Discussion on War in a Sociological Perspective

Discussion on War in a Sociological Perspective

What is War?

As far as we know, war has always been part of human history. War occurred from time to time, in one form or another, even throughout our prehistory. What is war? Sociologically speaking, war is “organized, armed conflict among the peoples of various societies” (Macionis). Differed from gusty conflicts, war is well-planned and well-prepared, referring to the extension of a serious of disputes, if not one. From Sunzi’s The Art of War to Bernard Brodie’s The Absolute Weapon, human’s efforts on the war strategy study never waned. War is also characterized by means of arms. Ever since war’s advent, technology has become its counterpart, pushing each other to the very verge of human annihilation. But most importantly, war is a social construction, which happens among various societies holding different cultural traits, such as languages, norms, values, and beliefs (or specifically, religions).

What Causes War?

Early social Darwinists suggested that war among men was merely a special case of the universal law which guaranteed “the survival of the fittest”. This kind of explanations could lead human to nothing but racism and nationalism, which later became Hitler’s justice of genocide. Close study of animal world revealed that, “struggle for existence” was only carried by members of different species; successful groups were those that could live with cooperation and mutual aid (Bramson & Goethals). Marx, however, saw war as a result of economic causes, particularly imperialism. Durkheim, who appreciated the great power of cohesion in society, implied nationalism highly differentiating modern societies contributes to the outbreak of war (Bramson & Goethals).

A more systematic analyse had been done by Quincy Wright written in his book A Study of War. Based on Wright’s work (1987), Macionis stated, perceived threats, social problems, political objectives, moral objectives and the absence of alternatives, are the five factors that lead men to war (Macionis).

During cold war, perceived threads between USA and USSR were so stressful that human’s doomsday seemed like just “tomorrow”. But after USSR’s dramatic decomposition, threads subsided and the odd of warfare between these two nations highly decreased (Macionis).

After China’s invasion of Vietnam in mid-1979, the relations between these two countries deteriorated seriously despite of the intimate fellowship established for a couple decades. Some analysts suggested the major reasons leading to this war are: social problems and political objective. After China stepped out of Cultural Revolution, this nation was still in deep confusion and unstable situation. Deng Xiaoping retook communist regime but did not gain full control of People's Liberation Army (PLA) from his opponents. The nation was at high risk of social chaos and martial rebellions. In Feb 1979, along with the Vietnamese occupations of some disputed islands in South China Sea, Deng waged this war for the regain of social solidarity and complete control of PLA.

Moral objectives, likely, values of “good or evil”, always give good reasons for the politicians to consider war. For instance, during 1860 to 1865, the Civil War of America, a brutal and bloody conflict, leaving the South defeated at a cost of more than half a million lives, was considered a justice to the evil of slavery.

It may sound absurd that United Nations, peacekeeper of the world, has been perpetually engaged in war to fulfil its function - to prevent war. This embarrassing situation could be contributed to the absence of alternatives due to UN’s incompetence of resolving tensions among self-interested societies (Macionis).

That is, “war is rooted in social dynamics on both national and international levels” (Macionis). To study and analyze war, we must realize that war was not born with human nature but it’s a result of social interactions. To prevent war, we should approach to the solutions by sociological means.

Can war ever be moral?

Throughout history, war has been the source of serious moral questions. Concerns about morality of war have gradually increased.

Pacifists, theologically or philosophically, see war as a negative human activity. According to Richard J. Regan’s statements, “Church leaders either disapproved or looked down on Christian’s serving in the imperial Roman army”; modern pacifists appreciate “human life is an absolute value” and refuse to kill or harm the wrongdoers who practising violence (Regan). Obviously, pacifists regard all wars as immoral events unconditionally.

Unlike pacifists, many people view a specific war either moral or immoral. To determine a war is moral or not is to justify the war is right or wrong guided by principle.

Fighting for glory and royalty, many ancient nations and some modern ones viewed war as noble. However, many religions have appealed to God’s will as the justification of war. Marxists, with another perspective, suggested that “Just” wars are wars by means of which states, nations, national groups or social classes defend themselves against national or class subjection (Kára). Thus, Marxism implies that, in today’s world, just causes of war are to defend Communist regimes and to overturn capitalist ones (Regan).

