In all my criticism of the AWOL, I have neglected to even once mention the effect of birth on the rest of ones life. Supposedly, upon turning three infants lose all memory of past events in their lives, but the impact of our birth stays eternally with us. Something as simple as being born in a bath-tub could have a profound effect on ones experience. So one could probably see why people feel the need to manipulate every little factor. What other miniscule factors could alter the life of a child? In our society, natural birth is looked down upon by mothers and Obs alike and all the while people are becoming more and more reliant on medical technology. But why when our own bodies provide us with all the tools necessary to give birth to a child. Just as we rely on our corrupt politicians to straighten things out we rely on doctors to heal us. Yet in doing so we lead ourselves astray and lose sight of the ultimate importance of birth. The Techno-medical way of birth alienates us from our bodies and perpetuates the same mindless capitalist system that is the driving force behind the rest of our culture.
The whole concept of birth is still iffy to me. I believe that all of the world’s many problems branch from the fact that there are just too many people. But this doesn’t stop couples, date rapists, lonely mothers, and Catholics from reproducing at a rapid rate. But why do people have babies? They leak from every orifice on their bodies, they are loud, and above all, they are expensive. But for some reason in our clean, perfectionist culture people feel the need to have more and more kids. It appears to me that there are three main reasons why people continue to have kids: Some people want a baby that will love them eternally with godlike devotion. Other people force their kids to have kids that will love and adore them. And then there are those who just want to have sex: people who appreciate the process (sex) but not the product (the baby).
Regardless of their cause these all result in the same thing; a baby that will, if treated properly, love, adore, and take care of you in your old age. “Sounds like a sweet deal. I just have to wait 9 months, go through a few hours of physical pain and take care of the thing for a few more years and I’ve got me my own personal servant.” Of course, this is an exaggeration but does not stand far from the truth. People in our society love to watch other people live; doing so gives their dull lives some meaning. Seldom, however, do we see people like Brad Pitt or other tabloid celebrities reading shallow and low-brow magazines like “People,” “Vogue,” or “Elle.” Those with money can live their own fantasies while those without watch and try to experience the affluent lives of the very people that keep our capitalistic culture going for gold.
Back to babies; children provide more or less the same sort of entertainment. A child’s life is essentially a soap opera that parents can sit back and eat pop-corn to while watching, occasionally stepping in to assure that they turn into what they always wanted to be. They watch their children grow up and develop like Stephanie from “Full House.” When their little angels hit puberty, parents buckle down while trying to maintain a friendly relationship with their child and relive those first episodes of “The Gilmore Girls.” Finally they release their kids into the world after having hypnotized them into becoming everything and more than they (the parents) were as children. Sound familiar? Vicariously living through ones offspring is quite common in our culture.
Of course, some people may not agree with me on that. Looking at birth statistics, mothers, more often than not, use epidurals during labour to relieve themselves of pain. However, evidence proves that epidurals drug the baby as well which can make it reluctant to breast feed, an important factor in the mother child bonding process. Breast feeding soon after birth helps the mother to release oxytocin, a “bonding” chemical, that the child then absorbs into his body through the breast milk. If mothers are willing to sacrifice their bodies and their entire lives for their unborn children, one would assume they would be willing to endure a few hours of pain to ensure the healthy and un-stoned birth of their baby. This being said, why then do most mothers use epidurals and other birth intervention drugs? It’s not that I believe that most mothers don’t love their babies, but there has to be something, aside from the pain, that would encourage a mother to take such a risk.
Being fairly familiar with the way our culture works I feel that I can adequately assess what may possess people to use these drugs. Who other than the multi-billion dollar business that holds the lives of millions of Americans at stake for money; big pharmaceutical companies. Epidurals can run up to $1000 on top of the outrageous fees that come with most hospital births. Having searched around online, looked at blogs, and heard my mothers own personal birthing experience, it seems to me that most Americans believe that these drugs are basic essentials in the birthing process. Observing the normal way of birth, one can see why many mothers may believe this. My own birth was very typical, and was archetypal of the American way of Birth.
My mother’s water broke on august 10th, 1991. She went to the hospital where she was told to return home and wait for 24 hours. The following day she went back to the hospital where the doctors gave her Pitocin to help induce labor. From this point on there were about 15 hours of labor before I was actually born, so it was a fairly long wait. The Pitocin made her contractions more frequent and they grew stronger each time. To pass the time my parents walked around the hospital until the contractions got to be so painful that she had to be confined to her bed. My father helped her through each contraction until, finally, she began crowning. Shortly before she was given Darvon, a light sedative to reduce the pain, but it was ineffective so she had an epidural. In an attempt to make the environment more welcoming for me my mother had very relaxing music playing in the background. When she finally began crowning a surge of doctors appeared in the room; she recalled there being no medical figures there up until that point. She had an episiotomy to stop any inevitable ripping from happening and shortly after I was born.
It was a pretty standard birth. The key thing, however, that I questioned upon hearing this was why so many drugs? At that point I had to come out because if a mother doesn’t go into labour within 12 hours of her water breaking it puts the lives of both mother and child at risk. The doctor, however, neglected to warn my mother of the drugs harmful side-affects. Everyone is told that birth will be painful, but few are told of Pitocin’s more gentile and natural cousin. Believe it or not turning the birthing process into an orgasmic experience can mimic the effects of Pitocin. Pitocin helps the body to release Oxytocin which helps to induce labour, but because it is taken through a constant IV drip it gives the body far more than necessary, putting her in far more pain than she need be. Not only are orgasmic births more pleasurable and cost effective, but they help to release the very same chemical into the mother, her very own, internal Oxytocin IV drip. If I am aware of this then I am certain that most doctors are; why then do most doctors not encourage such an approach? These drugs are insanely expensive, and what better way to make money off of anxious pregnant mothers than to shamelessly give them some drug without any alternative treatment. Doctors tell people like my mother of this magical drug that can save their baby’s life while failing to mention that our bodies can produce the same substance for FREE.
People make sex and birth out to be very separate things, thus robbing people of the sexual aspect of birth and instilling this artificial need for drugs, doctors, and hospital. People are afraid of anything outside of the norm, for it upsets the balance of their lifestyle; the same can be said of birth. Even though many aspects of our culture are sexual, for some reason we cannot combine the two. Doctors, like all other capitalists, want to make a profit and by lying and telling mothers that birth will be painful they can make more money off drugs. Similarly to sex, drugs are demonized. For a culture that so heavily uses drugs like pitocin, Epideurals, alcohol, and cigarettes on a daily basis, people demonize drugs such as marijuana, codine, steroids, and LSD with a curious amount of enthusiasm. “A Rod can’t take steroids, but mothers are given epidurals on a whim.” This just goes to show how contradictory our societies image of whats right and wrong is.
It doesn’t stop there; after giving my mother Pitocin, they had to counter-act the pain with an Epidural. Birth is bound to be painful, especially without an epidural, but when induced with Pitocin it becomes a necessity. Having a natural, home birth is less painful; people have all they need (in cases where the birth is normal and healthy) right at home.
The setting plays an important role in natural birth as well. The standard birth takes place in a sterile hospital room with the mother propped up in lithotomy position, legs agape, surrounded by complete strangers and bright spotlights shining on her vagina. How sexual does this sound? If anything it sounds nerve-wracking, whereas a home birth allows one complete privacy, sensuality, and, above all, comfort. A natural birth with inborn labour inducing chemicals suggests that the woman should sit naked in a tub next to her husband in a warm and loving environment. If one chooses, one can have a midwife coach the mother through the birth. The husband may gently stroke his wife’s breasts or something of that sort to get the Oxytocin flowing, while the midwife helps the mother through each contraction. Unlike standard birth procedures, the mother is allowed privacy and has complete control over the entire situation. When the baby finally comes out he is born into water or the loving arms of his/her family, which allows them to transition from the womb into the outside world . All in all, this sounds far more appealing and humane than the birth that most doctors would like people to believe is necessary. Its astounding to see how much Capitalism and the profit motive permeate our culture to the point where people designated to provide us remedies and treatments deceitfully trick us into paying for drugs and procedures that could potentially harm or affect the life of an unborn child.
