and the politics of China? Do you live in China? Are you interested in Chinese politics? Comment and let us know!

American Analysis on Class

Cortez A., US

I had to create my own class system based on what I see in America.

America is by far one of the most classified nations in the world. This nation has classes for different races and etc. America is also known as the melting pot for other nations. There is a classification system even based on how you dress. Class in America means everything to some people and nothing to others. The class system that you see on the cover page is based on an annual income. Race was not considered when making this class values set because economics affects all races. Everyone has the ability to become financially stable or financially unstable.

The Destitute Class has little to one-thousands dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the simplest things. These are the things that we take for granted. To be in a home of their own that has heat and running water would be only a dream. The people of this class interact with people of their class or people who may help them. The Homeless Class is not afraid to ask for what they need. Although people look down on them they still ask for change to get simple things such as sandwich. Society views this class with sympathy because they are lacking life’s necessities due to unfortunate circumstances. The people in this class may also turn to drinking because they have not attained the social status that they would have like.

The Makers Class has one thousand to forty-five thousand dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the concept of making it to high social status someday. Some of these people value education for their youth as a high priority. These people also value the concept of their children making it to achieve high class. The people are content with their children making it to the high class because the makers know they had something to do with it. The Makers associate with their class of people and occasionally associate with the High Class society. For those who don’t associate with other classes and persistently socialize with other classes lose out on opportunities to climb the economic ladder. These are the people who are content with living in an apartment, drink, fight and resort to other methods of attaining financial stability. They then blame everyone else because they do not feel secure and become dependant upon the government.

The Nuclear Family earn between forty-five thousand to two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars of annual income. These people feel that they have made a somewhat satisfied life. The Nuclear parents get up and go to work everyday. The mothers may pickup the children after soccer. The father is at the office sometimes late working so his family could feel good about their life. These people usually associate with all classes during special occasions. They feel that they have attained the American Dream anything above that is luxury. While people may think they are boring they are not. Some of these people are college graduates and members of fraternities and sororities still completing service projects. These people work hard to get the things they have.

The Buyers earn between two-hundred and fifty to three-hundred and fifty thousands dollars. The people of this class are secure with their possessions. They go out to clubs and have a social life. The Buyers social life is very important to the people of this class. They wear the designer clothes no matter how much it may cost. They are willing to go into debt or max their credit cards to have the latest fashions. These people visit the beach and gym frequently to stay in shape and meet new people. Despite of all of this they still get up and go to work with a high paying job.

The Spacers earn between three-hundred and fifty to five-hundred thousand dollars. The people of this class require a somewhat spacious environment. The Spacers value their environment. These are the people who work to keep their high property valued neighborhood clean. They value their cars and prestige that comes with being inside their class. The Spacers associate with all types of people. They keep their connections open since they may need to utilize them one day. They graduate at the top of their class and expect the same from their children. Society views them as financially stable people. A people who's worries are limited to where corporate stocks are going.

The Individuals earn one million to plus dollars of annual income. The Individuals are the ones who rank high in society. These are the CEO’s of fortune 500 companies; they started their company from an idea and watched it grow. These people are classified by their giving hearts by giving away money to organizations. These people wear comfortable clothing since they know they can buy whatever they would like to. Society views them as the leaders our economy and education is based on. These are the people who have very big houses, fancy cars, yachts, smartphones, large estates, and heirs. The Individuals have worked extremely hard to get what they have. They sometimes lack socially but compensate for it when they speak and talk about their accreditations.

As I come to a close I would like to say that these classes are based strictly on annual earnings. I am aware that people of different races can achieve any one of the financial statuses listed above. We are all trying to achieve is status to which we feel comfortable enough to say in our personal opinion that we have made it. All of these classes are starting to intertwine with each other to create mixed income neighborhoods which creates a better America.