The group that is going to be addressed in this blog was the second group to do the presentation. Generally the structure of the presentation was quite good, were they had five members with divided roles. Their tittle was on how modernisation contributed to development in which three members did case studies in Canada, South Africa and India while the other two member’s roles were to open the presentation and to conclude. The case studies used in relation to how a certain country has developed was quite relevant to development, although, the case study in India was quite weak. They used few reliable sources and defined the concept of modernisation decently, in which they explored how the three countries the case study was conducted became modern and how it contributed to the development of the country. The case study of Canada was quite clear and delivery was not bad, however compared to the case study on Canada of the impacts of British colonialism seemed much educating than this. Coming to the case study on South Africa it looked into development and history of the country and was arguably very interesting and educative in comparison to that of the impacts of colonisation.
Writing on my group presentation was not in my plan plus I have already written on it previously, therefore will try to differentiate it with my previous post. The reason that got me to write on my group is simply to highlight that there were meetings held every Thursday, which was decided on after my post. However some of the members didn’t attend the meetings plus the meetings was not that productive at all. The group focused on whether neo-liberalism worked for development or not, we had a concept, theory and case studies which were conducted in Egypt and Australia. My group lacked connectivity among the members which leaded to us talking individually even our conclusion did not link or was not drawn from the main body of the presentation for the case studies were submitted last minute. As of our sources we used quite a number of them and I believe each one of us had at least one source/citation, the used sources were relevant. Furthermore in my point of view we decently defined the concept and how it impacted development. Generally the group could improve in team work were they try to link with each other, although, there was a backup during the presentation.
The impact of colonisation in the third world for development was the group title; they conducted case studies in different regions in general and not one region. Although the group had some weaknesses such as the late turn up of the person who had the power point, the structure of the group was decent, in which the members organised themselves well. The presentation began with an introduction, flowed by the history of colonisation than come the case studies, which each of the three case presenters first generalised the continent they were each going to talk about, than focused more specifically in a certain country or two. Africa was the first case study presented which was the part I liked the most in the presentation, were the presenter looked more into South Africa and clearly took us through history, came the second case presenter who took us to Latin America focused more into Brazil and the final case study was conducted on Middle East. The presentation lacked in text citation which would have made the presentation more interesting, other than that the concept was defined well. Furthermore the case studies were relevant to the concept of colonisation and how it impacted development.
Hobbes view of the state f nature
Hobbes is a British philosopher claims that, the state of nature exists within the independent countries as long as there are no laws exercised over the people. Furthermore he describes it (that is the state of nature) as a period of time were Man lived in fear and chaotic condition of each other and that it was an state of all men against all men and that men naturally have a freedom to do anything to protect his self interest. Hobbes in his book of the Leviathan described life in the state of nature as poor, nasty, brutish and short. He claims in order to have security and avoid misery, people should give all their rights and freedom to absolute authority that forms and leads a state and hence people thereafter have no right to overthrow the absolute leader and he indeed is to be obeyed weather that authority is bad or good and further indicates whatever the state does is a just and hence all man kind are to fellow the rule. Hobbes view of state of nature contributed to theories like realism and that of the international law.
Rousseau’s view on the state of nature
The French philosopher also wrote about social contract and approached it differently to Hobbes and Locke, although his social contract theory had some similarities and agreements with Locke rather than Hobbes in issues like favoritism of individualism, whereas Hobbes favoured the absolute state. According to Rousseau, lives in the state of nature men were happier and saw each other as equal. He argues that in the state of nature prior to social contract men had freedom, equality and happiness which were lost in the process of formation of authority. Rousseau states that the people should be lead by a sovereignty, which leads with the general will that leads to the common good of the society.
Locke’s view on the state of nature
Locke who is also a British philosopher writes on the state of nature and disagrees with a number of Hobbes’s claims. Locke talks about the state of nature in his writing of the two treatises where he claimed that, a state of nature exists where there is no legitimate government to control and exercise power on people to set rules of low and hence people govern themselves using the law of reasons that is the law of nature. Locke believes that people are born pure and kind as opposed to Hobbes who believes in the opposite. John Lock claims that in the state of nature people are free from rules and laws set by man and all kind of interference, however, the freedom that comes with state of nature is not complete for people are still obligated to obey natural laws. These natural laws are seen as moral laws were for example human beings are restricted from the freedom to kill another human being. Locke argues in the social contract that the from of government needed to get out of the state of nature is whereby people have the power to vote a man in power and have the power to overthrow a leader if the leader is not doing what is expected of.
Definition of the state of nature
State of nature is the condition people are in before the form of government, it is a concept that is defined as a social contract by a number of social theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Lock and Jacques Rousseau. The state of nature is commonly defined as a society without or before the authorities come into existence. These social theorists acknowledged there were a need of a state in order gain protection for ones rights. However, they had a different understanding on what form of government a society should have. And hence each of the three philosophers suggested a unique form of government based on the experiences the philosophers had prior to their writing on the issue of the state of nature.
The field trip had shaped my understanding of development in a number of ways. Firstly the field trip helped with the provision of the great examples of the city of London, where we got to see the continuity and change of some of the major world trading companies. Secondly I developed an understanding that, company’s trading and competing with other world leading companies can contribute to the development of a country, example being the stock of exchange and the way it went and traded with some of the other known exchanging companies from China, USA and other powerful countries like France which was seen to be England’s competitor in economy. The great fire of London in 1666 had destroyed homes and lives of people causing tremendous economic disaster; this is when some of the leading figures and wealthy men agreed to mark the moment as an advantage to rebuild the city better than it ever was with a previous plan set to develop the city. London has undergone a big shift in terms of developing economically, with the funding of major companies such as the Bank of England, London Stock Exchange and a number of other well known companies.
Our group has not been a straight forward group and our meeting was solely based on seminar class, although we made a chat room in WhatsApp messenger which was not that useful for majority of the group members do not reply to the issues at hand as well the group members could never set a date to sit and discuss things together as a group. However we have divided our roles as a group members as early as we got the presentation question. My role in the group is to conduct a research on the part of development with partner Rupuk and discuss what development is, how it is measured, what are some of the impacts and factors of development and lastly how it links to neo liberalism. My partner and I made a plan for our part and started working on it. I personally researched on the definition of the term development by different scholars, and how it links with neo librelasim as well as some disadvantages of using some of the economic measurement of development such as GDP and GPI. Furthermore Claudia and I mate with Farhang to further discuss how we should go about the short comings of the team.