June Hee Kwon notes that, among Korean Chinese couples living long-distance due to labor migration, "waiting is an immaterial, but nonetheless, an important form of unwaged, profit-producing labor". How does she describe the waiting of the botoli (the spouses who stay behind) as a form of work? How are intimate relationships affected and shaped by the patterns of labor migration and remittance sending?
The editors of "Generating Capitalism" essays note that: "Our focus is on how the generative powers of the body, spirit, and world are imagined, deployed, and experienced in contemporary capitalism." Discuss how different essays in this thread achieve this goal.
In the reading the author talks about a couple different conversations with the botoli spouses that stayed at home. The one I found the most interesting, and also showed that work that the home spouse has to do was the one with Mr. Ho. This conversation Mr. Ho discusses how in their family they decided his wife should go to Korea to work since he had a well established job. She went across the border like so many others to work a higher paying factory job. In his wife's absence at the home he had to act as a father, mother, and teacher to their son. She was sending remittances home to her family like the others who left to work. Throughout the reading it had talked about how so many families had ended in divorce because of this situation. Mr. Ho thought that if he could put in the work to be wise with the remittance investments that it would help his marriage survive better than others. He worked hard to take his earnings and his wife's to invest and have a luxurious life style in China. As time continued and he worked hard to do the best with the money his wife sent the relationship still hurt because his wife felt that all the money was her's and she was the one in charge of how it was used. Even though Mr. Ho thought that doing the best with the money would help save his marriage unlike all the other ruined ones it was still ruined but money. There was a small section where he talks about finally getting to see his wife after a few years and all she did was talk about what they were doing with the money and ignore him. In the end for his work at the home while his wife was gone he was able to save his marriage from divorce, but not save the intimate relationship that was once there. That relationship has now been replaced with a relationship with mom. His wife working and sending home money, keeping track of how it was spent, and Mr. Ho doing his best to help the money grow instead of spending and be both parents in the house.
ReplyDeleteThere seems that there is no real happy ending in the situations of the Korean Chinese transnational workers. The family is split with someone leaving to work, then that person possibly starting a new family in Korea, or just stop sending remittances, or possibly get stuck in Korea because they have not earned the indefinable perfect amount of money to take home. If the marriage stays in tack and remittances are still being sent the intimate side of a relationship seems to be gone. The one sending the money takes a more dominant position in the relationship because they are the ones mostly supported the family. The families can also go several years without physically seeing each other which breaks down the relationships and many times led to an affair and the marriage ending. Either side of these relationships are working in different ways. And even with both doing their work, like in the Ho's case, it may only be a happy ending material/monetary wise from the remittance earnings sent home.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, one of the immediate things that I noticed in Kwon's work is that he mentioned a point of anoxity of the botoli: Divorse. He mentioned that there is always a fear in some of the threat of divorse coming to the botoli. The fear that their husbands or wives will find someone else, and the money from their remittances to stop flowing. Even in his article, he talks about how the feelings of those working abroad feel that they should get more of the money that they send back, that she should have more of a say as to how the money she sends back is spent. It is even mentioned later on how she has taken a obsession to the money that she has earned. I imagine that any intimate releationship would be rather strained if only because they would not see their significant other in a long time, as well as a fear of their husband or wife failing to send them money for one reason or another. There is also the strain of the signficant other may feel that their money can be spent elsewere, that the family might not be spending the money as correctly as the worker might have.
June Hee Kwon describes the act of waiting as an immaterial form of work because waiting is a form of action. Whether it be by sitting or pacing around the room, you are actively thinking about what you are waiting for and participating in a form of work that can be either rewarding or in some cases, degrading and negatively rewarding. Botoli's that stay behind as their significant other/others travel to Korea take major mental and emotional damage. When someone leaves your life for a long duration of time, you become emotionally confused and sometimes think up the worst case scenarios of what the outcome of this time of leave will be.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ho is one example of a married couple that had to split up so the wife could go work in Korea. She would send him remittances, but because there was so much money being saved, she left him for the money she made. It is sad that money has so much to do with love and the opposite. Couples that are not financially stable already face major future or present damage in their intimate relationship. Having money is essential to our mental and emotional health in our society today, but in my opinion, it should not be that way. If you truly love someone, you will stay with them through the most roughest of times and help bring each other back on their feet. In this reading, divorce seems to be the main effect of separation and money. It is very rewarding making so much money, but how rewarding is it to be left alone by your love just because of some accumulative number? Love and money should never be put into the same category, it only causes problems.
