Professor's Overview of Module The reading from the book for this lesson (Bowe pp. 185 to the end) continues the story of Saipan, an island in the Northern Mariana Islands in the south Pacific, south of Japan. Saipan is officially considered a "Commonwealth" of the United States, meaning that it is a U.S. possession with limited rights of self-government. (A more familiar island with a similar status is Puerto Rico; many would call these islands "colonies" of the U.S., although the U.S. government denies this label because of its 19th Century connotation of imperialism.) While Saipan is covered by most U.S. laws, it is exempt from U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws, and there are no tariffs on goods imported from it because it is considered part of the United States. Back when there were quotas by country on imported garments to the U.S., the island's status as "part of the U.S." made it a magnet for garment manufacturers, and soon that industry became the island's largest industry. The garment industry primarily hired Chinese and Filipino workers, as well a some others (South Korean, Bangladeshi, Thai, etc.) Natives generally got "no show" government jobs at 3-4 times the wages given to immigrants. In the reading (and in a video for this lesson), you will meet a cast of characters who played a role in the type of labor conditions prevalent in the Saipan garment industry: Willie Tan (notorious garment manufacturer), Alan Stayman (U.S. government official trying to better the worker's conditions), Pamela Brown (same as Stayman), U.S. Congressman and House minority whip Tom DeLay (ensuring Saipan's status quo remained the same), and lobbyist Jack Abramoff (backing up DeLay by lobbying other U.S. Congressional figures). Pay attention to these people as you read, and as you watch the video. As related in the reading, labor relations on Saipan were relatively unregulated compared to the United States. Wages could be much lower, since U.S. minimum wage did not apply. And enforcement of other labor regulations was lax or non-existent, making the island a relatively deregulated (or unregulated) place where market relations for the most part governed how workers were treated. Author John Bowe notes that those on the libertarian right of the political spectrum (The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, many "conservative" thinkers and politicians) thus saw Saipan as a "free market" paradise and an example of what should be done around the world in order to get the government out of business affairs -- minimal government (except for military and police functions) with market relationships determining all else. Yet the picture painted by Bowe is not a pretty one: rampant corruption, exploitation and misuse of garment workers, racism primarily against the Chinese, widespread prostitution, enormous inequalities, heavy drug usage, high crime, etc. As you do the reading, consider whether the Saipan experience is a valid test of the libertarian "free market" ideology -- clearly, leading spokespersons for this perspective thought it was (Cato Institute, for example), but other libertarians might disagree. If it is, it paints a very poor picture of what a deregulated, market-determined world would look like for workers (extreme inequalities, few protections for workers, etc.) But, as is always the case, think the issues through for yourself and carefully and respectfully consider all possible arguments. (It might, for example, be that Saipan does not tarnish the libertarian outlook -- certainly some libertarians would argue that to be true. For example, maybe the situation of the immigrant workers was not deregulated enough -- it should have gone even further.) I am not arguing any particular political point of view here -- simply trying to get you to think carefully and to reason carefully, whatever your conclusions. In addition to the above "theme" about the merits or demerits of small government and deregulated labor markets, there are several others you should pay attention to as you do the reading: 1) The effects on the native population of the two-tiered system of labor markets (one for natives, an inferior one for immigrants). (Bowe finds it to be harmful even to the natives -- "solipsism" or aimlessness, obesity, diabetes, high drug usage, etc. Does he make his case?) 2) The theme of corruption (the island government, DeLay and Abramoff, dubbed "Team DeLaybramoff"). Does this type of unregulated largely market-based economy encourage or facilitate such corruption, or is there no real connection between the two? 3) The racism against the Chinese. Is this likely under a system where different nationalities (or "races") are officially given such extremely unequal economic status? Or is that not a valid connection? 