Criticism of militarism in World War Two, doom of nuclear weapons, increasing belief in value of individual life has highly influenced the view of war in contemporary societies. Today, negative view of war has been held widely around the world, but some still tend to justify war as moral by legitimization. In fact, International Law recognises two cases for a legitimate war: wars of defence and wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council. But criticized by some legalists, the contemporary International Law, without rethinking and reforming, can do little help for resolving humanitarian crisis (Mednicoff). At this point of view, this legal approach can hardly affirm the morality of war.

So, what is the universal principle for justifying war? The answer is: None. Hence, we can not simply determine war is moral or not in a single dimension. But one thing is for sure, a specific war is moral to some people whereas it is immoral to others.

The roles of labelling, stereotyping and values of good and evil

…North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror…

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. (Bush)

In his speech of “2002 State of the Union Address”, George W. Bush put three nations onto a black list – axis of evil, labelling them as an evil group. Three months later, Libya, Syria, and Cuba were added onto this list, making it up to 6 “rogue states”. Later, new term like, outposts of tyranny, was coined to a list of 6 countries deemed most dangerous and anti-American. Since then, “Axis of terror and hate” and “axis of terror” were also applied.

Up to this point, we can see that good guys and bad buys were “clearly” distinguished. To overturn the evil regime and liberate their oppressed citizen sounds justice and necessary. Under this labelling pressure, Libya took policy changes and established intimate relations with western world. But more countries, like Iraq and Iran, rejected these titles showing more hostile attitude. The consequences are: perceived threads among “good and evil” nations were increased; tensions among them were boosted; effects of diplomatic resolution were weakened; risks of war were raised up as well.

Negative labelling not only deteriorates international relationship but also projects stereotype in the future (Kromidas). In Maria Kromidas’s research on the fourth-grades students in the aftermath of September 11^th, a conversion was recorded as (Kromidas):

Sheri: We were talking about who started it first, and if they kill a lot of white

people. . . . I mean a lot of people, we got to go to war right then.

MK: Who are they?

Sheri: The Indians.

MK: The Indians?

Sheri: I don’t know – that’s what I call them.

Jonathan: The Pakistans!

MK: The Pakistans?

Sodiq: The Afghanistans!

MK: The Afghanistans?

Joseph: The terrorists.

Obviously, by applying “Taliban are terrorists”, “Taliban are in Afghanistan”, Joseph generated an asymmetric reversed hypothesis – “Afghanistanis are terrorists.” Unfortunately, he took it as a fact. Further, South Asians (including Indians and Pakistanis) were also added in the scope. Thus, a stereotype “South Asians are terrorists” was formed.

When Kromidas asked the non-Muslim students to describe Muslim people, she got shocking responses like these (Kromidas):

They don’t talk English. They like money. They like to kill people. They own different kind of stores.

I don’t know any thing about the Muslim people. The only thing that I know is that they are poor and they eat out of dirty pot and the Muslim people stink and they got rotting teeth and they take a bath once a year and the ugly people try to bomb the U.S.A.

They like to fight other people. They fight the people in their own country. They drink dirty water. They poor. They don’t get along. They sleep in bushes. If they are mean they go to hell.

Muslims kill people. They are terrorist.

The Muslim like money. They like to kill people. The Muslims is bad. The Muslims like to [go to] war. Muslim people is like bin Ladin. Why do Muslim people stink? Muslim people has long hair.

We see that, the abused generalizations lead people’s view far from the fact. Stereotypes can easily bring people to discriminations. As discriminations go further, contacts of different cultural group go fewer. More misunderstandings will arise and hostility will be aggravated. Stereotypes can cause hostility among different cultural communities even they are closed to each other. Then, for nations thousands miles apart without efficient interactions, it is reasonable that stereotypes can cause severe misunderstandings which may lead them to war.