In recent times, four Missouri physicians sued the state over a midwifery law allowing “certified professional midwives to deliver babies without collaborating with a physician” or having an “emergency plan” (amednews.com). When asked why in regards to their opposition to the law, one of the physicians (David Redfern, MD and OB-GYN) responded, saying that “a midwife doesn’t have the skills to handle the complications that can happen instantaneously during birth.” According to him, roughly “10% to 15%” of women who deliver at home need to be transferred to a hospital due to complications. First off, certified professional midwives are required to have prior, out of hospital, experience, to have taken classes accredited by the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council, to have passed rigorous written exams on the topic of birth, and to have been administered by the North American Registry of Midwives. What about this doesn’t check out? The fact is, most women even considering having a home birth have been scared into believing that birth outside of a hospital is dangerous, so chances are that most women in such a situation will do extensive and in depth research to find a midwife suitable for their wants and needs. Not doing so would be unwise. The likelihood of someone picking an unqualified midwife for their birth is extremely low. Also, in an emergency situation almost anyone would have themselves rushed to a hospital, after all, half the mothers that have home births pray to all around them for an epidural as it is. And as the majority of expecting mothers already get ultra-sounds and amniocentesis’ they are often aware of any complications in their pregnancy and would doubtfully go through with the home- birth were there anything severely wrong with their unborn child.
Aside from the doctor’s fallacious observations there is something even more important to take from this reading. Most modern day doctors have been to taught to cure and treat everything as an illness, and birth is just another one of these illnesses. They have been taught to fear for the worst when in fact birth is quite simple. Thanks to the “cascade of medical interventions” encouraged by most doctors birth has become far more complicated than it need be. Instead of just having the baby and allowing the mother and child to experience the beautiful experience of birth doctors have convinced us that if there is pain something is wrong so women believe the use of pain medication and doctor intervention to be indispensable parts of the birthing process. The fact is, most OB- GYNs or birth doctors haven’t ever experienced a home birth so they cannot rightfully speak against it. When ones entire education is clouded by fear and the possibility of death passed on generation to generation of doctors its understandable why they feel as such. But one should trust their body to handle birth and not just the doctors, after all women and animals have been giving birth for quite some time now. Its thanks to people like Dr. Redfern that women now don’t trust their own bodies to be able to give birth even though it is perfectly modeled for being able to do so.
I had the opportunity to watch a certain skit done by The Monty Python acting troup, that perfectly epitomized the Techno/Medical method of birth. The video takes place in a cold hospital room with two doctors getting dressed for a birth. In the short skit they cover all of the aspects of birth that I have just talked about: they deal with all of the formalities of birth; bringing in the expensive machines that legitimize their practice and please the almighty hospital administrator. Most importantly, the mother is dealt with as an object and is barely acknowledged as part of the process. When she asks what she should do the doctors reply with a resounding “nothing dear, you aren’t qualified!” It seems that the current world of birth and pregnancy works in a similar way; women and patients in general are pushed along by each doctor and told what to do with out any questioning on the patients behalf. We have become passive as a people and we accept the word of the “qualified” as the word of the holy father. Not even the female form, which has been specially selected by thousands of years of evolution and development, is seen as being qualified enough to birth a child. Doctors just like those in the Monty Python skit have perpetuated the business of birth and encouraged the removal of the self from the creation of life.
For better or for worse I watched a documentary called “The Business of Giving Birth” that was very informative helped to give me further insight into the world of birth in America. It would be pointless for me to reiterate all the points brought up throughout the film because I have already more or less outlined them in this paper, but what I got from the film was, “we, as Americans, seriously need to revise the normal way of birth because mothers are removed from the experience and if we don’t people will miss out on the beautiful experience of birth.” I agreed with most of what was said there were however a few points that I thought could use some revision. The whole film was more or less, anti-hospital, anti-doctor…except for when it’s an emergency. This seemed to me a case of cognitive dissonance; mothers are still just as reliant on these supposedly evil, money-grubbing hospitals. They look to the very people that attempt to remove them from their birth proceze for mid pregnancy checkups, amniocentesis’, and other such treatments/check-ups. This is not to say that I believe these proceze to be unimportant, I just think that if one must have a baby, they should be accompanied by someone who has been trained in medicine, like a doctor, but with the care and compassion that often comes with a midwife. Call me an idealist, but I believe that if people want to continue giving healthy natural birth that we should have doctors who actually care about their patients. Even though this new form of doctor/midwife has a position similar to that of the standard doctor, the patient should be kept as an important role in the birth process and not treated like a leper.
Just as we educate teens about practicing safe sex, I believe we should educate mothers about birth. Women’s subservience to doctors is largely due to the fact that they have no clue what they are doing. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies get filthy rich off of mothers who haven’t been properly advised of the many basics of birth. Doctors have, according to the video, tricked women into believing the lithotomy position is the best to give birth in, that they shouldn’t move around, and that they should take drugs like pitocin, and darvon to aid them in giving birth. Women need to be able to see through the “cascade of interventions,” and make the right decisions for themselves; if you don’t care about the birth process and just want your baby, then give birth in a hospital, but if you do care you should be informed enough to be able to make such a decision.
I would have to argue that ignorance to the process of giving birth devalues the entire life of ones child for birth is one of the most important experiences of one’s child’s life. Doctors merely interfere with the mothers organic flow of emotion and physical sensations and end up turning the birth process into an artificial, and impersonal experience just as the Monty Python skit portrayed. Within the first few moments after giving birth, the mom and her baby are attached to one another through this “cocktail of love hormones,” and without them there is a divorce between mother and baby. Doctors simply haven’t been given the training necessary to view birth from a natural perspective thus perpetuating the current method. Any mother who cares about their child would have as loving and natural a birth as possible.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Response to the Business of Being Born
I really enjoyed “The Business of Being Born;” it helped to give further insight into the world of birth in America. It would be pointless for me to reiterate all the points brought up throughout the film, but what I got from the film was, “we, as Americans, seriously need to revise the normal way of birth because if we don’t people will miss out on the beautiful experience of birth.” I agreed with most of what was said, there were however a few points that I thought could use some revision. The whole film was more or less, anti-hospital, anti-doctor…except for when it’s an emergency. This seemed to me a case of cognitive dissonance; mothers are still just as reliant on these supposedly evil, money-grubbing hospitals. They look to the very people that attempt to remove them from their birth proceze for mid pregnancy checkups, amniocentesis’, and other such treatments/check-ups. This is not to say that I believe these proceze to be unimportant, I just think that if one must have a baby, they should be accompanied by someone who has been trained in medicine, like a doctor, but with the care and compassion that often comes with a midwife. Call me an idealist, but I believe that if people want to continue giving healthy natural birth that we should have doctors who actually care about their patients. Even though this new form of doctor/midwife has a position similar to that of the standard doctor, the patient should be kept as an important role in the birth process and not treated like a leper.
Just as we educate teens about practicing safe sex, I believe we should educate mothers about birth. Women’s subservience to doctors is largely due to the fact that they have no clue what they are doing. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies get filthy rich off of mothers who haven’t been properly advised of the many basics of birth. Doctors have, according to the video, tricked women into believing the lithotomy position is the best to give birth in, that they shouldn’t move around, and that they should take drugs like pitocin, and darvon to aid them in giving birth. Women need to be able to see through the “cascade of interventions,” and make the right decisions for themselves; if you don’t care about the birth process and just want your baby, then give birth in a hospital, but if you do care you should be informed enough to be able to make such a decision.
I would have to argue that ignorance to the process of giving birth devalues the entire life of ones child for birth is one of the most important experiences of one’s child’s life. Within the first few moments after giving birth, the mom and her baby are attached to one another through this “cocktail of love hormones,” and without them there is a divorce between mother and baby. Any mother who cares about their child would have as loving and natural a birth as possible.