4) the impact of the 2004 end of the quota system in garments -- disappearance of garment manufacturing in Saipan; 5) the nature of sexual relations on Saipan, and why Bowe believes that they are a reflection of, and basically created by, the degraded labor relations atmosphere on the island (see "the crummy bedrock fact that women needed citizenship and guys needed to get laid."); 6) Bowe's ambivalence about the place despite his criticisms (the Ms magazine article, which he considered unfair is an example); and 7) the conditions of, and the reasons for, the many Chinese prostitutes on the island. The Conclusion delivers the essence of Bowe's thinking on the cases he examines in this book. The conclusion is largely an argument with his father-in-law, a committed libertarian who strongly supports the type of corporate-led globalization that is now occurring. Pay very close attention to the arguments on both sides: Charlie's optimism about economic growth and lack of concern about growing inequality, and Bowe's fears about domination by corporations and the wealthy and inability to condone the world's massive inequalities. I hope from this reading you get a good sense of the strengths of both arguments on each side. It is an important debate, because the future in many important respects depends on who is right. A supplement to the reading on Saipan is a TV program on Jack Abramhoff and Tom Delay, which includes material on Saipan. Please "Google"s the terms "Bill Moyers" and "Capitol Crimes" on the Worldwide web to get to this program. View the 4 part video, "Capitol Crimes" -- it gives you a visual on a number of the players in the reading, Alan Stayman, Willie Tan, Abramoff and Delay, Pamela Brown, etc. It provides more "depth" to the reading for this module. The second reading for this lesson comes from an article in the New York Times by well-known Princeton University philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah. (You can access this essay by downloading the attachment to this Module. If there is no attachment -- sometimes the Blackboard course designers fail to get it attached properly -- you can easily access this article on the worldwide web by simply "Googling" the words "Anthony Appiah" and "The Case for Contamination"). Appiah, whose father is Ghanaian and whose mother is English, was born in London but grew up in Ghana. In this article and in a book on the same topic, Appiah, argues for a particular ethical outlook in relation to the globalization of our world and the global economy. He labels this ethical outlook "cosmopolitanism." On the basis of the cosmopolitan outlook, Appiah favors what he calls "contamination" of cultures -- that is, intermingling and mixing of cultures through the globalization process. Basically Appiah is quite positive about globalization as it is occurring, and he argues strongly against those who fear its impact, particularly its effect on the lesser developed peoples and cultures of the world. Appiah writes exceptionally clearly, so there is little need for me to explicate much on his essay. What I do want you to do, as always, is to utilize your critical faculties while reading the essay. Because he is such a good writer, and because one's initial reaction to the basic values he espouses are likely to be quite positive, most of you will probably find yourselves agreeing with everything he writes at first contact. That may be, and perhaps should be, your final assessment also, but I want you to think critically about his perspective and subject it to a stringent examination before you accept it totally. Appiah writes that to be a cosmopolitan is to see oneself as a "citizen of the world." The cosmopolitan ethic is one of individual freedom, tolerance, pluralism, and "fallibilism" (the understanding that our knowledge is "fallible" or only partial and uncertain.) Freedom, tolerance, pluralism, and modesty about one's own absolute hold on the truth are all attitudes that are widely popular in our society. Certainly, their opposites (despotism, intolerance, insistence on total uniformity without deviation, and an arrogant certainly about our own "truths") have little appeal to most of us. So, there seem to be many fine aspects to the ethical posture advocated by Appiah. He believes that if one holds this ethical viewpoint, one must arrive at his next conclusion, which is that we should favor the "contamination" of different unique cultures by others through the globalization process. Here, he needs to establish a number of factual claims about the world (e.g., that dominant cultures such as those exported by powerful capitalist countries like the U.S. do not overwhelm the native cultures of underdeveloped countries and peoples). Pay close attention to his arguments, and think carefully about whether they accurately encompass the realities of our globalized world. Some would say they do; others would say they do not. In the end, you should be able to subject his defense of contamination to "real world" tests, such as the examples of globalization we have experienced in this course. Your ability (or inability) to apply Appiah's perspective to examples we've covered in this course will be a test of whether or not you have mastered the perspective he is promoting.