Abused generalizations like stereotypes can cause trouble, extreme simplifications are also dangerous. Without considering culture’s complexity, people with “values of good and evil” separate different societies into two distinct groups. This can only raise barriers among various societies avoiding them to contact and understand each other. With cumulative misunderstandings and hatred, conflicts become unavoidable. As a further but not ultimate result, war takes place generating deeper enmities.

Arms transfers to developing nations

Once war begins, the only goal for a fighting nation is to win the war. Many factors can affect the result, determining victory or failure. Weapons are among these factors, relatively expectable and controllable.

After World War two, the former wartime allies separated and engaged into a rival for maintaining two distinct ideologies: capitalism and communism. Leading roles of these two groups were United States and Soviet Union. Although these two nations never waged war against to each other, with their allies, they competed on multiple arenas including: defence enhancement, mass destructive weapon (WMD) developing and space race. Despite of the term Cold War meaning “No fights”, regional conflicts did happen during this period, such as Vietnam War, Korea War and Cuban Missile Crisis.

Although Cold War ended with the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1992, arm race effects are still taking place. For example, United States military expenditures accounts for 16% of all federal spending in 2000 (Macionis). This can be contributed to the military-industrial complex, the close association between the federal government, the military, and defence industries (Macionis). In detail, during Cold War, military expense stimulated the growth of defence industries in United States. The defence industries not only provided massive working positions but also became a major component of the U.S. economy system. Hence, even in post-Cold War period, U.S. still has to maintain huge amount of military expenditure. This situation can also apply to other weapon manufacturing countries including: Russia, U.K., China, etc.

Meanwhile, since Soviet Union’s collapse, localized conflicts in Eastern Europe are taking place time after time. Regional conflicts and military tensions are still in high risks in the world.

Due to this social situation, proliferation of arms is hard to be avoided. Industrialized countries keep exporting weapons to maintain their high cost defence industries. Less industrialized countries, exposing to military crisis, keep pursuing arms. Table 1 shows the worldwide suppliers’ Arms transfer Agreements in 2005 and the shares with developing countries. The portions of weapons exporting to developing countries are closed to 70%. Clearly, developing countries become major markets for the weapon suppliers. For improving their exporting, these suppliers will put more effort on exploring this market. Consequently, both arms and conflicts proliferation will fall in the accelerating cycles, causing more severe conflicts (Hartung). If this trend can not be corrected in time, we may encounter a new world war.

Table 1

Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements in 2005 and Suppliers’ Share with Developing Countries (in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)

	Worldwide Agreements	Percentage of Total with Developing Countries	Percentage of World Total with Developing Countries
United States	12,758	48.50	20.48
Russia	7,900	79.70	20.80
France	7,400	94.60	23.17
United Kingdom	2,800	100.00	9.27
China	2,100	100.00	6.96
Germany	1,500	46.70	2.32
Italy	1,400	35.70	1.65
All Other European	5,900	55.90	10.92
All Others	2,400	54.20	4.31
TOTAL	44,158	68.40

Source: Grimmett, Richard F. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005. USA: Congressional Research Service, 2006

Cultural lag between WMD possessions and diplomatic ability

Weapons somehow can be a crucial factor that directly leads to victory. Not long after U.S. army dropped their atomic booms on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered unconditionally. Hence, human’s effort on developing new powerful weapons never subsides. Since Industrial Revolution, technology has been developing in a rapid speed. New technologies not only improve human’s living conditions but also give weapon developing great leaps. Chemical weapons, Biological weapons and Nuclear weapons were successively invented. These mass destructive weapons (WMD) changed the world military structure dramatically. Possessing mass destructive weapons, powerful nations can give their enemies fatal destroy. Perceived threads among nations are highly increased. Nations lacking WMD are struggling to obtain relevant technologies despite of resolving domestic social problems, typical examples are North Korea and Iran. On the other hand, owning these absolute weapons, nations like U.S., regard peaceful resolutions are merely inefficient and idealist. Hence, militarism is highly adopted but diplomatic methods are underestimated. This phenomenon is the result of the cultural lag between WMD possession and diplomatic ability – human’s ability of resolving disputes peacefully. Fortunately, we are taking actions to shorten the distance within this lag. Preventing WMD proliferation, disarming nuclear weapons and applying more diplomatic efforts, the world is getting back on the right track.

