Complexity

Over the last few decades, the concept of the sustainability of modern society has been widely discussed by policy makers, scholars, and scientists around the world. They have been investigating whether human’s ability to maintain short-term resilience and long-term sustainability of this fragile planet has been scaled down by series of environmental and societal stresses those are beyond human’s control (Espinosa and Walker 2011). As humans are the most complex living thing on Earth, with elite brains, complex evolutionary history and our societies are complex system. With such complexity surrounded, humans have to explain the world as a more contesting level as it was in the past.  The old models are failing to investigate human-environment relationships because they usually discount complexity, disregard individual-level information, or fail to integrate multi-scale or interdisciplinary. Therefore, these approaches will result in a great loss and inaccurate in predictive or explanatory power (Kyke 1993). This paper will discuss fascinating opportunities offered by understandings of complexity, system and scale to assist the evaluation of sustainability issue via the case study of Easter Island.

The word complexity was coined base on two Latin words “com” (together), and “plectere” (entwine) (Kyke 1993). Sanders (2003) states that complexity is a science that helps to analyse a growing body with interdisciplinary information about its organization, and behaviour, in which components are strongly interconnected, self-organise, and dynamic. To have a complex, there must be two or more separate parts those have to be connected in a way they cannot be detached. Therefore, when analysing a complex, it is necessary to use an approach that sustains the parts and the connectivity of the parts (Heylighen et. al 2007). Furthermore, dynamic of changes in an explicit component would result in a complex adaptive system. Elements in complex adaptive system are not only interact and respond to the environment but also have complex interactions with others in order to fulfil the purpose of the system. Examples of complex adaptive system are widespread and appear in both natural and human environment, such as rain forests, immune system, stock market, and economy. Dare and Dodder (2000, p 8) define complexity as ‘complex and patterned output arises from simple, fundamental principles, but requires many actors and multiple interactions over time to produce the emergent complexity.’ From Sanders and Dare and Doddder’s definitions, it is obvious that none of the definitions give mutually exclusive idea. However, these two definitions can result in ambiguity and a tendency to understand systems as complex in a slightly chaotic manner.

Complexity is quite a new approach that has become popular for the last 25 years. As high speed computing, computer graphics, remote sensing, and nanotechnology have been developed rapidly, humans need a new approach to understand this complex world. Complexity has been introduced as a new approach which has replaced the opposite approach “reductionism” that was a very popular philosophy of science during the 1950s (Kyke 1993) (analyse a system by only looking at individual elements, interactions are ignored). The story of Easter Island in the 17^th century is a model for societal collapse when natural resources are exploited. Hunt (2006) debates that Easter Island’s story is much more complex than normal discussion of collapse. When take the island and its people to analyse a more complex set of problems, we can start by looking at the island and its people as components of a system.

The concept of system has been understood as ‘an entity that maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts’ (von Bertanlanffy 1968). System is a collection of interconnected components with a purpose that operate together to generate a coherent whole. Systems have emergent properties means the behaviour of the system is different from the properties of each individual components (Moore 2011). Tracing back to Easter Island where it is a small island in a group of Polynesia Islands, there are a lot of components to the island and its societies, hence if an individual part of a culture fails, other parts do not disappear. However, if a social or ecological threshold is passed, the system will operate differently where some parts of the original system will become extinct and the interaction between components of the new system will be different. As there were a lot of interactions between parts or components on Easter Island, this story becomes complex where there are numerous of variables in operation (Bender et. al 2011). For example, rats and smallpox were introduced by European when they came for trading goods, or slave trading ships that scaled down the population of Easter Island by sending Rapa Nui people overseas as slaves (Munro 1997). Drawing a boundary around a system can also assist us to understand what are in a complex system. When evaluating sustainability of Easter Island, there is numerous ways to draw the boundary, for example we can draw a boundary around Rapa Nui society, or around the whole island. As Bender et. al (2011) argues that the boundary is moveable, so it is critical to pinpoint and consider the boundary wisely. It is not enough to evaluate the sustainability of Easter Island by just using reductionism approach to understand Easter Island because we just focus on a single aspect. Sustainability in complex system cannot be obtained if we just focus on achieving sustainability for each individual element. This is because sustainability in a complex system is something that is conditioned to co-evolute with its sub-systems. Therefore, it is very misleading to state that overwhelming deforestation is the reason for Easter Island societal collapse.

As mentioned, boundary is moveable and there is a spatial and temporal element that affects the identification of system’s boundary. Therefore, it is important to understand whether Easter Island would collapse or cultivate if all that was sustained was the palm forest. Sneddon et. al (2002) states ‘The importance of thinking about scale in the study of human-environment relations cannot be overstated; it is one of the central problems of ecology … and of the most vexing concepts in social theory ….’ Furthering this statement, when study human-environment relationship (which is important to support the idea of sustainability), it is important to consider scale because it is one of the most critical and problematic concepts in ecological and social studies. Choosing different scales are like adjusting the focal length of a camera in which we can observe a problem in a macro and micro point of view as we cannot understand a problem when we cannot see it. Therefore, scale can open fascinating opportunities to discover new characteristics of a system, hence new and innovative solutions can be found to achieve sustainability. When consider Easter Island as a system (complex), we need to evaluate how this island could be nourished physically and spiritually. As we change the focal length of the camera to look at the palm forest from which the Rapa Nui constructed their built environment. It is questionable that how these systems and their components become sustainable. For instance, what was the sustainable way to nourish the palm forest on Easter Island and how sustainable was the palm forest. Spatial and ecological scale can be used to analyse these question. In the book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” Diamond (2005) discusses how ancient civilisations around the world collapsed by using spatial scale. For example, the Mayan had their forest burned down to cultivate maize, hence serious erosion occurred. As a result, the Maya destroyed the civilisation themselves in which we know as societal collapse. Same story might happen to the Viking on Greenland and it seems to be the same reason that caused Rapa Nui became a barren island. However, the situation on Easter Island is much more complex than the Maya’s or Viking’s. The palm on Easter Island belongs to Jubea Chilensis species - the palm species with the lowest growth rate in the world. Each palm tree needs 40 to 60 years to mature (while other palm tree such as Coconut Palm just needs 7 to 10 years) which were not capable of adapting the needs of Rapa Nui. Therefore, the sustainability issue on Easter Island is not only about deforestation but also the ecological diversity on the island. It is also important to analyse a sustainability issue by looking at temporal scale where we observe how actions in the past can influence the present and future. It is absolutely inadequate when analyse a complex system by looking at the present only because we narrow the temporal boundaries of the system, hence we cannot evaluate how present actions can affect the future (Moore and McLennan 2011). However, applying temporal and spatial scale to Easter Island story is quite struggling because Rapa Nui did not have chances to interact with different civilisations (as they lived in a very remote place) to accumulate experiences. It’s obvious that sustainability is a quality that may appear in any system, however, this term is usually used to mention a very large scale system which incorporates both physical and natural systems.