Just as we educate teens about practicing safe sex, I believe we should educate mothers about birth. Women’s subservience to doctors is largely due to the fact that they have no clue what they are doing. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies get filthy rich off of mothers who haven’t been properly advised of the many basics of birth. Doctors have, according to the video, tricked women into believing the lithotomy position is the best to give birth in, that they shouldn’t move around, and that they should take drugs like pitocin, and darvon to aid them in giving birth. Women need to be able to see through the “cascade of interventions,” and make the right decisions for themselves; if you don’t care about the birth process and just want your baby, then give birth in a hospital, but if you do care you should be informed enough to be able to make such a decision.
I would have to argue that ignorance to the process of giving birth devalues the entire life of ones child for birth is one of the most important experiences of one’s child’s life. Within the first few moments after giving birth, the mom and her baby are attached to one another through this “cocktail of love hormones,” and without them there is a divorce between mother and baby. Any mother who cares about their child would have as loving and natural a birth as possible.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
I know its late but I felt very compassionate about this topic and wanted to take a little more time to do some research and strengthen my overall argument.
The whole concept of birth is still iffy to me. I believe that all of the world’s many problems branch from the fact that there are just too many people. But this doesn’t stop couples, date rapists, lonely mothers, and Catholics from reproducing at a rapid rate. But why do people have babies? They leak from every orifice on their bodies, they are loud, and above all, they are expensive. But for some reason in our clean, perfectionist culture people feel the need to have more and more kids. It appears to me that there are three main reasons why people continue to have kids: Some people want a baby that will love them eternally with godlike devotion. Other people force their kids to have kids that will love and adore them. And then there are those who just want to have sex: people who appreciate the process (sex) but not the product (the baby).
Regardless of their cause these all result in the same thing; a baby that will, if treated properly, love, adore, and take care of you in your old age. “Sounds like a sweet deal. I just have to wait 9 months, go through a few hours of physical pain and take care of the thing for a few more years and I’ve got me my own personal servant.” Of course, this is in exaggeration but does not stand from the truth. People in our society love to watch other people live; doing so gives their dull lives some meaning. Seldom, however, do we see people like Brad Pitt or other tabloid celebrities reading shallow and low-brow magazines like “People,” “Vogue,” or “Elle.” Those with money can live their own fantasies while those without watch and try to experience the affluent lives of the very people that keep our capitalistic culture going for gold..
Back to babies; children provide more or less the same sort of entertainment. A child’s life is essentially a soap opera that parents can sit back and eat pop-corn to while watching, occasionally stepping in to assure that they grow into . They watch their children grow up and develop like Stephanie from “Full House.” When their little angels hit puberty, parents buckle down while trying to maintain a friendly relationship with their child and relive those first episodes of “The Gilmore Girls.” Finally they release their kids into the world after having hypnotized them into becoming everything and more than they (the parents) were as children. Sound familiar? Vicariously living through ones offspring is quite common in our culture.
Of course, some people may not agree with me on that. Looking at birth statistics, mothers, more often than not, use epidurals during labour to relieve themselves of pain. However, evidence proves that epidurals drug the baby as well which can make it reluctant to breast feed, an important factor in the mother child bonding process. Breast feeding soon after birth helps the mother to release oxytocin, a “bonding” chemical, that the child then absorbs into his body through the breast milk. If mothers are willing to sacrifice their bodies and their entire live for their unborn children, one would assume they would be willing to endure a few hours of pain to ensure the healthy and un-stoned birth of their baby. This being said, why then do most mothers use epidurals and other birth intervention drugs? I do not believe that mothers do not love their babies, but there has to be something, aside from the pain, that would encourage a mother to take such a risk.
Being fairly familiar with the way our culture works I feel that I can adequately assess what may possess people to use these drugs. Who other than the multi-billion dollar business that holds the lives of millions of Americans at stake for money; big pharmaceutical companies. Epidurals can run up to $1000 on top of the outrageous fees that come with most hospital births. Having searched around online, looked at blogs, and heard my mothers own personal birthing experience, it seems to me that most Americans believe that these drugs are basic essentials in the birthing process. Observing the normal way of birth, one can see why many mothers may believe this. My own birth was very typical, and was archetypal of the American way of Birth.
My mother’s water broke on august 10th, 1991. She went to the hospital where she was told to return home and wait for 24 hours. The following day she went back to the hospital where the doctors gave her Pitocin to help induce labor. From this point on there were about 15 hours of labor before I was actually born, so it was a fairly long wait. The Pitocin made her contractions more frequent and they grew stronger each time. To pass the time my parents walked around the hospital until the contractions got to be so painful that she had to be confined to her bed. My father helped her through each contraction until, finally, she began crowning. Shortly before she was given Darvon, a light sedative to reduce the pain, but it was ineffective so she had an epidural. In an attempt to make the environment more welcoming for me my mother had very relaxing music playing in the background. When she finally began crowning a surge of doctors appeared in the room; she recalled there being no medical figures there up until that point. She had an episiotomy to stop any inevitable ripping from happening and shortly after I was born.
It was a pretty standard birth. The key thing, however, that I questioned upon hearing this was why so many drugs? At that point I had to come out because if a mother doesn’t go into labour within 12 hours of her water breaking it puts the lives of both mother and child at risk. The doctor, however, neglected to warn my mother of the drugs harmful side-affects. Everyone is told that birth will be painful, but few are told of Pitocin’s more gentile and natural cousin. Believe it or not turning the birthing process into an orgasmic experience can mimic the effects of Pitocin. Pitocin helps the body to release Oxytocin which helps to induce labour, but because it is taken through a constant IV drip it gives the body far more than necessary, putting her in far more pain than she need be. Not only are orgasmic births more pleasurable and cost effective, but they help to release the very same chemical into the mother, her very own, internal Oxytocin IV drip. If I am aware of this then I am certain that most doctors are; why then do most doctors not encourage such an approach? These drugs are insanely expensive, and what better way to make money off of anxious pregnant mothers than to shamelessly give them some drug without any alternative treatment. Doctors tell people like my mother of this magical drug that can save their baby’s life while failing to mention that our bodies can produce the same substance for FREE.
It doesn’t stop there; after giving my mother Pitocin, they had to counter-act the pain with an Epidural. Birth is bound to be painful, especially without an epidural, but when induced with Pitocin it becomes a necessity. Having a natural, home birth is less painful; people have all they need (in cases where the birth is normal and healthy) right at home.
The setting plays an important role in natural birth as well. The standard birth takes place in a sterile hospital room with the mother propped up in lithotomy position, legs agape, surrounded by complete strangers and bright spotlights shining on her vagina. How sexual does this sound? If anything it sounds nerve-wracking, whereas a home birth allows one complete privacy, sensuality, and, above all, comfort. A natural birth with inborn labour inducing chemicals suggests that the woman should sit naked in a tub next to her husband in a warm and loving environment. If one chooses, one can have a midwife coach the mother through the birth. The husband may gently stroke his wife’s breasts or something of that sort to get the Oxytocin flowing, while the midwife helps the mother through each contraction. Unlike standard birth procedures, the mother is allowed privacy and has complete control over the entire situation. When the baby finally comes out he is born into water which allows it to transition from the womb into the outside world. When the baby is born into the air it’s and abrupt and shocking transition that could arguably scar the child’s subconscious for the rest of it’s life. All in all, this sounds far more appealing and humane than the birth that most doctors would like people to believe is necessary. Its astounding to see how much Capitalism and the profit motive permeate our culture to the point where people designated to provide us remedies and treatments deceitfully trick us into paying for drugs and procedures that could potentially harm or affect the life of an unborn child.
People make sex and birth out to be very separate deities things, thus robbing people of the sexual aspect of birth and instilling this artificial need for drugs, doctors, and hospital. People are afraid of anything outside of the norm, for it upsets the balance of their lifestyle; the same can be said of birth. Even though many aspects of our culture are sexual, for some reason we cannot combine the two. Doctors, like all other capitalists, want to make a profit and by lying and telling mothers that birth will be painful they can make more money off drugs.
Similarly to sex, drugs are demonized. For a culture that so heavily uses drugs like pitocin, Epideurals, alcohol, and cigarettes on a daily basis, people demonize drugs such as marijuana, codine, steroids, and LSD with a curious amount of enthusiasm. “A Rod can’t take steroids, but mothers are given epidurals on a whim.” This just goes to show how contradictory our societies image of whats right and wrong is.