Is war inevitable?

In Gwynne Dyer’s book War (2004), he gave us an example about war among baboons. After a fatal accident, the aggressive dominant members in a baboon troop died out. Since then, the subordinate members started living in peace. This peace not just lasted in the original generation, but it was also maintained by the offspring (Dyer).

Stories in animal world may not be convincing enough. But according to the common agreement of anthropologies, some known human societies and cultures are totally unfamiliar with war either as practice or as concept (Zahn).

War is a social construction. War happens because societies encounter cultural varieties. These cultural differences were formed by social isolations throughout the long time human history. Today, almost every corner of the world can be connected together. We have more chances to know each other. Many of us are multilingual. We have more understandings on different religions. We have strong wills to live in peace. It is the time we should start to construct a new world as a whole, being sharing and understanding. The day when we can achieve this goal is the end of war.

====================================================================

References

Bramson, Leon and Goethals, George W. War studies from psychology sociology anthropology. New York, London: Basic Books, 1964

Bush, George W. “2002 State of the Union Address.” Speech. 29 January, 2002. Washington D.C.

Dyer, Gwynne. War: the new edition. Canada: Random House Canada, 2004

Grimmett, Richard F. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005. USA: Congressional Research Service, 2006

Hartung, William D. “The New Business of War: Small Arms and the Proliferation of Conflict” Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 15.1 (2001): 79-96

Kára, Karel. “On the Marxist Theory of War and Peace.” Journal of Peace Research Vol. 5 (1968): 1-27

Kromidas, Maria. “Learning War/Learning Race: Fourth-grade Students in Aftermath of September 11^th in New York City.” Critique of Anthropology Vol. 24 (2004): 15-33

Macionis, John J. and Gerber, Linda Marie. Sociology. 5^th Canadian ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2005.

Mednicoff, David M. “Humane wars? International Law, Just War Theory and Contemporary Armed Humanitarian Intervention.” Law, Culture and the Humanities Vol. 2 (2006): 373-398

Regan, Richard J. Just War. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

Zahn, Gordon C. “War and Religion in a Sociology Perspective.” Social Compass Vol. 21 (1974): 421-431.

Should We Limit Fossil Fuel Production?

On March 07, 2007, Petro-Canada announced that a fire reduced production at its refinery near Edmonton. Meanwhile, Imperial Oil said that its refinery was running one-quarter below capacity. This gasoline shortage not only caused numerous gas stations to close but boosted gas price above $1 per litre. Clearly, fossil fuels like gasoline have great impacts on our economy and livings. But is this the reason that we should go on with rapidly increasing fossil fuel production? For me, this is not the case. On the contrary, I prefer that we should limit fossil fuel production.

As we all know today, fossil fuel combustion causes many environmental problems. More than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming, come from fossil fuels combustion (US EPA, 2000). Air pollutants, which induce acid rain, smog and radioactive dusts, are generated by the combustion of fossil fuel as well. Moreover, mountaintop removal for coal mining, offshore oil drilling, and oil leaking from tanks, can severely damage ecological systems. Although our planet is a self-healing system, adverse effects of devastating emissions and human activities are far beyond the earth’s buffering capacity. Now, we learned the lessons from arisen problems, such as abnormal climate changes, poisonous atmosphere and ecological crisis. But the situation could be much worse if we do not start to limit use and production of fossil fuel.

Besides fuel, many important industrial materials can be refined from coal and oil. These industrial materials, which can be produced into pharmaceuticals, plastics, and textiles, become vital elements for a nation’s economy. However, the global stock of fossil resource is very limited. Energy Information Administration of U.S. reported that, considering the present usage tendency, oil on earth will be finished up 32 years later (US EIA, 2000). In a conceivable future, the exploitation of fossil resource may cause severe international conflicts when we encounter shortage of fossil resource. Hence, despite of the short term adverse effects, such as increased fuel price, controlling fossil fuel production becomes necessary progressively.