Stephen Hawking (2000) used to say ‘I think the next century will be the century of complexity’ and it has come to be true where the modern human society are faced with multiple crises and reductionism approach fail to analyse sustainability thoroughly. Therefore, a new approach is needed where it is based on a new prototype, an innovative way of perceiving, and investigating the world. By integrate complexity, scale and system , it is possible to regard individual-level information and multi-scale system. At a result, humans will accumulate a great amount of accurate information in predictive or explanatory power. By using complexity in assist the evaluation of sustainability of Easter Island, it is clear that deforestation is not the only factor that results in societal collapse but also a lot of unexpected issues such as rats and ecological diversity.

Reference List

Bender, H, Judith, K & Beilin, R 2011, ‘Sustainability – A Model for The Future’, in Bender H (ed), Reshaping Environments: Theory and Practice in a Complex World, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 32-49

Dare, R, & Dare, R 2000, Complex Adaptive System and Complexity Theory: Inter-related Knowledge Domains, Massachusetts Institute of Technology pp. 8, Available from: <http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/ComplexityKD.PDF>. [05 June 2012].

Diamond, JM 2005, Collapse : How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed, New York : Viking, 2005., UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE's Catalogue, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 June 2012.

Espinosa, A, & Walker, J 2011, A Complexity Approach To Sustainability [Electronic Resource] : Theory And Application, London : Imperial College Press ; Singapore : Distributed by World Scientific Pub. Co., c2011., UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE's Catalogue, EBSCOhost, [04 June 2012].

Hawking, S 2000, ‘I think the next century will be the century of complexity, San Jose Mercury News, Morning Final Edition, January 23 (2000).

Heylighen, F, Cillers, P, Gerhenson, C 2007, Complexity and Philosophy. In Bogg, J. and R. Geyer (Eds), Complexity, Science and Society, Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford.

Hunt, T. L. 2006. Rethinking of the Fall of Easter Island. American Scientist. 94(September): 412-419.

Kaye, BH 1993, Chaos & Complexity : Discovering The Surprising Patterns Of Science And Technology, Weinheim ; New York : VCH, c1993., UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE's Catalogue, EBSCOhost, [03 June 2012].

Moore, G 2011, ‘System and System Thinking’, in Bender H (ed), Reshaping Environments: Theory and Practice in a Complex World, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 72-85.

Moore, G, McLennan, B 2011, ‘Why scale matters, in Bender H (ed), Reshaping Environments: Theory and Practice in a Complex World, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 86-101.

Munro, D. 1997. Peruvian Slave Trade in the Pacific Islands. In: J Rodgriduez (Ed.), The Historical Encyclopaedia of World Slavery. ABC-CLIO, UK, pp.503-5.

Sanders, T 2003, What is Complexity, Washington Center for Complexity & Public Policy, Available from: < www.complexsys.org/downloads/whatiscomplexity.pdf>. [02 June 2012].

Sneddon, C., L. Harris, R. Dimitrov and U. Ozesmi. 2002, Contested Waters: Conflict, Scale, and Sustainability in Aquatic Socioecological Systems. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 663-675.

Von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory. George Braziller Inc., New York, USA.

You know the business, I know the Chemistry

Trong quá trình tu luyện phim từ xưa đến giờ thì mình thấy hay nhất là 5 bộ phim sau đây


1. Prison Break
2. Dexter
3. Game of Thrones
4. Breaking Bad
5. Sherlock

Mình là mình đánh giá cao Prison Break về độ hồi hộp, ly kì và kịch tính của cốt truyện. Trong khi Dexter thì chú trọng vào điều tra vào những vụ trọng án cực kỳ kịch tính. Nói chung 2 phim này một khi xem là "bị" xem không ngừng nghỉ tại nó đánh trúng trí tò mò của nguời xem. Tại 2 bộ này mà mình mất ăn mất ngủ mấy tuần liền (hên là tòan luyện nhầm lúc đang nghỉ học)

Prison Break

Dexter 

Còn Breaking Bad thì hay là nhờ khai thác xuất sắc nội tâm nhân vật, cảnh quay siêu đẹp và nghệ thuật (visually stunning). Tuy nhiên độ hút của phim này hơi bị chậm (lúc đầu định bỏ giữa chừng nhưng càng về sau thì càng hồi hộp khi nhân vật chính "Breaking Bad") nên nếu chỉ xem vài tập đầu thì chưa cảm nhận đuợc hết. Phải nhâm nhi nó từ từ và nó làm mình bị ghiền lúc nào không biết. Phải nói là nhờ phim này mà mình càng yêu thích môn hóa và cũng học dc. kha khá kiến thức hóa thừ phim này.