The two other entries I read were Caroline Schuster's and Jessca Cattelino's. The one I found more interesting was Cattelino' "Valuing Nature". This entry looked more at the physical world involved in capitalism. In the article she focuses mainly on how capitalism in preserving the Everglades is growing. I have never really thought of the conservation efforts as being a very capitalist approach. One aspect of the conservation capitalism she discussed was one family member possibly buying out other family members for rights to the land/stock/company. Land ownership in a farming family seems to be one aspect that has always been debated among family members when one passes away. Nowadays with these farming families there is one sibling who works everything and the others just benefit from it as an income. With the money given to the farmers from the government some farmers are using it to pay off their siblings so they are no longer tied to the farm. This I could imagine would greatly improve some family relationships since they always say it's never good to go into business with family members, and having the break of business matters between siblings may loosen up those relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of this conservation capitalism she discusses is how partaking in the efforts can seem to set the farmers back on the amount of income they are receiving. She used examples of some farmers take a large part of their land to be water treatment, or 'water farming', areas to reduce the chemical flow of water from crop or animal waste before returning to the Everglades. It seems obvious that if a rancher takes 1/3 of their land and devotes it to this 'water farming', that is a 1/3 of the land that can not be used for grazing land, pasture, or crops. But with the money that can come in from the government programs and non-profit organizations to have these conservation methods it can possibly be more money then they would have made. And in the end they are helping to clean the water in the Everglades, which helps the plant life thrive more.
Overall I knew such conservation programs were in existence and being pushed more and more in recent years. What I had not realized until I read this entry was how it fit into a capitalist economy.
Neolle Stout "Generating Home" entry was about the interview with a mortage gaint company, their analysis and interviews on the foreclosuesr that took away homes of many working class and the concept of "homeownership" solded to the working class. This interview is done in California with an executive of a mortgage comapny , some workers and working homeowners. The idea of been able to owe a home as a working class family through mortgage payments were conveyed to the working class as part of the "American dream" concept. It definitely sparked the interest/desire of this group pf people as projected in the article. It is unlikey to think/interprete this whole transactions as an element of capitalism from the onset. But it is fully unreaveled in the 2008 clash of the home market. It is very unfortunate to realise that the desire of working class to owe a home was morgaged at a higher risk factors that shattered the reality of this process. There was also little or no efforts by this mortage company to render same moral responsibility to the clients at their mortgage clash in 2008. In this capitalist economy, the desire and procedure to have middle class workers owe homes through mortgages seems to be played out in the interest of the mortgage comapnies. Example; converting their desire to higherh risk mortgages. At the time of the foreclouser it was obvious that the companies didn't have or think to have an assistance program or procedure to helpout. Hence, rendering the middle class back to "zero" (so much debts) whe their homes were taken over by the mortgage companies. Sadly, these homeowners blamed themselves for a bad outcome or situation that happened outside their control. Why was the interviwee relanctant in answering the "blame question"? They had clearly excluded themsleves as companies from this situation. It throws more light on how banks, other credit ventures portray the sense of "partnership" in getting one onboard for an agreement and their sudden turn around as "lenders" when things go wrong. Those whose homes were taken over in this situation might never recover from the dissapointment and the realities inflicted by the capitalism ecomony.
ReplyDeleteThe second entry was "your family and friends are collateral.." by Caroline Schuster gives an insightful account on the workings of microfinancing and their leverage on woman's social ties as a catalyst to run their agenda. The "social ties" capitalised as a collateral by this financial organization is discussed thoroughly with interviews and anlysis from a woman in Paraguay. I could easily relate to this discussion since it's a very common concept in Ghana as well. Most microfinacing ventures capitalise of the social ties and bonds of women in community to give out loans and get payments done on time. The impact of nonpayment or delays by some neighbours does really distort social relations among these great relationship. Most of those who can't pay have such pressure and negative tags that cannot be easily erased. I appreciate the difference perspective of this whole transaction because I never thought of it as such. Rather as a good "favor" for this women who might not have assests to obtain loans from bank. The negative impacts and elements of capitalism revealed in the writing now can indeed have a toil on the women and their social ties in any community. It seems the contremparly capitalism no matter what form it takes in the disguise of helping 'WOMEN OR WORKING CLASS" to rise above their econmomic status have a "hidden benefit and agenda" in diguise.
The first essay that I read under Generating Capitalism was "Valuing Nature" by Jessica Cattelino. That over all theme of the essay explored how, in a capitalistic society, we value nature. The first and very important topic that she covered was that of ecosystem services. This is basically what we, as human beings benefit from our surrounding ecosystems. What resources are we able to cultivate or use? What is the aesthetic value of an ecosystem? The essay focused on the restoration of the Everglades. The restoration of the Everglades is one of the most expensive environmental restoration projects in the United States but many say that it is money well spent because of the ecosystem services that the Everglades provide. Most environmentalists want ecosystem services to be accounted for when there is the possibility of destroying some of that ecosystem for capital gain.This is where capitalism can cause some problems. If a project is halted or denied, it can mean the loss of capital. Farmers and ranchers in the Everglade region are blame the environmentalists for increased taxation and regulations while environmentalists blame the farmers and ranchers for the pollution in the Everglades. The two are constantly pushing back against one another. The government has come up with some compromises but it really comes down to save the environment or make more money.