Indubitably, our societies today are highly energy demanding due to the huge world population and the nature of modern industries. It seems that, without burning fossil fuel, even we try our best to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy wasting, but we can not fulfil the requirements to maintain the rapid developing economies or our living conditions. Fortunately, scientists have invented many methods to gather various energies, including nuclear energy, water power energy, wind power energy, biomass energy and so on. Some may argue that many of these methods are not as practical as fossil fuel. In fact, this impracticality is not caused by the natures of these new energies, but by the demanding of them. Since the new energy sources currently require more expensive production and processing technologies than conventional petroleum reserves, they are unlikely widely adopted. But the principle of “supply and demand” suggests that, as fossil resource diminishes, fossil fuel prices will rise. Consequently, higher prices will lead to increased alternative new energy supplies as they become sufficiently economical to exploit (Henderson, 2004).

Thus, we can conclude that fossil fuel is hazardous to our living environments; fossil fuel can be replaced by renewable energy supplies; fossil fuel will be completely consumed eventually. Today, our natural environment is in deep danger after years of damage; the fossil resource is in extremely low stocks after years of barbaric exploitations; and the new energy resources are ready to serve as renewable clean suppliers. Then why are we still waiting? It is time to limit fossil fuel production and start a new clean flourish.

References

US EPA.2000. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1998, Rep. EPA 236-R-00-01. Washington, DC. : US EPA, 2000

US EIA. International Petroleum (Oil) Stocks. Washington, DC. : US EIA, 2000

Henderson, Hubert D. Supply and Demand. Ebook. 2004

Why are the fast food restaurants so popular?

Like it or not, for worse or for better, fast food culture has significantly influenced world economy, public health and people’s living style. Fast food restaurants are widespread all over the world, although they are criticized for cause of obesity, exploitation of employees and customers, damage to the environments and so on. What makes fast food industry so successful and fast food restaurants so popular? Here are some major reasons.

Ever since we stepped into the post-war period, people have started to live with rapid paces. We learn fast; we work fast; we date fast and we eat fast. Working wives and mothers are too busy to engage in daily healthy meal planning; husbands and children are no more compatible with long waiting dinners. Therefore, with cleanliness, expectable menu, fast uniform service, fast food restaurants readily become the best choice for those who want a quick meal on the road or a break from home cooking. Moreover, child-friendly atmosphere in fast food restaurants somehow give parents relief since children can obtain some fun from the toys coming with their “Happy meals” during the dinning.

Along with the high customer demands, fast food restaurant business attracts investors with low entrance cost and low running expenses. Due to the “on the go” nature of fast food restaurants, only limited business spaces are required. Hungry burger hunters lining up and passing by the drive-thru windows will not take any dinning space in the restaurants. Simplified producing and selling processes require merely simple economic facilities. Hence, capital requirements to start a fast food restaurant are relatively small. More importantly, low running expenses lead to high profits. Fixed menu, ready-cooked food and standardized service highly improve working efficiency and shorten labour hours. Employees are strictly guided by the service rules and continuously receive lowest-level wages. Furthermore, taking the place of waiters, customers serve themselves without being paid. Obviously, all these modern exploitations can give the investors a great margin.

A small fast food restaurant may not turn into a great force that can shape our dinning style. But when we concern about franchising scheme, we see the truth. Under the franchising scheme, thousands of fast food restaurants, using the same brand, selling food on the same menu and providing the same service, become a powerful chain. One typical chain, McDonald’s for example, can serve billions of customers and make billions of dollars in every month. Therefore, this kind of chains can grow into giant enterprises, controlling huge amount of capitals. By manipulating their huge power, these companies can force the food suppliers to follow the low cost principle, accentuating an unhealthy dinning vogue. Also, through massive exploitive advertising campaigns, especially appealing to the young generation, these business giants explore new markets and expand territories invincibly globally.

The emerging adverse aspects of fast food have drawn back many health-concerning customers in the western world. However, in many other countries, fast food restaurants just enter into their golden ages, being regarded as top grade eateries for high quality food, intense customer service and American-style flavour. Consequently, the increasing overseas earnings not only supply the profit drops in the cradle of fast food restaurants but also persist the business miracle and forge a new era of fast food culture.