Xem xong bộ Dexter thấy Debra và Doakes cứ cắm đầu vào điều tra tung tích của The Trinity, Bay Habour Butcher mà làm mình cứ liên tuởng tới bộ Breaking Bad. Dexter là 1 kẻ giết ngừoi hàng lọat (serial killer) nhưng lại là nhân viên pháp y của sở cảnh sát Miami, có em gái là trung úy (Lieutenant) điều tra án mạng (homicide) và ngừoi cha là 1 cảnh sát kỳ cựu đáng kính. Anh này có khả năng xuất sắc trong việc phân tích kiểm nghiệm máu ,  có thể dựng lại hiện trường vụ án, chuyện gì đã xảy ra từ những vết máu để lại để từ đó cảnh sát có thể truy lùng được tung tích hung thủ. Ban ngày là người làm công lý. Ban đêm, Dexter lại ‘thay trời hành đạo’, đi giết những tên tội phạm mà cảnh sát không thể chạm tay tới được. Cuộc sống tình cảm của Dexter cũng phức tạp không kém. Chính vì thế, những gì anh suy nghĩ thường không phải những gì  Dexter nói và cũng không phải những gì người khác nghĩ về anh, cũng như người xem có thể đoán về anh (phim này làm theo kiểu độc thoại nội tâm). Dexter bị rối loạn thần kinh đa nhân cách - sociopath (tại hổi nhỏ chứng kiến mẹ mình bị chém chết truớc mắt nên bị ám ảnh tới giờ) nhưng có tính kỷ luật rất cao. Khỏi phải nói, em gái và cha của Dexter là 2 cảnh sát cực kỳ giỏi nhưng mà Dexter luôn luôn ung dung ngòai vòng pháp luật. Cứ mỗi season thì anh này giết chừng 5-7 mạng (may mà giết tòan ngừoi xấu đáng chết) . Còn trong Breaking Bad (dịch nôm na là "Trở thành ngừoi xấu) thì ông Walter White, là giáo viên dạy hóa cấp 3 sống ở Albuquerque, New Mexico. Có em rể là 1 đặc vụ DEA (cục phòng chống ma túy) và 1 thằng con trai bị bại não (celebral palsy). Ổng đuợc chuẩn đóan ung thư phổi gian đọan cuối và may ra thì sống đuợc chừng 2 năm nữa. Không có tiền chữa bệnh cũng như không muốn nhờ cậy ngừoi khác và muốn đảm bảo tuơng lai cho gia đình, ông này và 1 thằng học trò cũ [chuyên buôn bán ma túy đá (crystal methamphetamine) nhưng chất luợng không đuợc tốt lắm] đã cùng nhau hợp tác điều chế ra 1 loại ma túy đá mới, có thể nói là tinh khiết nhất trên thị truờng (tinh khiết đến 99%). Nói thêm là ông này tốt nghiệp California Institute of Technology (Caltech), giúp 1 ngừoi bạn đọat giải Nobel hóa học nhưng bị đá đểu nên quê quá cuốn gói về quê làm giáo viên.

Nhờ coi Dexter và Breaking Bad mà mình biết thêm đuợc 1 nghề và 1 hội chứng tâm lý rất là lạ đó là nghề "Phân tích vệt máu" (Blood spatter pattern analysis) và "bệnh ăn cắp vặt" (bệnh mà em vợ của Walter White bị).

Trong Breaking Bad mình thấy mắc cuời nhất là thằng Jesse Pinkman (cái tên lạ vãi "ngừoi đàn ông màu huờng" =))) Lúc mà con bồ nó chết do sốc thuốc thì nó tan nát suy sụp hòan tòan như cái giẻ rách (bởi "ngừoi đàn ông màu huờng" mà :))) Nhờ ông Walter động viên nó và đưa đi cai (ông này đối xử với nó như 1 ngừoi cha, có lẽ ngừoi duy nhất trên đời tốt với nó => Jesse bị gia đình ruồng bỏ do ăn chơi lêu lổng và dính tới ma túy) để rồi nó quay trở về và phán 1 câu xanh rờn "Tui là ngừoi xấu, tui chấp nhận bản thân sa ngã" OMG. Từ đó trở đi thì mình cũng không ngạc nhiên khi thấy t này giở trò vô ơn bạc nghĩa, lừa thầy phản bạn như kiểu éo cần ai trên đời (lúc suy sụp thôi) - yếu mà ra gió, chó mà tuởng khủng long =]] Nhưng mà có điều thằng này lúc nào cũng nể ông Walter, sống có tình có nghĩa và đặt biệt thuơng con nít. Có thể nói Jesse là 1 nhân vật có cá tính phức tạp, nủa khôn nửa dại, vừa tốt vừa xấu. Aaron Paul đóng vai này khá đạt và nhờ đó anh này nhận dc. giải Emmy Primetime mục Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series còn Bryan Cranston (Walter White) thì nhận đuợc giải Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series (3 lần liên tiếp nhé).

Aaron Paul (Jesse Pinkman aka Ngừoi đàn ông màu huờng)

Bryan Cranston (Walter White)

Michael C Hall (Dexter Morgan aka Thiên Thần Khát Máu)

Anh này cũng nhận giải Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series năm 2010 (lúc này đang bị Hodgkin's lymphoma - Ung Thư Hạt Bạch Huyết nên rụng hết tóc do đang chịu Chemotherapy)

Còn mụ vợ Skyler của Walter thì tính tình khá là phức tạp, có thể nói là 1 ngừoi phụ nữ nhạy cảm nhưng không sâu sắc (sấu) =]] Không hiểu nỗi bà này suy nghĩ sao mà lại không sẵn sàng thông cảm cho ngừoi chồng sống chung hàng chục năm với mình. Tội Walter đã khổ khi bị ung thư và sẵng sàng vuợt qua bản thân để "hi sinh đời bố củng cố đời con", “một con người tả tơi đau khổ, tâm hồn rách nát vì bị giằng xé giữa rất nhiều thứ” . Cực chẳng đã bà này còn đi ngoại tình để trả đủa Walter nữa chứ. Bà này hành động như 1 đứa con gái đôi mưoi thiếu chính chắn hay giỗi hờn ! Sẽ ra sao khi Walter Con (Walter Jr) biết dc. là mẹ nó ngọai tình rồi giận hờn cha nó :(