The whole concept of birth is still iffy to me. I believe that all of the world’s many problems branch from the fact that there are just too many people. But this doesn’t stop couples, date rapists, lonely mothers, and Catholics from reproducing at a rapid rate. But why do people have babies? They leak from every orifice on their bodies, they are loud, and above all, they are expensive. But for some reason in our clean, perfectionist culture people feel the need to have more and more kids. It appears to me that there are three main reasons why people continue to have kids: Some people want a baby that will love them eternally with godlike devotion. Other people force their kids to have kids that will love and adore them. And then there are those who just want to have sex: people who appreciate the process (sex) but not the product (the baby).
Regardless of their cause these all result in the same thing; a baby that will, if treated properly, love, adore, and take care of you in your old age. “Sounds like a sweet deal. I just have to wait 9 months, go through a few hours of physical pain and take care of the thing for a few more years and I’ve got me my own personal servant.” Of course, this is in exaggeration but does not stand from the truth. People in our society love to watch other people live; doing so gives their dull lives some meaning. Seldom, however, do we see people like Brad Pitt or other tabloid celebrities reading shallow and low-brow magazines like “People,” “Vogue,” or “Elle.” Those with money can live their own fantasies while those without watch and try to experience the affluent lives of the very people that keep our capitalistic culture going for gold..
Back to babies; children provide more or less the same sort of entertainment. A child’s life is essentially a soap opera that parents can sit back and eat pop-corn to while watching, occasionally stepping in to assure that they grow into . They watch their children grow up and develop like Stephanie from “Full House.” When their little angels hit puberty, parents buckle down while trying to maintain a friendly relationship with their child and relive those first episodes of “The Gilmore Girls.” Finally they release their kids into the world after having hypnotized them into becoming everything and more than they (the parents) were as children. Sound familiar? Vicariously living through ones offspring is quite common in our culture.
Of course, some people may not agree with me on that. Looking at birth statistics, mothers, more often than not, use epidurals during labour to relieve themselves of pain. However, evidence proves that epidurals drug the baby as well which can make it reluctant to breast feed, an important factor in the mother child bonding process. Breast feeding soon after birth helps the mother to release oxytocin, a “bonding” chemical, that the child then absorbs into his body through the breast milk. If mothers are willing to sacrifice their bodies and their entire live for their unborn children, one would assume they would be willing to endure a few hours of pain to ensure the healthy and un-stoned birth of their baby. This being said, why then do most mothers use epidurals and other birth intervention drugs? I do not believe that mothers do not love their babies, but there has to be something, aside from the pain, that would encourage a mother to take such a risk.
Being fairly familiar with the way our culture works I feel that I can adequately assess what may possess people to use these drugs. Who other than the multi-billion dollar business that holds the lives of millions of Americans at stake for money; big pharmaceutical companies. Epidurals can run up to $1000 on top of the outrageous fees that come with most hospital births. Having searched around online, looked at blogs, and heard my mothers own personal birthing experience, it seems to me that most Americans believe that these drugs are basic essentials in the birthing process. Observing the normal way of birth, one can see why many mothers may believe this. My own birth was very typical, and was archetypal of the American way of Birth.
My mother’s water broke on august 10th, 1991. She went to the hospital where she was told to return home and wait for 24 hours. The following day she went back to the hospital where the doctors gave her Pitocin to help induce labor. From this point on there were about 15 hours of labor before I was actually born, so it was a fairly long wait. The Pitocin made her contractions more frequent and they grew stronger each time. To pass the time my parents walked around the hospital until the contractions got to be so painful that she had to be confined to her bed. My father helped her through each contraction until, finally, she began crowning. Shortly before she was given Darvon, a light sedative to reduce the pain, but it was ineffective so she had an epidural. In an attempt to make the environment more welcoming for me my mother had very relaxing music playing in the background. When she finally began crowning a surge of doctors appeared in the room; she recalled there being no medical figures there up until that point. She had an episiotomy to stop any inevitable ripping from happening and shortly after I was born.
It was a pretty standard birth. The key thing, however, that I questioned upon hearing this was why so many drugs? At that point I had to come out because if a mother doesn’t go into labour within 12 hours of her water breaking it puts the lives of both mother and child at risk. The doctor, however, neglected to warn my mother of the drugs harmful side-affects. Everyone is told that birth will be painful, but few are told of Pitocin’s more gentile and natural cousin. Believe it or not turning the birthing process into an orgasmic experience can mimic the effects of Pitocin. Pitocin helps the body to release Oxytocin which helps to induce labour, but because it is taken through a constant IV drip it gives the body far more than necessary, putting her in far more pain than she need be. Not only are orgasmic births more pleasurable and cost effective, but they help to release the very same chemical into the mother, her very own, internal Oxytocin IV drip. If I am aware of this then I am certain that most doctors are; why then do most doctors not encourage such an approach? These drugs are insanely expensive, and what better way to make money off of anxious pregnant mothers than to shamelessly give them some drug without any alternative treatment. Doctors tell people like my mother of this magical drug that can save their baby’s life while failing to mention that our bodies can produce the same substance for FREE.
It doesn’t stop there; after giving my mother Pitocin, they had to counter-act the pain with an Epidural. Birth is bound to be painful, especially without an epidural, but when induced with Pitocin it becomes a necessity. Having a natural, home birth is less painful; people have all they need (in cases where the birth is normal and healthy) right at home.
The setting plays an important role in natural birth as well. The standard birth takes place in a sterile hospital room with the mother propped up in lithotomy position, legs agape, surrounded by complete strangers and bright spotlights shining on her vagina. How sexual does this sound? If anything it sounds nerve-wracking, whereas a home birth allows one complete privacy, sensuality, and, above all, comfort. A natural birth with inborn labour inducing chemicals suggests that the woman should sit naked in a tub next to her husband in a warm and loving environment. If one chooses, one can have a midwife coach the mother through the birth. The husband may gently stroke his wife’s breasts or something of that sort to get the Oxytocin flowing, while the midwife helps the mother through each contraction. Unlike standard birth procedures, the mother is allowed privacy and has complete control over the entire situation. When the baby finally comes out he is born into water which allows it to transition from the womb into the outside world. When the baby is born into the air it’s and abrupt and shocking transition that could arguably scar the child’s subconscious for the rest of it’s life. All in all, this sounds far more appealing and humane than the birth that most doctors would like people to believe is necessary. Its astounding to see how much Capitalism and the profit motive permeate our culture to the point where people designated to provide us remedies and treatments deceitfully trick us into paying for drugs and procedures that could potentially harm or affect the life of an unborn child.
People make sex and birth out to be very separate deities things, thus robbing people of the sexual aspect of birth and instilling this artificial need for drugs, doctors, and hospital. People are afraid of anything outside of the norm, for it upsets the balance of their lifestyle; the same can be said of birth. Even though many aspects of our culture are sexual, for some reason we cannot combine the two. Doctors, like all other capitalists, want to make a profit and by lying and telling mothers that birth will be painful they can make more money off drugs.
Similarly to sex, drugs are demonized. For a culture that so heavily uses drugs like pitocin, Epideurals, alcohol, and cigarettes on a daily basis, people demonize drugs such as marijuana, codine, steroids, and LSD with a curious amount of enthusiasm. “A Rod can’t take steroids, but mothers are given epidurals on a whim.” This just goes to show how contradictory our societies image of whats right and wrong is.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Answers to questions on Birth
1.) What kinds of drugs/interventions are used during birth? How often?
Breathing Techniques, Positioning, Water (Hydrotherapy), Hot & Cold Packs, Massage, Sterile Water Injections (for back pain), 'Gas & Air',Stadol, Demerol, Nubain, Epidural, General Anesthesia. They are used quite frequently, sometimes without the consent of the mother.
2.) How often do mothers die of anesthesia related complications?
Drug induced labors greatly increase the risk of fatality in mothers. By taking labor inducing drugs such as pitocin, women increase their chance of having an Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE), which is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries. It occurs when the amniotic fluid from the woman's uterus leaks into their circulatory system causing an arterial blockage that can, and often is, fatal.
