Watch the video, Deadly Deception, how could this happen? What are your thoughts and feelings related to this video? Discuss with the Tuskegee Experiment in relation to the ethical principles described in Chapter 5 (Polit & Beck). Please share your reflection on Deadly Deception.
In this course, we discussed how Orientalism-prejudiced interpretations of the Eastern world are still reproduced by outsiders, guests, and travelers in contemporary Southeast Asia. While we observed that insiders, hosts, and residents at the Ahka hill tribe village in Thailand or a shooting range in Cambodia, among others also contributed to reinforce such a gaze toward uncivilized Southeast Asia. describe how the two way mutual reinforcement of prejudices can occur.
Is low-involvement learning really widespread? Which products are most affected by low-involvement learning? Be sure to respond to at least one of your classmates’ posts. Part2 short response one student below is low-involvement learning really widespread? Yes. Low-involvement learning is described as a method of learning new product/brand knowledge without actively participating in the process. Low-involvement learning is likely quite common, but it’s difficult to prove. Low-involvement learning is most likely to influence products that are heavily marketed but in which most individuals have little attention. Low-involvement products, as the name indicates, do not require the customer to think too deeply before making a purchase. Low-involvement purchases provide less risk, allowing for quicker decision-making. Products that are purchased on a regular basis with little thinking and effort since they are not of critical importance or have a significant influence on the consumer’s lifestyle. Which products are most affected by low-involvement learning?
Globalisation is a highly contested subject and invites many definitions and interpretations. Economics, politics, sociology, business studies among other academic disciplines can offer insights into the globalisation process, but none alone can explain it. The approach taken by this module is that of International Political Economy (IPE). It seeks to understand globalisation as a ‘totality’; an ‘epochal shift’ within capitalism, which transforms virtually everything we do and experience. This perspective puts emphasis on the historical background of globalisation, which in economic terms is principally associated with the deregulation of international finance, a technological revolution and the transnationalisation of production processes. Such developments are complemented and facilitated by ideological, political and social changes that have taken place since the post-war era; principally through the rise of neo-liberalism and the collapse of Soviet style communism in the 1970s.
These socio-political and economic trends have served to open up the world to market forces on different scales of action: local, national and transnational. In this environment there appears to be a shift of power away from the nation-state towards an external community of international financiers, multinational corporations (MNCs) and multilateral agencies, as well as internally towards the private and third sectors within one country and their links to transnational networks. To its advocates, globalisation represents the unshackling of the logic of capitalism and market forces, their ascendancy into a supreme and inevitable world system with the state playing a very narrow economic role. To its detractors, it is capitalism in extremis, temporarily unchallenged. Its logic lies not in its existence, but in its necessary demise. Between these two poles there are many intermediate interpretations and shades of opinion.
The relationship between globalisation and democracy is a large and controversial area of debate and there are many possible approaches that can be taken. On the one hand, globalisation advocates argue that market forces and democratic processes are mutually reinforcing. Indeed, it is perhaps unsurprising that the ‘second and third waves’ of democratisation in Latin America and the former communist states in Central and Eastern Europe occurred at the same time as aggressive liberal economic reforms were implemented. On the other hand, critics of globalisation point to the negative impact that neoliberal restructuring has had upon welfare systems and social equality, raising questions about whether social democracy and globalisation are compatible. A key issue is also the idea of a ‘democratic deficit’. As power has shifted away from elected state officials to a range of unelected and unaccountable local, international and transnational actors, the wellbeing and human rights of citizens is inevitably questioned. Whilst there is an increasing disillusionment with formal processes of political participation in certain contexts, there has also been a flourishing of alternative forms of politics (i.e. ‘new social movements’) in response to a wide range of issues and experiences.