Ngòai mấy cảnh điều chế methamphetamine, thuốc nổ và hành động rất là phê, trong phim này còn rất nhiều cảnh làm mình cừoi đau bụng như lúc 2 thầy trò dùng HCl để phi tang sát chết, nhưng thằng Jesse đầu đất không biết lại bỏ xác mấy t kia vô cái bồn tắm rồi đổ acid vô. Acid nó ăn mòn hết cái bồn tắm rồi cái bủm sặp mệ nó căn phòng, máu me óc cứt chảy lên láng đầy nhà. Hay cảnh Jesse đi đòi nợ, 2 thầy trò trộm hóa chất. Nhất là cảnh 2 thằng sát thủ đầu đất ngừoi Mễ đi tìm giết Walter. Ban đầu là 2 sát thủ giết ngừoi chuyên nghiệp không gờm tay, đuợc huấn luyện từ nhỏ. Tuởng 2 thằng siêu nhân ai ngờ 2 đống phân, Súng ống, áo giáp trang bị tận răng mà đi thua một gã béo tay không mới đau. Nói gì thì nói, Hank cũng k phải loại vừa, 20 năm làm cảnh sát, lại còn trùm DEA (nhìn ông này cứ hao hao cai ngục Belick trong Prison Break)

Trong phim còn có 1 ông trùm ma túy tên Gustavo Fring. Ông này có phong cách của 1 doanh nhân chính hiệu. Điềm tĩnh, tự tin, bài bản và đầy thủ đoạn. Ông này lúc 2 thằng sát thủ ngừoi mễ tự do vát búa đi xử lý Walter, ông này thấy chuớng mắt vì tự nhiên tát oai tát óai trên đất của mình nên liền "bát xê" 2 thằng đó cho Hank rồi "bỏ nhỏ" truớc cho Hank 1 tiếng. Một phát súng chết 2 con chim điếc, 2 thằng đầu đất ra đi và 1 lời cảnh báo đầy hàm ý cho tụi DEA.

Bonus cho cái cảnh trùm ma túy (Hector Salamanca) dạy cháu

To be continued

ACCULTURATION: THE SOURCE OF DIFFICULTIES AND FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES

Interaction between people of various cultures is not a new phenomenon. Throughout Homo sapiens history, humankind has travelled around the world for different occasions, either in exploring of greener steppes, evading from persecution and natural disasters, to exchange or to conquer and settle. These movements have resulted in the interacting between millions of people from diverse heritage. In addition, this mechanism has also induced to changes in the indigenous behaviours and patterns of people concerned, as well as the establishment of new civilizations. The interaction between cultures and resulting alteration en masse has come to be defined as acculturation (Sam & Berry 2006, p. 1). Although acculturation involves the interaction between people from diverse cultures, yet acculturation is a source of difficulty and also favorable circumstance for individuals and societies..

This paper will focus on analysing the process of acculturation by giving some examples. The analysis is modelled on three aspects. Firstly: how acculturation occurs and people’s adaptation base on Bennett’s development model of intercultural sensitivity. Secondly: Acculturation from past to present. And lastly: The difficulties people encounter while going through this process.

Bennett (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman 2003) states that when people contact with others from different backgrounds or cultures, they might attain intercultural sensitivity which means the competence to segregate and undergo relevant cross-cultural. Intercultural sensitivity may then empower them to cultivate intercultural competence which also means the capability to conceive and respond in interculturally appropriate approaches. This process is also known as Bennett’s development model of intercultural sensitivity. The phases introduced by Bennett (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman 2003) are ‘denial, defence reversal and minimisation, which are part of an ethnocentric worldview; and acceptance, adaption and integration, which are part of an ethnorelative worldview’. In this framework, Bennett defines denial is the default reaction for most people, who are acculturated into an alien culture with very limited experience of that culture. In this circumstance, all individuals are alien to the indigenous culture are “the other”, and could be treated with apathy or offensive. The second phase introduced by Bennett is “defense reversal”, he claims that “defense reversal” takes place when ‘people of one culture perceives another culture not to be inferior, but superior, and pays tribute to that culture by “going native” or “passing” ’ (Bennett, Hammer & Wiseman 2003). This phase is much the same as denial and still induced by ethnocentrisms. Moving to “minimisation” which is the third phase of this framework, and also the transitional phase between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. “Minimisation” occurs when an individual neutralises the anxiety of the “denial” phase and preferably begins to apprehend universals or extensive amongst “us and them”, but only at a superficial level. The fourth stage of Bennett’s process is “acceptance” which is the first stage in ethnorelative phase. The author illustrates this phase as the indigenous culture is now interacting in the background of the alien cultures. People in this stage may experience others as alien, but still in same ethnic race. In addition, they are capable to identify how culture affects human experience and they have a mechanism for cataloguing investigations of cross cultural. The fifth phase of this framework is “adaption” and it takes place when an individual is capable to experience the empathy with a different culture. The individuals are capable to expand their subjective worldviews to comprehend other cultures and respond in a wide-range of culturally appropriate methods. The last phase of Bennett’s model is “integration” which occurs when individual sees their identity as being marginal to any particular culture; and can take a negative direction resulting in a feeling of alienation. However, a positive or constructive form which allowing this individual to shift in and out of cultures are observed as an essential and positive part of individual’s identity. Ultimately, Berry claims that there are different extents of cultural diverse which assist to define acculturation mechanism, such as diversity, wealth, space, equality and time, etc. There is no doubt that acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that influences intercultural interact (Berry 2003). Cultural changes also take into account diversifications in a group’s rituals, and in their economic and political positions (Phinney 2003).