3.) How are babies affected by the drugs?
Taking pain relief drugs during birth can supposedly prevent bonding between mother and child. Drugged babies are less likely to nurse after birth, which can affect the transfer of important bonding hormones between mother and child shortly after birth.
4.) How do drugs affect women of different ages?
The effects of birth and birth drugs in general worsen as women get older. Naturally, people are only young for so long, and the younger one is, the more likely it is that they will have an easy recovery from such an ordeal.
5.) How much are the pharmaceutical companies making off of anxious pregnant mothers?
Pharmaceuticals are a multi-billion dollar buisiness, a "vast marketing machine;"along side anti-depressants, disease remedies, and various other medical treatments, the pharmaceutical industry rakes in roughly $30.6 billion dollars (in 2001). I could easily rant and rave about how evil the pharmaceutical giants are, but that wouldn't answer this question. I rant soon enough.
6.) How much do drugs cost?
7.) How do the drugs impact the environment?
Breathing Techniques, Positioning, Water (Hydrotherapy), Hot & Cold Packs, Massage, Sterile Water Injections (for back pain), 'Gas & Air',Stadol, Demerol, Nubain, Epidural, General Anesthesia. They are used quite frequently, sometimes without the consent of the mother.
2.) How often do mothers die of anesthesia related complications?
Drug induced labors greatly increase the risk of fatality in mothers. By taking labor inducing drugs such as pitocin, women increase their chance of having an Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE), which is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries. It occurs when the amniotic fluid from the woman's uterus leaks into their circulatory system causing an arterial blockage that can, and often is, fatal.
3.) How are babies affected by the drugs?
Taking pain relief drugs during birth can supposedly prevent bonding between mother and child. Drugged babies are less likely to nurse after birth, which can affect the transfer of important bonding hormones between mother and child shortly after birth.
4.) How do drugs affect women of different ages?
The effects of birth and birth drugs in general worsen as women get older. Naturally, people are only young for so long, and the younger one is, the more likely it is that they will have an easy recovery from such an ordeal.
5.) How much are the pharmaceutical companies making off of anxious pregnant mothers?
Pharmaceuticals are a multi-billion dollar buisiness, a "vast marketing machine;"along side anti-depressants, disease remedies, and various other medical treatments, the pharmaceutical industry rakes in roughly $30.6 billion dollars (in 2001). I could easily rant and rave about how evil the pharmaceutical giants are, but that wouldn't answer this question. I rant soon enough.
6.) How much do drugs cost?
7.) How do the drugs impact the environment?
Questions
1.) What kinds of drugs are used in birth? How often?
2.) How often do mothers die of anesthesia related complications?
3.) How are babies affected by the drugs?
4.) How do drugs affect women of different ages?
5.) How much are the pharmaceutical companies making off of anxious pregnant mothers?
6.) How much do drugs cost?
7.) How do the drugs impact the environment?
2.) How often do mothers die of anesthesia related complications?
3.) How are babies affected by the drugs?
4.) How do drugs affect women of different ages?
5.) How much are the pharmaceutical companies making off of anxious pregnant mothers?
6.) How much do drugs cost?
7.) How do the drugs impact the environment?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Birth Story and Thoughts on Birth
In all my criticism of the AWOL, I neglected to even once mention the effect of birth on the rest of ones life. Supposedly, upon turning three infants lose all memory of past events in their lives, but the impact of our birth stays eternally with us. Something as simple as being born in a bath-tub could have a profound effect on ones experience. So one could probably see why people feel the need to manipulate every little factor.
Looking back on the story of my own birth I see the quintessential American birth at play. I was born on August 11th, 1991; my mother was running a food stand with my father at a local street fair in San Fransisco California when her water broke. She went to the hospital where she was told to return home and wait for 24 hours. The following day she went back to the hospital where the doctors gave her Pitocin to help induce labor. From this point on there were about 15 hours of labor before I was actually born, so it was a fairly long wait. The Pitocin made her contractions more frequent and they grew stronger each time. To pass the time my parents walked around the hospital until, at one point, the contractions got to be so painful that they returned to the room. For the majority of her time spent in the birthing room my mom remained seated in a chair next to the bed with her head resting on the mattress; my father helped her through each contraction until, finally, she began crowning. Shortly before she was given Darvon, a light sedative to reduce the pain, but it was ineffective so she had an epidural. In an attempt to make the environment more welcoming for me my mother had very relaxing music playing in the background. When she finally began crowning a surge of doctors appeared in the room; she recalled there being no medical figures there up until that point. She had an episiotomy to stop any inevitable ripping from happening and shortly after I was born.
My mother does not recall any pain; she remembers it being a “magical moment,” with the music, the San Fransisco fog settling just outside the hospital, and the birth of her new son. Aside from being totally stoned from the sedatives, reluctant to nurse, and mildly jaundiced, I was a healthy, six pound, six ounce, baby boy.
My brother on the other hand was born quickly in a matter of only four hours. My mom was shopping with my father for Christmas presents when her water broke; knowing that she would most likely be unable to eat for he next few hours my parents got some food at a local restaurant. They waited until the contractions became frequent enough that the doctor allowed them to come to the hospital, and they sent me to my friends house. She requested an epidural but was too far along to receive one. She gave birth shortly after; my younger brother Austin was born wide awake, un-jaundiced, and began nursing as soon as he could; a perfectly healthy baby boy.
Austin’s birth was far more natural than mine; my mother was not only more prepared for my birth, but more willing to intervene with drugs because she was afraid of the pain. Even though I came out just as healthy as my brother would, I was jaundiced and unwilling to nurse. I believe that this may be due in part to the epidural; putting any chemical into one’s body is bound to have side effects. It seems to me that epidurals are preferred by most mothers to help reduce the pain, but the effects they have on the child seem not worth the risk. It is important that the first few years of an infants life remain undisturbed, for they are crucial in their lifelong development. Epidurals could arguably affect a child’s development; being high for the first few moments of waking life can’t be a positive thing. One reason that I may have had the health issues that I did at birth could be the drugs that my mother took to relieve her own pain. Let’s just say that I find it coincidental that my brother had no immediate health problems when my mom was unable to have an epidural.
Looking back on the story of my own birth I see the quintessential American birth at play. I was born on August 11th, 1991; my mother was running a food stand with my father at a local street fair in San Fransisco California when her water broke. She went to the hospital where she was told to return home and wait for 24 hours. The following day she went back to the hospital where the doctors gave her Pitocin to help induce labor. From this point on there were about 15 hours of labor before I was actually born, so it was a fairly long wait. The Pitocin made her contractions more frequent and they grew stronger each time. To pass the time my parents walked around the hospital until, at one point, the contractions got to be so painful that they returned to the room. For the majority of her time spent in the birthing room my mom remained seated in a chair next to the bed with her head resting on the mattress; my father helped her through each contraction until, finally, she began crowning. Shortly before she was given Darvon, a light sedative to reduce the pain, but it was ineffective so she had an epidural. In an attempt to make the environment more welcoming for me my mother had very relaxing music playing in the background. When she finally began crowning a surge of doctors appeared in the room; she recalled there being no medical figures there up until that point. She had an episiotomy to stop any inevitable ripping from happening and shortly after I was born.
My mother does not recall any pain; she remembers it being a “magical moment,” with the music, the San Fransisco fog settling just outside the hospital, and the birth of her new son. Aside from being totally stoned from the sedatives, reluctant to nurse, and mildly jaundiced, I was a healthy, six pound, six ounce, baby boy.
My brother on the other hand was born quickly in a matter of only four hours. My mom was shopping with my father for Christmas presents when her water broke; knowing that she would most likely be unable to eat for he next few hours my parents got some food at a local restaurant. They waited until the contractions became frequent enough that the doctor allowed them to come to the hospital, and they sent me to my friends house. She requested an epidural but was too far along to receive one. She gave birth shortly after; my younger brother Austin was born wide awake, un-jaundiced, and began nursing as soon as he could; a perfectly healthy baby boy.
