Globalization and its Impact on the World Health Crises
Many who speak in favor of economic globalization claim that it has improved the health of the citizenry of the world. They cite the fact that people are living longer and that many infectious diseases are under control. Many important facts have been omitted in this account of economic progress. It fails to note that not all nation states are included in the movement towards globalization. Those that are included have made epidemiological transitions from infectious diseases caused by nature to industrial diseases (cardiovascular diseases and cancer) caused by the commercialization of the food industry. Those nation states that are not included in the globalization process encounter health crises that stem from poverty. This investigation of social change addresses the impact that globalization has on these nation states what are left out of the economic system. Ways of resolving the health problems cause by economic poverty are discussed and special focus is given to Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) on health.
MERCOSUR: The Regional State of South America
In the economic arena of globalization, scholars often speak of countries that have joined together economically to form economic alliances. These usually include NAFTA and the EU, but almost never MERCOSUR. This is unfortunate as MERCOSUR is developing into a major economic bloc. Its impact on the global economy is no longer limited to South America. Just how MERCOSUR differs, for example, from NAFTA and from the EU is the focus of this essay. Some of the problems that remain among the members of this regional state are discussed. However, it is argued that the significance of MERCOSUR as a global network is that it has moved well beyond being a regional state. It has created alliances with Africa, the EU, and China. It has resisted the attempts by the FTAA to create an economic bloc that would unite the Americas from Canada to Chile. MERCOSUR is well on its way to becoming a network society, but it is a society that aligns itself with those that have been disenfranchised by the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF.
Habitus and Communication Theory
There is a long tradition of explication and explanation among social scientists between theoria and praxis. For most communication scholars (Stevenson, 2002), this tradition began with Karl Marx (1845, 1971) and was revised by Althuser (1977). Habermas (1981, 1983), and Fiske (1987, 1989) and challenged by Baudrillard (1970, 1989). Recently, these concepts have been revised once more by Pierre Bourdieu (1963, 1977, 1979 and Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). The purpose of this essay is to introduce the concepts of Habitus and field and to draw attention to its implications for communication theory. This journey begins with Plato (Cornford, 1957a, 1957b) and his concept of the eternal world of ideal forms. It continues with the Aristotelian concept of the four causes that was embraced by Hegel and revised by Marx. This investigation ends with the writings of Pierre Bourdieu and his concept of social hegemony as evidenced in the Field and his concept of the embodiment of experience as social Habitus as the foundations for social thought.