Whether acculturation occurs usually depends on the conjunction between the culture which is receiving the new characteristics and the host culture. O’Neil (2009) states that ‘If one society is militarily dominant in the culture contact and they perceive their own culture as being superior in terms of technology and quality of life, it is not likely that they will be acculturated’. This can be observed thoroughly via the case of the English settlers and the Aborigines they met. Nowadays, when observing an Australian city, it is plain to recognise European culture is dominant in this country. There is no doubt the British did not maintain Aboriginal culture, yet some minor characteristics, such as words for animals, geographic regions, were used by the settlements. Because English settlements were in control of the interaction, they were able to decide upon the characteristics that would be assimilated into their own culture. However, if one society is militarily governed yet still recognise its culture to be elite, it is not be acculturated by the dominant culture. This type of pride helps to deny the process of acculturation and used to happen in the destruction of Roman Empire during the fifth century. The destruction ultimately occurred as a result of multiple invasions by the German. However, it was paradoxical that German language and its culture were not adopted by the Roman. For example, The Roman Christianity was general adopted by the Goths and some Germanic tribes. As the same case as the religion, Roman political system and the language (Latin) were still adopted by the German. However, interaction between cultures those are equal in both technology, military power, and quality of living hardly ever causes acculturation. This is proven to be true when both societies emphasis their identity and believe to be the superior. The best example for this situation is between France and Great Britain. Words, cuisine, and other comparably superficial cultural characteristics often disseminate from side to side between the two cultures, however there is no extensive influence of cultural characteristics. Consequently, the British man remains proudly British and the Frenchman remains strongly French in culture. In contrast, when societies those are both military dominated admit themselves to be inferior in term of both technology and quality of life, a rapid and overwhelming acculturation could take place. A lot of indigenous culture of North America and Australia underwent this circumstance. The people in those societies were not only impotent from the invasion, but also could not control the influence of the alien culture on their own civilisation. The result was usually immense acculturation and the displacement of aboriginal culture with little syncretism with their own indigenous cultural traits. Despite the dilemmas and difficulties people experience during acculturation, it is an essential and critical factor which decides the existence of a culture. Such a situation corresponds to what may be described as The Easter Island Syndrome. The very first settlers of Easter Island had come to the island by accident, at the beginning they maintained their cultural traits and technology, yet then, marooned for hundred years in absolutely isolation, deprived of foreign interaction, interrogation and cultivation. Their following generations constantly could no longer maintain the energy to stimulate their strong culture. As a result, the very first memory and customs were lost in loneliness and isolation. There is no doubt that Easter Island is the perfect example of acculturation deficiency and hence shows the important of acculturation (Pierre 1996).

With the respect to the third question: The difficulties people encounter while going through this process, a few examples are given to assist the acculturation process. When there is clash between comprehending new concepts of the host culture, and displacing the concepts of the culture of origin, the acculturative stress theory becomes applicable (Berry 1997) and coping policy are necessary to minimise physiological and emotional reactions. Acculturative stress is beyond daily life stress and involves acculturation-specific circulation, for example: cultural values, the ability to think and act in intercuturally appropriate methods, 

ethnic coherence, segregation, and second-language proficiency (Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). Taking into deeper, when immigration is not an option, as in the case of Vietnamese refugees who were forced to leave Vietnam after the liberation day in 1975, acculturation may act as a greater impact on the stress already suffered by grudgingly being expelled from Vietnam. Advanced levels of acculturative stress have been connected with the jeopardy of mental depression resulting in suicide and can be a long term negative health problem. More critical risk of acculturative depression can also occurs when there is great cultural difference, such as: the number of discern incompatibility and parity between immigrant’s indigenous background and the host culture. Language is also a factor in the mechanism of acculturative stress. Language is the nuclear of acculturation as it is the key of integration through interacting and communication of both own and host cultures. Language proficiency is the most important factor to achieve education excellent and pursuit career opportunities; however illiteracy was the problem experienced by both junior and senior Vietnamese refugees, hence resulted with interrupted schooling in the host country. This has resulted to depression in the school between the academic requirements of the educational institution and the literacy demands of these refugees. There is no doubt that the better the ability to perceive second-language competence the greater the self-satisfaction, hence stress is minimised and second-language obstacles have been considerably cooperated with subcultural definition (Poppitt & Frey, 2007).

Ultimately and consequently, acculturation is an indispensable process that occurs when people interact with “the other” in ways of varying friendliness, discrimination, understanding and confusion. In addition, acculturation is also a reciprocal process that takes place all over the time and also known as a source of difficulties for people those are alien to a new society. Those difficulties are also known as acculturative stress, such as language proficiency, cultural difference, and ethnic identity. Even though, acculturation is a source of stress and difficulties, it also enriches and refreshes the host culture. If there is no interaction between cultures, there will be no acculturation, hence the destruction and isolation like the case study of Easter Island.


REFERENCE LIST


Berry, JW 1997, Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 46, no. 1. Available from: EBSCOHOST [4 August 2011].

Berry, JW 2003, Psychology in Human and Social Development, Sage Publications, India. Available from: Google books. [2 August 2011].

Berry, JW & Sam, DL 2006, The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hammer, MR, & Bennett MJ, & Wiseman, R 2003, Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Available from: < http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/kvv/opetus/Ter%C3%A4s%20V.pdf>. [30 July 2011].

Liebkind, K, & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I 2000. Acculturation and psychological well-being among immigrant adolescents in Finland: A comparative study of adolescents from different cultural backgrounds. Journal of Adolescent Research, vol. 15, no. 4,pp. 446–469. Available from: EBSCOhost [5 August 2011].

O’Neil, D 2009, Acculturation: Part 1, Available from: <http://anthro.palomar.edu/change/change_3.htm >. [5 August 2011].

Phinney, J 2003, Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research . American Psychological Association. Washington D.C. Available from: Google books [2 August 2011].

Pierre, R 1996, The View From The Bridge, ABC Radio National, Sydney.

Poppitt, G, & Frey, R 2007, Sudanese Adolescent Refugees: Acculturation
and Acculturative Stress, Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 160-181, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCOhost,
[7 August 2011].