Austin’s birth was far more natural than mine; my mother was not only more prepared for my birth, but more willing to intervene with drugs because she was afraid of the pain. Even though I came out just as healthy as my brother would, I was jaundiced and unwilling to nurse. I believe that this may be due in part to the epidural; putting any chemical into one’s body is bound to have side effects. It seems to me that epidurals are preferred by most mothers to help reduce the pain, but the effects they have on the child seem not worth the risk. It is important that the first few years of an infants life remain undisturbed, for they are crucial in their lifelong development. Epidurals could arguably affect a child’s development; being high for the first few moments of waking life can’t be a positive thing. One reason that I may have had the health issues that I did at birth could be the drugs that my mother took to relieve her own pain. Let’s just say that I find it coincidental that my brother had no immediate health problems when my mom was unable to have an epidural.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Big paper- Synthesis
What are other people’s perspectives of the American way of life?
To answer this question I interviewed several people, several strangers I picked randomly off the street, and a few people that I know personally. In order to put a perspective on the information and avoid nebulous speculation, I formed two groups in which these people fit, sadly it seems that in reality people are very polarized in what they find as important about the AWOL. There are those who look at the AWOL as a bigger picture and those who personalized the AWOL ( Live with the illusion of the American Way of life).
One of the first people I interviewed was a 50 or 60 year old, white, doorman. He seemed quite enamored with the American way of life, saying that it was essentially the ability to do whatever one wants. I don't recall ever hearing of an aspiring doorman. Unless this man was the one exception and he really did dream of becoming a doorman as a child, his characterization of the AWOL exhibits a lack of large-scale thought. He also seemed fixated on the practical aspects of the AWOL in comparison to the larger picture. He seemed far more invested in his own personal wellbeing than that of the country he so readily supported.
Another person that I interviewed, a middle aged, Hispanic, working class man, with paint-covered clothing, who followed suit with the doorman. In his opinion the AWOL is “working hard and being happy with your kids.” A very simple answer indeed, one can assume that this man has children (obviously) so he is most likely talking about his way of life. He continued on by saying, “I’m just thankful I got a job,” and the only bad aspect of America is that “it’s too expensive.” While cost is indeed an issue, there are certainly far more evident problems with our country. He was more concerned with his own economic affairs than the greater picture. Wealth certainly does allow one the leisure to speculate larger issues. When one is struggling just to get by as this man made it seem he was, time is spent on work instead of fervently trying to understand why things are the way they are.
On the other side of this societal rift, there are those who seemed to administer more thought to the subject. When asked “What is the AWOL?” a young, white, male answered mockingly, “A house on one acre, with a trophy wife and two kids.” He almost perfectly characterized the dream of the Hispanic man that I interviewed. His answer is also removed, he isn’t talking about himself, and is instead accurately looking at the greater picture. He continued by saying that “We can’t do what we really want. Nobody cares about your hopes and your dreams, you have to submit to society to get anywhere and go against your dreams in the process.” Becoming a doorman is a perfect example of this, even though that man said that one can do whatever they want, he submitted to the will of society because the painful truth is that the freedom that so many identify with America can only be achieved by working. The Hispanic man that I interviewed was “happy” just have a job while society taunts him with expensive nick nacks. Does American society really look out for these people, or does it just sucker people in with various distractions? This young mans answer to this question is far more thought out, his outlook actually applies to other people, whereas the other two men’s thoughts on the AWOL were almost convoluted and weren’t applicable to the overwhelming majority or even themselves.
Lastly, I interviewed my own mother, a 51 year old, white, middle class, woman who also spoke broadly about the AWOL. She said, “Some people think we are entitled to a certain standard of living even at the cost of others, meaning other nations, and others feel that we aren’t justified in maintaining this state of entitlement.” She talked about other nations outside of the U.S., beyond herself, because the U.S. is not separate from world affairs as many would like to think. The effects of our actions and our government’s actions do affect people, and looking at America in such a simple selfish way can adversely affect us. She also acknowledges the fault that separates these two groups, and not just her own American experience.
The fact is that America is bigger than just you and I. It is more important than being able to succeed and buy a new I pod. Our dreams are overlooked in a society characterized by its capitalistic opportunities for success. By thinking of your neighbors, your co-workers, different social classes, and different countries, we are destined for a more genuinely constructive collective wellbeing. Be it a factor of intelligence, ignorance, education, or limited experience, personal priority in contrast to the collective value is glaringly unbeneficial.
When I first began writing this paper I had a very limited understanding of capitalism. Having studied it's basic framework I feel that I can adequately explain and critique it. To start off our study on Capitalism we read "I Pencil," the story of how a pencil is made and created. From what I could tell, it was about mankind's ignorance to all of the microcosms that make up the crap that we buy. I wrote: The background of products is carelessly overlooked by mankind, and if this persists, before long, our society will fall apart. There are “innumerable antecedents” that we know far to little about to be able to make a decision to buy a product. Nothing can be overlooked for each element in a products production is as significant as another. There is no-one in charge who actually knows where heir product, in its entirety, came from, and neither do the consumers who buy them so we do not have any right to use them. If one was aware of the origin of the products they so relish, then they would see why not to use them. Remove government obstacles and have faith that free people will make the right decisions.
At a glance I noticed the land labor and capital in this brief soliloquy. After reading it a second time, I noticed that it was condemning more than just capitalism, but government as well. This absence of any master-mind, any all knowing director of this process of product creation, show that no-one, not the owners, not the labor, not the consumer, knows of every collaborating element that leads to the creation of a product. If anyone was aware of all the blood, sweat tears, and corruption that goes into making a product they would certainly not buy it. Thinking about it further, I noticed that government creates obstacles that require us to use these products that we know nothing about. Fro example indecent exposure laws require us to wear clothing, and work and school force people to commute(cars, bicycles)> Having all these ideas thrown at me I saw that the pencil was describing anarchy, or total lack of government and market.
I believe that I may have lost sight of the true intention of the article which was supposedly to promote capitalism, but this was just my initial interpretation. Regardless of the actual intent of the author this helped to foster a negative outlook on capitalism. But I did not yet fully understand the system and all of my analysis was simply blind criticism. After briefly researching Capitalism I found there to be certain virtues in it's structure. Capitalism promotes economic growth and gives people the incentive to work harder. This pursuit of success can bring around technological innovations. Capitalism is largely controlled by market forces, where the government is hypothetically less involved. It can also strengthen foreign relations through company controlled trading through the free market. It also lacks a centralized system of coordination so ideally everyone living in a capitalist society everyone works together and is not controlled by some higher power. Governmental manipulation of capitalism can result in market distortions such as shortages and surplus’, thus it is a system controlled largely by the citizens themselves, which I find to be virtuous.
Of course, this is only in an ideal situation; most systems are set up with the hope that they will thrive, but often discount the necessary human element. People aren't robots, at least not by nature, but the system always manipulates people and their outlook on the world. Since there is no one archetypal man there are bound to be variations that will lead to it's downfall.
The traditional definition of capitalism is: An economic system based on private property and the profit motive in which goods and services are produced distributed and consumed through markets. Capitalism promotes economic growth and gives people the incentive to work harder. This pursuit of success can bring around technological innovations. Capitalism is largely controlled by market forces, where the government is hypothetically less involved. It can also strengthen foreign relations through company controlled trading through the free market. It also lacks a centralized system of coordination so ideally everyone living in a capitalist society works together and is not controlled by some higher power. Governmental manipulation of capitalism can result in market distortions such as shortages and surplus', thus it is a system controlled largely by the citizens themselves.
For example, if the government initialized price control in a time of price gouging, the companies would be charged more to reduce the risk of large business owners taking advantage of their customers in a time of distress. It sounds all peachy and good, but in doing this the company will import less of their product which would cause a shortage in that type of product. Lets say the government placed price control on water filtration and bottling companies. The results could be disastrous.