ReplyDeleteThe second essay that I read was "On Simultaneity" by Hannah Appel. This was written how the oil companies and capitalism threatened a sort of new age colonialism. The author was given an article to read that warned that the oil business in Equatorial Guinea threatened to bring back very similar conditions to those of the colonial era. But even in the post colonial era, Appel observed that that had already begun to take place. The value was not found in the culture or the people of Equatorial Guinea, but the oil. The oil and the means of obtaining it as a commodity to be sold in other countries is all that matters to the companies based there. This causes and Africa of pathological states and aggrieved citizens. Capitalism has allowed the systemic nature of the colonial era to continue on. Appel noted that there seemed to be a an allusion masking all of that. The HR manager told her that the article stated what could happen if things don't change, but the fact of the matter was that what that article warned about was already happening. The HR manager was playing a role in that as well and he did not even know it. He was a white, male from Canada who was only living in Africa temporarily. We may not have a colonial system in place in African anymore today, but there are aspects of it forever ingrained in the capitalistic culture.
The editors of generating capitalism " salvage accumulation, or the structural effects of capitalist generativity explains how raw materials are viewed as a capitalist resource. They are allowed to extract the raw materials eg oil despite it causing harm to the environment. Capitalist use but do not manufacture it. Also from a feminist point of view, women who are hired to sow clothes are not trained. It is assumed that since they are women they should know how to sow. In addition to, they are paid a much lesser wage. In countries that export raw materials workers are not paid, and yet the raw materials are sold back to them.
ReplyDeleteThe second entry was on simultaneity, which proposes how rich countries milk the resources of poor countries. They are able to get away with this because of the corruption that exists in this poor countries. This has been normalized and is something poor countries are used to. Therefore, making it hard for them to break away from this cycle of poverty.
Both articles, Generating Home and On Simultaneity, contain a common thread. In each the interviewee subconsciously shifts blame for economic problems from themselves, putting distance between themselves and the consequences that occurred after the actions taken. In Generating Home, the interviewee was asked by the author who he blamed for the housing crisis that occurred and caused many people economic distress. The man answered that he believed the government and other agencies were to blame. After the author made the comment that most homeowners who were affected would blame themselves for the problems though, the man then responded that he guessed everyone had a hand in the events leading to the result. In the end, the man still does not seem to realize his own role in the disaster.
ReplyDeleteThe other article, On Simultaneity, was slightly different in how the interviewee avoided the issue at hand. The author was a passed an article by the interviewee and told that all she needed to know for the interview was “in there”. She states that the man’s actions were typical of qualities associated to capitalism. Particularly, the way the man seemed to see a distinct line between economic interaction and social context (Appel On). Both authors wrote of similar interactions between their interviewees and the topics they were discussing. The interviewee subconsciously sidestepping the true issue at hand and placing distance between himself and economic problems. The author of On Simultaneity is the only one to connect this avoidance with capitalism, but the author of Generating Home implies a connection through here writing.
“Generating Capitalism” shows many point of views that cross cultural boundaries. To completely understand how capitalism effects cultures, these ethnographies show how they adapt, but don’t lose themselves within this global system. The two articles I chose were “On Simultaneity” and “Valuing Nature.” Both show the struggle and success between the environment, capitalism and culture.
ReplyDelete“On Simultaneity” dives into an old concept that is still present in the modern world - “resource curse.” This term is used in relation to colonized countries that were rich in resources, but had negative effects on their economic growth. This curse has left many countries in the development stages of growth, but their culture still thrives in the onslaught of capitalism that thrives off their riches. Hannah Appel explores how oil companies setting up new operations in Equatorial Guinea, she uncovered the environmental ramifications was not something unknown by the oil companies. The term ‘simultaneity’ describes “the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference.” In this context, she describes the construction and deconstruction of capitalism within a developing economy. Oil in itself shows how two relationships can form in one system. While oil is a global staple in the world market, it destroys environments and local economies that don’t have the resources to negotiate the price of this acquisition. Even so, their culture thrives in the wake of oil capitalism, another event that is happening at the same time.
Similar to Appel’s article, “Valuing Nature” by Jessica Cattelino shows a similar theory. The idea of environmental economy is nothing new, but applying that concept with incentives is somewhat recent. There are dangers to commodifying nature due to how we view commodities within a capitalistic society. On the other side of it, if the ecosystems services valuation allows people to understand the implications that come with conserving ecosystems then maybe that relationship between capitalism and environments can be mended. Within the Everglades, the faceoff between ranchers and conservationists is strong. Both play the blame game, but both show how people need the environment to survive. Another aspect besides the environmental services, there are cultural ones as well. These ranchers thrive off of the lands that produce their livelihood, but when liquidity came into the picture, this allowed ranchers who were done with ranching to move on. This theory of reciprocity allows conservationists to move forward with saving parts of the Everglades, while in turn giving some financial out to the ranchers.
It’s interesting to show the large contrast between the Everglades and what is happening in Equatorial Guinea. The Everglades is apart of a developed capitalist economy where people have more say in what happens to their land. In Equatorial Guinea, they don’t have the same luxury. Their environment is more of a tool of the capitalist economy and the labor force is seen as a commodity. Until there is a shift in how developing economies are viewed by corporations, saving their economy and their environment will stay out of reach.