Human, Nature, and Sustainability

Human beings are differentiated from other beings on Earth by the fact that they have always been seeking for transcendent objectives. The relationships between humans and nature are always acknowledged as the foundation to nourish humans through unfluctuating evolution and development (Diakopoulou 2007). Nature is directly or indirectly related to human’s lives as their societies are enveloped and governed by Mother Nature. Although the interactions between humans and nature are not constant as people always create positive and negative, this relationship are pivotal in the process of achieving sustainability (Phan 2011). Sustainability has been only conceptualised for just half a century when humans have realised that natural resources become more and more finite, in associate with environmental degradation (Bender et al. 2011). However, these relationships require a lot of concepts that involves interdisciplinary perspectives such as: ecology, cultures, science, religions, and politics. By investigating and evaluating this relationship, this essay will discuss how pivotal the relationships between humans and nature are in the purpose of achieving sustainability.


Since primitive age, human beings have striven to depict nature as opposed to human environment by distinguishing it as a remote place where humans have no influence on and ‘in its raw state, it had little or nothing to offer civilised men and women’ or just simply wilderness (Cronon 1995,p. 70-1). The very first depiction of nature that human beings have sought to define is originating from biblical connotations. The root of humans and nature dualism pairs the primitive of Judeo-Christian, where creation acts as a critical factor, with the differentiation between humans and the Creator (Trigano 2002). However, the definition of nature alters all over the time in companion with human evolution. Francis Bacon (1620) conceptualised a new perspective of nature where human beings can master it concretely by substantially utilizing a control over it by the methods of reason. In this manner, nature is just a body of investigation, exploitation, and a potential resource whose enigmas are waiting to be revealed. This concept invigorates the relationship between humans and nature but brings nature away from its flawless state. In addition, the perspectives of human beings in late eighteenth century opposed radically with those from the first decade of twentieth century as ‘Satan’s home had become God’s own temple’ (Cronon 1995, p. 71-2). In the Civil War, wealthy people tried to seek wilderness for themselves as a lot of luxurious hotels and resorts were built in the neighbour of sublime landscapes. In that way, those people considered nature or wilderness as a place of recreation, not a productive site or even permanent home where they acted as consumers not producers (Cronon 1995, p78). Later on in the 1960s, due to the rapid development of industrial activities, nature had become more and more away from its untouched state. The moment when Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969 was one of the biggest steps for mankind as shown their position on this Earth is ultimate. However, it also provided humans an alternative view of the Earth in which humans were more aware of destructive impacts of transformations brought to the natural environments by Man, and the exclusivity of this natural environment. These led human to the reality that our society could collapse at any stage, hence changes must be done or perish (Lovelock 1979).


As humans are able to comprehend their harmful impacts to the Earth, and understand the threat of an imminent collapse. Sustainability has emerged as a critical issue that scholars and scientists have been debating. The definitions of sustainability are numerous, but induced by people’s ethics, values, cultures, history and disciplines (such as economic, social equity, environmental). The most common confusing definition of sustainability is evolved from the conclusions of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) as it states that: ‘Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The main idea of this definition is about thinking of future results and learning from the past actions, hence do not systematically corroded ecological, economic, environmental and social systems. Therefore, the future generations will be capable of meeting their needs and wants. However, this definition doesn’t define sustainability. It defines sustainable development which is a resolution, not a problem to solve (Thwink, n.d.).


Bender et al. (2011) states that: ‘Sustainability is the quality a system has if it can continue to be sustained by and within its surrounding environment’. Broadening this statement, it can be understood as integrating universal values such as economic, social, cultural and obviously ecological. As an ecologist, Bender proposed that sustainability is determined by the capacity of a system to preserve a functional equilibrium amongst productivity and resilience. Her point of view focused on the vital importance of sustaining the strength of subsystems those support or incorporate with the larger one. As stated, different disciplines define sustainability differently according to their perspectives. Bender, an ecologist who is likely to endorse ecocentrism as the root of sustainability, with the ultimate objective to preserve and maintain biodiversity. While Costanza (1991) an economist defined sustainability as: ‘consumption that can continue indefinitely without degrading stocks, including natural, physical, human and intellectual capital’. It’s clearly to see that Costanza’s definition (with materialistic manner) uses notions such as “human”, “capital intellectual” which incorporates with human capitals and “physicals”, “natural” as natural capital. Furthering his definition, human capitals can be classified as infrastructure, labour, and knowledge; while natural capitals cover fossil fuels, natural resources such as petroleum, iron, gold, and uranium. This is quite an anthropocentric explanation as most notions were used to cover human needs and the idea of sustainability is constructed by consuming level.


In addition, Sustainability is also determined by the ability of humans and their societies to reconsider the needs and norms in everyday life. Humans should think twice about the relationship between nature and their action in both ecological and social scale (Bender et al. pp. 60-69). When focus on humans and nature relationship, it’s very important to re-evaluate society’s conventional criteria, needs, norms, and configurations of consumption on both global ethical and environmental scale.


Melbourne Experience (2010) stated that: ‘our planet is not a dead body wearing a life jacket (biosphere), it is more than the sum of its parts; it behaves like a super system that regulates itself through complex feedbacks to sustain life’. Therefore, humans should try their best to maintain their existence by defining their position in the evolution of nature. As there are a lot of debates on human-nature relationships, sustainable actions are sometimes referred in ways those insist the separation between human and nature. The most common case is when human actions are comprehended as abusing nature, or natural activities are labelled as threatening human’s survival. However, in some context, sustainable action is referred in ways that focus on the influences between nature and humans activities. Nevertheless, these perceptions are really significant in both on ecological and social level (Williams et al. 2012). Cronon (1995, p. 87) debated that any way of interpreting nature that reassures humans to accept that they are exclusive from wilderness is likely to advocate ecological and environmental inconsiderating actions. Therefore, the identification of wilderness or human-nature relationship conceptions is really critical to contribute the achievement of sustainability. Once humans are able to comprehend destruction to nature is a loss to themselves, they will have better awareness of achieving sustainability (Williams et al. 2012).