In an odd situation a company could use a product shortage to their advantage. Take for instance, the Nintendo Wii. Nintendo intentionally sent out fewer Wii consoles than they knew people would buy, thus, making the public aware of the shortage. "If the Wii's are selling that quickly then they must be good." In doing this they made people want to buy it more. One could say that people always want what they cannot have. This is not necessarily bad, but in a way it is manipulative
However, government intervention of capitalism has it's own benefits. In a capitalist system where there is no regulation, companies can take advantage of their customers and abuse their power. In the case of the Lehman brothers, some of the individuals owning the company Had the government intervened and disallowed them absolute control of the company, it is more likely that this huge economic crisis would not have happened. By forming companies that more closely resemble the check and balance system that runs the American government, one could deprive people like the Lehman brothers of such power.
The defining aspects of capitalism are the land, labor, and capital. The land is the most important aspect of capitalism, for it provides companies the raw materials to make anything. The labor is obvious, it is all of the work that goes into the creation and distribution of a product. Lastly, Capital is what one uses to transfer the raw materials into the product, and the money or tools to make profit. (ex: a factory, money, etc…). The second most basic aspect of understanding capitalism is supply and demand. Supply is the availability of a commodity at all prices, and demand is the amount purchased of a commodity at all prices. The point at which the lines intersect is the equilibrium price, a situation in which prices are stable. If America were to encounter a shortage of some sort, the supply would reduce, and the demand would stay the same, but the product would be much less available. If there were a surplus, there would be an excess of a product and the demand still would not change. However if demand increases then a company may be forced to increase their supply or increase their prices to make more profit for less. This seldom happens with companies that sell commodities (a product that is perfectly substitutable) because they do not have the same demand as monopolies (companies that supply the only available of certain type of product. Ex: Electricity, Mac's, etc…).Commodities are forced to compete with each other, often resulting in a decrease in price which would provide the company with less profit. Monopolies on the other hand are able charge whatever price they want because they have no competition.
In a capitalist society we are all turning gears in this clockwork mess, and without equal contribution of each element, society would fall apart. This system does not start anywhere in particular, but begins due to a mutual agreement amongst peoples of one nation to organize society as such. As if guided by an invisible hand we follow through with the principal of capitalism out of self interest. It is here that the gears of the clock start turning, and the capitalist system begins. Workers sell their land labor and capital to the factor market where the factors of production are sold to the businesses. Those businesses sell the goods and services that we have generated to the product market where it is finally bought by the workers who initially created it. We as the workers are equally important to the cycle as the businesses for without workers, who would sell the land labor and capital. Not only are we part of the product creation, but part of the cycle of wealth. The product market buys goods and services from the businesses resulting in profit which is then spent on paying for more factors of production generated by the factor market. The factor market receives it's land labor and capital from the workers which supplies the workers with income so they can buy from the product market.
Seeing that one of the main factors of capitalism is the profit motive, people desperately try to make more and more money. Companies will do just about anything to make more money, even, in a majority of situations, use cheap foreign labor so that they spend less on the actual creation of the product while drastically overcharging the consumer so that they can make more profit. The fact is, Americans are expensive labor whereas a little Chinese boy charges far less for the same quantity of work.
The companies themselves have their own cycle through which they gain greater wealth. They start with their initial profit, which they save so that they can later invest in capital (advertisement, product upgrades) which produces greater profit. The company saves that up which creates even greater wealth. Because many large companies use cheap foreign labor it boosts their overall profit.
Thank goodness that cheap labor isn't our only connection with foreign nations. Buying products from other countries can actually reduce price. We buy most of our fruit from foreign countries, not because the labor is cheaper, but because other countries have environments that are more suitable for certain fruits. If fruit trade was cut between foreign countries then many fruits would be far more far more expensive. Seeing that our environment does not suit the agricultural needs of all types of fruits, it would be far more difficult and expensive to farm foreign plants. That is the reason why organic fruit is so expensive. The only way that a piece of fruit could survive a trip across the ocean is with pesticides and other preservatives. By buying from other countries we save ourselves money, but increase our reliance on other countries to do things for us. This is the origin of American arrogance; we can supposedly afford to pay others to do things for us while we just sit back and do nothing. Our country is the big cheese, the big fat capitalist that sits back while others do all of his work for him even though they could very well survive without him.
The system is very flawed and inherently evil; the constant development of the system practically forces people into becoming cut-throat, money grubbing, zombies that will do anything to get what they want. It obviously needs changes. But of course, behind such a powerful system people are bound to set up boundaries to ensure that it will thrive. Thanks to people like Ben Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, it is now nearly impossible to make any radical change to the system without having a general strike. We could decide to change our system of government at any time, but since Capitalism is a vacuum that sucks all of humanity into it most Americans would not willingly give consent to change the system.
To answer this question I interviewed several people, several strangers I picked randomly off the street, and a few people that I know personally. In order to put a perspective on the information and avoid nebulous speculation, I formed two groups in which these people fit, sadly it seems that in reality people are very polarized in what they find as important about the AWOL. There are those who look at the AWOL as a bigger picture and those who personalized the AWOL ( Live with the illusion of the American Way of life).
One of the first people I interviewed was a 50 or 60 year old, white, doorman. He seemed quite enamored with the American way of life, saying that it was essentially the ability to do whatever one wants. I don't recall ever hearing of an aspiring doorman. Unless this man was the one exception and he really did dream of becoming a doorman as a child, his characterization of the AWOL exhibits a lack of large-scale thought. He also seemed fixated on the practical aspects of the AWOL in comparison to the larger picture. He seemed far more invested in his own personal wellbeing than that of the country he so readily supported.
Another person that I interviewed, a middle aged, Hispanic, working class man, with paint-covered clothing, who followed suit with the doorman. In his opinion the AWOL is “working hard and being happy with your kids.” A very simple answer indeed, one can assume that this man has children (obviously) so he is most likely talking about his way of life. He continued on by saying, “I’m just thankful I got a job,” and the only bad aspect of America is that “it’s too expensive.” While cost is indeed an issue, there are certainly far more evident problems with our country. He was more concerned with his own economic affairs than the greater picture. Wealth certainly does allow one the leisure to speculate larger issues. When one is struggling just to get by as this man made it seem he was, time is spent on work instead of fervently trying to understand why things are the way they are.
On the other side of this societal rift, there are those who seemed to administer more thought to the subject. When asked “What is the AWOL?” a young, white, male answered mockingly, “A house on one acre, with a trophy wife and two kids.” He almost perfectly characterized the dream of the Hispanic man that I interviewed. His answer is also removed, he isn’t talking about himself, and is instead accurately looking at the greater picture. He continued by saying that “We can’t do what we really want. Nobody cares about your hopes and your dreams, you have to submit to society to get anywhere and go against your dreams in the process.” Becoming a doorman is a perfect example of this, even though that man said that one can do whatever they want, he submitted to the will of society because the painful truth is that the freedom that so many identify with America can only be achieved by working. The Hispanic man that I interviewed was “happy” just have a job while society taunts him with expensive nick nacks. Does American society really look out for these people, or does it just sucker people in with various distractions? This young mans answer to this question is far more thought out, his outlook actually applies to other people, whereas the other two men’s thoughts on the AWOL were almost convoluted and weren’t applicable to the overwhelming majority or even themselves.
Lastly, I interviewed my own mother, a 51 year old, white, middle class, woman who also spoke broadly about the AWOL. She said, “Some people think we are entitled to a certain standard of living even at the cost of others, meaning other nations, and others feel that we aren’t justified in maintaining this state of entitlement.” She talked about other nations outside of the U.S., beyond herself, because the U.S. is not separate from world affairs as many would like to think. The effects of our actions and our government’s actions do affect people, and looking at America in such a simple selfish way can adversely affect us. She also acknowledges the fault that separates these two groups, and not just her own American experience.
The fact is that America is bigger than just you and I. It is more important than being able to succeed and buy a new I pod. Our dreams are overlooked in a society characterized by its capitalistic opportunities for success. By thinking of your neighbors, your co-workers, different social classes, and different countries, we are destined for a more genuinely constructive collective wellbeing. Be it a factor of intelligence, ignorance, education, or limited experience, personal priority in contrast to the collective value is glaringly unbeneficial.