How to prepare for a job interview

Without sufficient preparations, interviews could become the most nerve-racking events for job applicants. Therefore, spending ten or more hours on the preparing is reasonable. In fact, effective preparations can make more competitive, which leads you to the success of job hunting. How to achieve this goal? Here are the steps you should follow.

First of all, know how to answer questions effectively. Avoid giving answers in less than thirty seconds but keep your speech length no more than three minutes. Too short answers are useless. Wordy responses are merely boring. Thus, answer questions briefly unless your responses are really insightful. In general, one and a half to two minutes is about right. Furthermore, what you say is critical. Give up generalities and abstract topics. Instead, provide specific examples. To do this, apply the following patterns into your answers. First, make an opening statement corresponding to the questions in ten to twenty seconds. Second, explain the statement by providing a little more background in another fifteen to twenty seconds. Third, provide several examples that prove your opening statement. Without examples supporting your point, your general statement will not be readily accepted. This part of your response should last about one minute. Finally, wrap up the former information in a quick summary. A speech without an end will only confuse your audience. By giving an impressive ending, you can set a remarkable tone for the rest of the interview. This kind of 4-step response not only answers questions effectively but also brands you as a perspective, bright and capable applicant, which attracts the interviewers and leads to the discussion of your strengths.

Secondly, list your proficient skills. Be sure to write down examples of your accomplishments for each skill. By doing this, you can easily recall them in the interview. In the examples, include some facts like dates, numbers instead of generalizing key points. Since you should not describe one skill for more than two minutes, the amount of information presented is limited. Hence, try your best to pack each skill with according facts in a short rich response.

At last, role-play for the interview. Role-playing can strengthen your confidence and unconscious competence. Before you start, find a list of general questions for interviews, which contains mutual questions like "What do you know about our company"(asked by the interviewer), "How is one evaluated in this position"(asked by the applicant) and so on. Then ask a friend to act as the interviewer and begin the simulation. While you are talking, learn how to be enthusiastic and confident. Meanwhile, practice strong handshakes, proper gestures, eye contacts and so forth. When you get embarrassing, analyze and realize your weaknesses. Then overcome these jitters by repeating practices until you feel natural and spontaneous. Eventually, you should become a composed talker, ask insightful questions and give meaningful answers.

If you follow these three basic guidelines, you are just about guaranteed to success. Once you have confidence, your speech will flow smoothly and your interview performance will be brilliant. Consequently, you can leave the interview in style and impress those interviewers in surprise.

Four major internet communication methods

Communication efficiency has been highly improved since internet was introduced to the public. The world is brought much closer than ever before. Among various internet communication media, email, forum, instant message, and VoIP are widely adopted nowadays.

Email messaging is the most popular internet communication method. Acting like traditional post offices, email systems maintain massive user mailboxes and deliver messages from one to another. Users can receive, read and respond to messages simply through desktop software or web browsers. A sender can send an email to its receiver anytime, anywhere. Within minutes, this email will be “dropped” into the receiver’s mailbox and ready to be picked up, even if the two persons are thousands of miles apart.

On the other hand, popularity and simplicity lead to the vulnerability of email communication. Since email addresses are publicly reachable, anyone can send email messages to anyone else if they have the correct addresses, which induces an intractable problem – spam or junk mail abuse. Even though spam-filters are utilized and anti-spam laws are implemented, the problem persists and spam continues to burden email systems.

Forums, which have a bulletin-board-like interface, are known as online discussion groups in the internet world. Users can start new topics or post responses to a particular topic in a forum. Forums are considered valuable business resources that establish customers-helping-customers communities. In addition, forums, which make collaboration much easier, are typically applied to long-distance education systems.

However, due to anonymous accessibility, forums can also suffer with spam abuse. Moreover, without moderation and supervision, forums can potentially develop unfriendly environment, which downgrades their reliability.

Unlike email messaging and forum discussion, real time conversation can be carried out by instant messaging. Users can send text messages to others online and receive instant replies. Eliminating long time delay happening in email messaging and forum discussion, instant messaging can speed up the rhythm of our interactions.