For many stages of history, humans have been affecting nature though denying their connection with it. Many religions and cultures believe this relationship is dualism, yet until recently, humans have understood the critical concept that their relationship formulates with the natural factor. In addition, humans also comprehended the fact that their interaction with nature is not friendly, and may result in imminent collapse. Therefore it’s a must to define what a nature-human friendly relationship is, and rethink the way we live to achieve sustainability. However, it’s impossible to perform so without a reform of ethics that is universal and interdisciplinary. Henceforth, it’s also very critical for humans to realise that they are not only the consumers of nature but should also be the re-Creators of nature.

References

Bacon, F. 1620. ‘Novum Organum’, Constitution, London. Available from: <http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm >. [24 March 2012].

Bender, H, Judith, K & Beilin, R 2011, ‘Sustainability – A Model for The Future’, in Bender H (ed), Reshaping Environments: Theory and Practive in a Complex World, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 32-49.

Costanza, R (ed) 1991, Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York.

Cronon, W. 1995. ‘The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature’, in W. Cronon (ed) Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. New York, USA: W.W. Norton and Co.: 69-90.

Diakopoulou, F 2007, The Relationship Between Human Beings and the Nature. Available from: <http://2oepal.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-28T02_45_56-07_00>. [25 March 2012].

Melbourne Experience 2010, Nature, complexity, sustainability: towards environmental ethics, Available from: <www.melbexperience.com/nature-complexity-sustainability-towards-environmental-ethics>. [26 March 2012].

Lovelock, J 1979, Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 154.

Phan, T 2011, ‘Relationship between people and environment in the sustainable development in Vietnam observed under sociolog’, Tạp Chí Khoa Học (Science Magazine), no. 18a, pp. 251-257.

Thwink , n.d., Finding and Resolving the root causes of the Sustainability problem, Available from: <http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm>. [26 March 2012].

Williams, K, Minnegal, M, Boldero, J, Dwyer, P 2012, 2012 Seed Funding Project: Conceptions of human-nature relationships and sustainable action: Development and preliminary testing of an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, University of Melbourne, Available from: <http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/content/pages/2012-seed-funding-project-conceptions-human-nature-relationships-and-sustainable>. [22 March 2012].

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future, United Nations, Available from: <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I>. [27 March 2012].

Liu Xiaobo and Human Rights in China

The Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (United Nations 1948). In western countries, the postulate of human rights, individual freedom, and democracy are foundations of civil liberties. However, the People’s Republic of China, also known as mainland China – an official member of the United Nations Council on Human Rights, is still notorious as the largest civil liberties trespasser in modern history. Although “China’s Charter 08” was an effort to reclaim China’s approach to ultimate civil liberties, it actually emerges a discordant society in which mainland Chinese citizen’s fundamental human rights are infringed.

In order to find the answer to this problem, the Beijing’s regime’s attitudes toward the concepts of freedom of speech and “China’s Charter 08” will be analysed. Furthermore, the case of Liu Xiaobo, the author of “China’s Charter 08” will be used to assess and support the analysis.

“China’s Charter 08”, was co-authored by Liu Xiaobo, a political dissident, activist and former academic who was awarded 2010’s Nobel Peace Prize. When the document was first published in 2008, it was signed and advocated by more than 300 Chinese activists, academics, dissidents, and other pre-eminent people in Chinese political society (Foster 2010).The document requires political reforms and advocates a conclusion to single-party rule in China. Then goes on to propound a blueprint for ultimate political and social change which is ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ (Link 2009). This ambitious charter is not only requiring for individuals freedom and human rights. It also asks for new constitution, federated republic, separation of powers, civic education, social security and protection of the environment. However, its co-author Liu Xiaobo was arrested two months after the publication and imprisoned for 11 years for the crime of “subversion of state power” (Drezner 2009). There is no doubt that under Beijing’s regime’s point of view, “China’s Charter 08” has been labelled as a reactionary propaganda and Liu Xiaobo is known as a die-hard who attempted to stage a coup d’état against his own government.

As the case may be, people were just idealizing that China, the economic tiger, the cultural dragon, would regard freedom of speech and political dissent as fundamental civil liberties as they have relaxed economic laws and permit their citizens to cumulate giant fortunes. But the answer is a big no, it appears that Beijing’s regime would chastise without mercy any activists, political dissidents, etc… who dare to criticize the decay government or require political reforms (Sotheby’s Institute of Art 2011). Over the last twenty years, hundreds of prominent political figures, activists, dissidents have been apprehended, some simply sinking into oblivion or disappearing into custody. Liu Xiaobo is perhaps the most prominent and noticeable of those detained with his prestigious Nobel peace Prize for standing up to the Beijing’s regime and requiring political reforms regardless of the government’s savage contradiction. Without any doubt, China’s government has stripped its citizens of their rights, annihilated their dignity, and contaminated fundamental civil liberties. And this leads to a set of questions: ‘Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with "modernisation" under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilised nations, and build a democratic system?’ (Link 2009).