When I first began writing this paper I had a very limited understanding of capitalism. Having studied it's basic framework I feel that I can adequately explain and critique it. To start off our study on Capitalism we read "I Pencil," the story of how a pencil is made and created. From what I could tell, it was about mankind's ignorance to all of the microcosms that make up the crap that we buy. I wrote: The background of products is carelessly overlooked by mankind, and if this persists, before long, our society will fall apart. There are “innumerable antecedents” that we know far to little about to be able to make a decision to buy a product. Nothing can be overlooked for each element in a products production is as significant as another. There is no-one in charge who actually knows where heir product, in its entirety, came from, and neither do the consumers who buy them so we do not have any right to use them. If one was aware of the origin of the products they so relish, then they would see why not to use them. Remove government obstacles and have faith that free people will make the right decisions.
At a glance I noticed the land labor and capital in this brief soliloquy. After reading it a second time, I noticed that it was condemning more than just capitalism, but government as well. This absence of any master-mind, any all knowing director of this process of product creation, show that no-one, not the owners, not the labor, not the consumer, knows of every collaborating element that leads to the creation of a product. If anyone was aware of all the blood, sweat tears, and corruption that goes into making a product they would certainly not buy it. Thinking about it further, I noticed that government creates obstacles that require us to use these products that we know nothing about. Fro example indecent exposure laws require us to wear clothing, and work and school force people to commute(cars, bicycles)> Having all these ideas thrown at me I saw that the pencil was describing anarchy, or total lack of government and market.
I believe that I may have lost sight of the true intention of the article which was supposedly to promote capitalism, but this was just my initial interpretation. Regardless of the actual intent of the author this helped to foster a negative outlook on capitalism. But I did not yet fully understand the system and all of my analysis was simply blind criticism. After briefly researching Capitalism I found there to be certain virtues in it's structure. Capitalism promotes economic growth and gives people the incentive to work harder. This pursuit of success can bring around technological innovations. Capitalism is largely controlled by market forces, where the government is hypothetically less involved. It can also strengthen foreign relations through company controlled trading through the free market. It also lacks a centralized system of coordination so ideally everyone living in a capitalist society everyone works together and is not controlled by some higher power. Governmental manipulation of capitalism can result in market distortions such as shortages and surplus’, thus it is a system controlled largely by the citizens themselves, which I find to be virtuous.
Of course, this is only in an ideal situation; most systems are set up with the hope that they will thrive, but often discount the necessary human element. People aren't robots, at least not by nature, but the system always manipulates people and their outlook on the world. Since there is no one archetypal man there are bound to be variations that will lead to it's downfall.
The traditional definition of capitalism is: An economic system based on private property and the profit motive in which goods and services are produced distributed and consumed through markets. Capitalism promotes economic growth and gives people the incentive to work harder. This pursuit of success can bring around technological innovations. Capitalism is largely controlled by market forces, where the government is hypothetically less involved. It can also strengthen foreign relations through company controlled trading through the free market. It also lacks a centralized system of coordination so ideally everyone living in a capitalist society works together and is not controlled by some higher power. Governmental manipulation of capitalism can result in market distortions such as shortages and surplus', thus it is a system controlled largely by the citizens themselves.
For example, if the government initialized price control in a time of price gouging, the companies would be charged more to reduce the risk of large business owners taking advantage of their customers in a time of distress. It sounds all peachy and good, but in doing this the company will import less of their product which would cause a shortage in that type of product. Lets say the government placed price control on water filtration and bottling companies. The results could be disastrous.
In an odd situation a company could use a product shortage to their advantage. Take for instance, the Nintendo Wii. Nintendo intentionally sent out fewer Wii consoles than they knew people would buy, thus, making the public aware of the shortage. "If the Wii's are selling that quickly then they must be good." In doing this they made people want to buy it more. One could say that people always want what they cannot have. This is not necessarily bad, but in a way it is manipulative
However, government intervention of capitalism has it's own benefits. In a capitalist system where there is no regulation, companies can take advantage of their customers and abuse their power. In the case of the Lehman brothers, some of the individuals owning the company Had the government intervened and disallowed them absolute control of the company, it is more likely that this huge economic crisis would not have happened. By forming companies that more closely resemble the check and balance system that runs the American government, one could deprive people like the Lehman brothers of such power.
The defining aspects of capitalism are the land, labor, and capital. The land is the most important aspect of capitalism, for it provides companies the raw materials to make anything. The labor is obvious, it is all of the work that goes into the creation and distribution of a product. Lastly, Capital is what one uses to transfer the raw materials into the product, and the money or tools to make profit. (ex: a factory, money, etc…). The second most basic aspect of understanding capitalism is supply and demand. Supply is the availability of a commodity at all prices, and demand is the amount purchased of a commodity at all prices. The point at which the lines intersect is the equilibrium price, a situation in which prices are stable. If America were to encounter a shortage of some sort, the supply would reduce, and the demand would stay the same, but the product would be much less available. If there were a surplus, there would be an excess of a product and the demand still would not change. However if demand increases then a company may be forced to increase their supply or increase their prices to make more profit for less. This seldom happens with companies that sell commodities (a product that is perfectly substitutable) because they do not have the same demand as monopolies (companies that supply the only available of certain type of product. Ex: Electricity, Mac's, etc…).Commodities are forced to compete with each other, often resulting in a decrease in price which would provide the company with less profit. Monopolies on the other hand are able charge whatever price they want because they have no competition.
In a capitalist society we are all turning gears in this clockwork mess, and without equal contribution of each element, society would fall apart. This system does not start anywhere in particular, but begins due to a mutual agreement amongst peoples of one nation to organize society as such. As if guided by an invisible hand we follow through with the principal of capitalism out of self interest. It is here that the gears of the clock start turning, and the capitalist system begins. Workers sell their land labor and capital to the factor market where the factors of production are sold to the businesses. Those businesses sell the goods and services that we have generated to the product market where it is finally bought by the workers who initially created it. We as the workers are equally important to the cycle as the businesses for without workers, who would sell the land labor and capital. Not only are we part of the product creation, but part of the cycle of wealth. The product market buys goods and services from the businesses resulting in profit which is then spent on paying for more factors of production generated by the factor market. The factor market receives it's land labor and capital from the workers which supplies the workers with income so they can buy from the product market.
Seeing that one of the main factors of capitalism is the profit motive, people desperately try to make more and more money. Companies will do just about anything to make more money, even, in a majority of situations, use cheap foreign labor so that they spend less on the actual creation of the product while drastically overcharging the consumer so that they can make more profit. The fact is, Americans are expensive labor whereas a little Chinese boy charges far less for the same quantity of work.
The companies themselves have their own cycle through which they gain greater wealth. They start with their initial profit, which they save so that they can later invest in capital (advertisement, product upgrades) which produces greater profit. The company saves that up which creates even greater wealth. Because many large companies use cheap foreign labor it boosts their overall profit.
Thank goodness that cheap labor isn't our only connection with foreign nations. Buying products from other countries can actually reduce price. We buy most of our fruit from foreign countries, not because the labor is cheaper, but because other countries have environments that are more suitable for certain fruits. If fruit trade was cut between foreign countries then many fruits would be far more far more expensive. Seeing that our environment does not suit the agricultural needs of all types of fruits, it would be far more difficult and expensive to farm foreign plants. That is the reason why organic fruit is so expensive. The only way that a piece of fruit could survive a trip across the ocean is with pesticides and other preservatives. By buying from other countries we save ourselves money, but increase our reliance on other countries to do things for us. This is the origin of American arrogance; we can supposedly afford to pay others to do things for us while we just sit back and do nothing. Our country is the big cheese, the big fat capitalist that sits back while others do all of his work for him even though they could very well survive without him.
The system is very flawed and inherently evil; the constant development of the system practically forces people into becoming cut-throat, money grubbing, zombies that will do anything to get what they want. It obviously needs changes. But of course, behind such a powerful system people are bound to set up boundaries to ensure that it will thrive. Thanks to people like Ben Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, it is now nearly impossible to make any radical change to the system without having a general strike. We could decide to change our system of government at any time, but since Capitalism is a vacuum that sucks all of humanity into it most Americans would not willingly give consent to change the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)