But this “instant” fashion brings parental anxiety when children make “friends” online. With insoluble obstacles for confirming personal identities and perpetually emerging security holes, instant messaging sometimes can become a hazard.

Via VoIP (which stands for “Voice over Internet Protocol”) service, people can also practice real time conversations. A VoIP user can make voice call to another VoIP user or any landline user in the world. Presently, VoIP service becomes a low cost alternative of traditional phone call service, especially when long-distance calls are demanded.

Nonetheless, VoIP qualities radically depend on internet bandwidth. Hence, VoIP services sometimes fail to provide clear calls due to poor network traffic conditions.

Although all of the methods above have their shortcomings, internet did bring us a revolution of communication. And we know this revolution is still ongoing. As more new technologies are introduced, cons of these innovations can be overcome and new inventions will appear successively. Thus, evaluating the many options and choosing what works best for us carefully and properly, we can enjoy leisure but productive conversations in our information expanding era.

The day I left my ivory tower

On July 10, 1997, my 4 years of university life finally came to an end. I woke up around 4 o’clock in the morning. I could not sleep well. An inexpressible thought had been wandering in my mind since the graduation ceremony. On that morning, that thought hit me cruelly. With an unfathomable pain, I walked out to the balcony. The scene was no more delightful than the one seen in the daytime. The sky was dark with a misty atmosphere after a night-long drizzle. The bush and the buildings in the distance shaped an integrated mass with a spectral outline. Along with the red dots formed by the light emitted from the street lamps behind the bush, the mass became a monster. The tick-tocks of dripping water somehow sounded like the footsteps of the approaching monster. Suddenly, a breeze went through the balcony. I stepped back as if I was blown by a blizzard. I stretched out my hand unconsciously and reached for the door frame. Shortly, I realized that the threatening was merely an illusion.

Before long, I went back into my bedroom and began to pack my bedding reluctantly. This could be my last packing since I had packed most of my belongings the night before. My uncle had informed me that he would arrange a van for my trip home and that I should have my packing done before his arrival. I was neither the first one nor the last one to leave the campus. Students had started leaving since graduation day. Some of them could not wait to attempt the taste of their first occupations. Some of them had decided to go on with their academic careers. However, the rest were the confused majority, including me. A university degree, which I had been chasing for 15 years, was once an ultimate goal in my life. As I achieved this goal, university life came to an end. At that moment, I felt extremely homeless as if my ivory tower vanished into thin air… While I was thinking aimlessly, I finished my packing.

Then the door was opened. Lin, my 4-year roommate, stumbled into the bedroom. With his wrinkled suit, loosened tie and unshaved depressed face, he looked like a lost soldier running away from a battlefield.

“You finally got the last late night bus?” I pretended to be surprised.

“Yes.” he said.

“How was the interview?” I asked.

“Awful.” That was the fifth time he told me he had not done well on the interviews.

I felt pity for him and tried to comfort him, “How come you push yourself so hard? We all know the job market is not so good this year. So many graduates and …”

He interrupted me and said, “Yao, you know, we have too many reasons to complain to others and too many excuses to forgive ourselves. You always say, ‘this job is not suitable for me’, 'this job is not my preference’, ‘this job maybe too hard’, so on and on. You know what? You are just wasting your time. If you don’t try, you will never have a chance. I would rather fail one more time than hesitate one more minute.”

Lin was right. I was shocked and somehow I was illuminated by his scorching words. Then we both became lost in our thoughts…

Sitting beside my uncle in the van at noon, I waved farewell to Lin. The van took off and I watched through the window. The rain had stopped and the sky was still grey. Everything flashed by like a slide. Washed leaves hanging on twigs looked like stacks of emeralds. Peaceful East Lake was sitting as still as a feminine beauty. Vacant swimming pools and tennis courts seemed like sleeping babies. In the distance ahead, several beams of sunlight penetrated through the clouds. All of a sudden, I felt that I was the only thing running. Chasing the sunlight and leaving my memories behind, I was on my way again.

(Revised by Instructor)