Mainland China is one of the very last five communist countries in the world. The regime is controlled by the Communist Party of China (CPC) who implements serious constraints in multiple human rights extents. The Party demarcates fundamental human rights for all Chinese citizens, such as, the freedom of press, assembly, religion, speech, demonstrate, etc. However, the validity of these ultimate rights is not granted to the citizens and the infringements of human rights are still confronted by Western countries. Some conspicuous annihilation of dignity and outrage of human rights in China include media censorship, wrongdoing of capital punishment, inequality of rural-urban, and insufficiency of political and religious freedom, especially the serious intervention to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Although the freedom of speech is claimed as an ultimate right in the Chinese constitution, it is frequent spoken but less practiced. Constituents of the Communist Party of China are required to be irreligionists. Trespass of this rule can confine their financial prospects and even be expelled from the Party. In addition, censorship of media extinguishes any judgment towards Beijing’s regime and members of human rights organizations risk being apprehended (Ramzy 2010). The most obvious example for this restriction is the case of Liu Xiaobo. In western countries, he is best known as the leader of Chinese dissidents and awarded prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. But very few people inside mainland China have ever heard his name either have a chance to read the “China’s Charter 08” (Human Rights house foundation 2010). This leads to another question: Why the Beijing’s regime suppresses the Charter? The document does not mention anything about dialogue, but it does criticise a little bit about the nature of Beijing’s regime (Lam 2008). And of course, there is no authenticated statement from the government except the distinction between the government stated on Liu Xiaobo and that disseminated worldwide that he is a brave Chinese human rights defender (Human Rights house foundation 2010). Some questions rose up from western society: Is 21st century the moment that Beijing’s regime corrupted? Or will history repeat itself in which there will be another bloody crackdown of a mass disturbance (Drezner 2010). And has ‘Big Brother is watching you’ (George Orwell 1948, p. 3) been upgraded to a whole new level?

In conclusion, “China’s Charter 08” is a liberating document from liberal perspectives, an extraordinary effort to redeem the progress of approaching basic civil liberties in mainland China. It actually reveals a disturbance society in which mainland Chinese citizen’s ultimate human rights are encroached, which can be observed thoroughly via the troublesome story of Liu Xiaobo. It is obvious that freedom of speech is the basic postulate of human rights, the provenance of humanity, and the genesis of truth. To restrain freedom of speech and human rights, the Beijing’s regime is isolating itself from the rest of the world as well as its own people (Xiaobo 2008).

Reference List

‘China’s Charter 08’ 2009, The New York review of books, trans. P Link, vol. 56 no. 1, Available from: <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22210> [22 May 2011].



Drezner, W 2010, ‘What Does Charter 08 Tell Us about China in 09?’, FOREIGN POLICY, 5 Jab. Available from: <http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/05/what_does_charter_08_tell_us_about_china_in_09>. [21 May 2011].



Foster, P 2010, ‘Nobel Peace Prize: the Fundamental Principles of Charter 08’, Telegraph Online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph – Telegraph, 10 Dec. Available from: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8192479/Nobel-Peace-Prize-the-fundamental-principles-of-Charter-08.html>. [19 May 2011].



Human Rights House Foundation 2010, The Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo Highlights the Fight for Democracy, Human Rights House Foundation, Available from: <http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/15202.html> [21 May 2011].



Lam, O 2008, ‘China: Charter 08, to Be Free and Fearless’, Global Voices, 15 Dec. Available from: <http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/12/15/china-charter-08-to-be-free-and-fearless/> [21 May 2011].



Orwell, G 1948, ‘Chapter 1’, in Nineteen Eighty Four, Secker and Warburg, London, pp. 3.



Ramzy, A 2010, ‘China Blocks News on Nobel Winner, Charter 08 Essayist Liu Xiaobo’ TIME, 11 Oct. Available from: <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2024755,00.html> [21 May 2010].



United Nations 1948, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, Available from: < http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml> [22 May 2011].



Xiaobo, L 2008, ‘Nobel Prize: Liu Xiaobo's Final Statement’ BBC, 10 Dec, Available from: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11971698>. [22 May 2011].

The Darkly Dreaming Melbourne

If you ask me to describe Melbourne in three words, they would be COLD, WET, and GLOOMY. The weather here is absolutely unpredictable. The phrase “four seasons in one day” is part of pop culture and observed by many visitors to the city (particularly me) . Winter in the morning when it is extremely wet and cold, then becomes real hot at noon and windy in the evening. The reason because Melbourne has a moderate oceanic climate and its location is on the boundary of the very hot inland areas and the cold southern ocean. Therefore, Melbourne is vulnerable to all sorts of severe weather hazards from thunderstorms, heavy rain to hail.







Melbourne might has the worst weather but don't think for one second that it is a boring place. Melbourne is the capital and the largest city of the state of Victoria, and the 2nd most populous city in Australia where 4.137 million of people are resided. Melbourne was ranked as the world's most liveable city in the World's Most Livable Cities ratings by the Economist Group's Intelligence Unit in August, 2011. It was also ranked in the top ten Global University Cities by RMIT's Global University Cities Index, and the top 20 Global Innovation Cities by the Global Innovation Agency (since 2007). The metropolis is also home to the world's largest tram network. The urban architecture of this city is very rich of diversity and a fantastic melting pot of various architectural backgrounds. It is obvious to observe the old Victorian buildings to modern and environmental friendly new buildings where photovoltaics are proliferating on roofs.

I have been to San Francisco a few years ago and Melbourne really reminds me of the beloved Frisco. It's Melbourne's architectural, urban life, climate, tram system (or cable car) and its unique high elevation roads make the similitudes between the two cities becomes more obvious. There is no doubt that San Fran also has an oceanic climate and is home to the melting pot of various architectural styles. However, the most significant similarities are the public transport system and the amazing urban life. In San Francisco, you can travel around the city by the cable cars those run along very steep boulevards and so does Melbourne's. The City Circle in Melbourne is free and a little bit more modern than the one in San Francisco. In addition, Melbourne and San Francisco both have very good university neighborhood where you can find prestigious universities such as Melbourne Uni, and Monash (in Melbourne) or UCB, UCSF (in San Francisco). The last but not the least - urban life. Not far away from the metropolis there are Fritzroy and Brunswick St where a lot of bars and clubs situated. You can find the same place with the same characteristics named Castro in Frisco, however Castro Town is famous for its LGBT community.







San Francisco City Hall





Royal Exhibition Building (where I usually sit for exams)






Cable Car in San Francisco





Tram in Melbourne

In the next couple of days, my new university experience will start and sure there is much more thing for me to talk about in this blog.