JCR 1
"Across the years it was, in my reading, this partial, often quite specific, set of arrangements and
new powerful actors that were the constitutive elements of globalization. And the global often did
not look global: a mining operation, a major construction site, the French firms laying electronic
cables at the bottom of oceans, none of these looked global. But they were connecting the globe,
even though they were based on entering local spaces in the many countries involved."

I decided to use this quote because for me it provoked thinking about the ways in which globalization has become invisible or more just out of sight. Sassen discusses the way that the global does not often look global made me think about how colonization has contributed to globalization. The way that we discuss colonization is something in the past, however, a lot of the systems that have been perpetuated through globalization such as extraction of resources from periphery countries comes from the building blocks of colonization such as conquering and exploitation. This kind of exploitation and trade has been disguised as the benefits of globalization and an interconnected economy but it acts in a way that tries to hide the ultimate goal: to keep the core countries benefiting from the periphery and making it challenging for the periphery to move inwards.

When using terms like global and globalization, who is benefiting from partial connectivity and collectivity and who is not?

In the article by Sassen, partial connectivity was an interesting term that I found connected to the video we watched in class about the workers in India who sort through clothes shipped from the west and break them down into thread. Before that video I hadn't deeply considered what is known to be universal knowledge. Even something such as clothes I thought of as universally the same. However, the video highlighted for me the concept that Sassen discusses. Partial connectivity describes how the world is connected but how that connection is unequal. The connection often flows only one way and not in return. We can see this even in how we are watching the video and getting the flow of information back to us but not in the other direction. This partial connectivity shows how these systems operate to hold power even at the informational level. Something as taken for granted for as knowledge is still policed and withheld.

JCR 2
"To the economic factors that are in the background of witchcraft accusation we must add the increasingly misogynous institutional policy that confined women to a subordinate social position with respect to men and severely punished any assertion of independence on their part and any sexual transgression as a subversion of the social order." (19)

I chose this quote from the reading by Federirci (2018) because I think it highlights one of the important concepts within the reading, how the accusations of witchcraft were used as a way to impose a rule of being that holds both capitalistic but also misogynistic values and practices. This reading specifically helped me see a connection between the movement towards a capitalistic structure and the kind of oppression that can be seen in events such as the witch trials. The way that the accusation were used as a tool to change the way that women, specifically older or poorer women, were valued gives insight into some of the institutions and structures that are still upheld today. It was also pointed out within the reading that the women who were accused were those who resisted the changes and labels. The quote above again highlights how in response to this resistance, they were punished, a method still used today.
A comparison that can be made between the two times is the punishment and subversion of the social order for sexual transgressions. This is still present today in the way that reproductive rights are policed. The narrative surrounding those who ask for reproductive freedoms such as access to abortion and birth control is made to feel outcast. The messages that surround these rights and freedoms can often make the person feel as though they are going against the social order. That is why I think this reading connects especially to the events and messaging that we are receiving today surrounding the same aspects the women who were accused of witchcraft were facing.]

How did the label "witch" work within a patriarchal structure to allow within group policing? How does the super structure contribute to how this labelling worked successfully to alienate members of a specific group?

Using the label of "witch" allowed for the people with more power to be able to alienate those who resisted change to a capitalistic and feudalist model. This kind of alienation and othering allowed for the larger powers to manipulate the social order and change how others viewed and worked together. Because of the imposing capitalist model, those who did not work to meet the end goal of monetary gain were labelled as other and further forced to conform to those around them or be severely punished. This was used as a way to control others. The super structure has allowed this kind of labelling to continue to work in a way that can keep the periphery powers on the outside. It does this by not only reinforcing a system that benefits the core but also by perpetuating the within group policing that was seen during the witch hunts.

JCR 3
"In fact, surveillance capitalism is the precise opposite of the trust-based relationships to which Varian refers. Doctors, attorneys, and other trust professionals are held to account by mutual dependencies and reciprocities overlain by the force of professional sanction and public law." (Zuboff 83)

The paper by Zuboff sparked a lot of connections for me to the issues that we have been seeing now with the increased use of AI. Before the paper I had never heard the term surveillance capitalism but it has helped me to make connections with how AI has been marketed and the different areas it has started to infiltrate into. The obsession for companies to be getting as much data out of the consumer as they can has started to create spaces for AI where I personally do not think it belongs. The quote I chose above made me think about an article I read in a class recently. It spoke to how AI was being workshopped as a potential alternative to in person therapy and the benefits and potential downfalls. After reading the article I was not convinced that it was a good alternative. After reading Zuboff, it has convinced me further. Not only is there an element of human connection that is missing from artificial intelligence, but with the insight into the data farming happening by companies, ethical boundaries would be crossed. This is highlighted by the quote above. AI collects data and repurposes it for future use. From a psychology standpoint, this is a massive overstepping of potential privacy for the patient seeking help. If the data used within AI sessions is subject to this kind of surveillance capitalism, what would be considered confidential anymore? Would the human experience become something that can be categorized and repackage to be sold? Would the value of our experiences be worth more than ethical considerations?

All of the question above I think will start to have a bigger impact as the question into the ethics of AI start to become more mainstream. However, I think until we are able to stop and question the fast productions of technology like this it might become difficult. The commodification of the consumer because of both a capitalistic and neoliberal framework, has made it so there is little to no regulation when it comes to data collection. Data has become a way to describe human action without putting the human in to it. The data that is collected and profited off of is still human choices and there is a lot of complex thought and feeling that comes with those choices. As for the example above of the use of AI in psychotherapy', I believe that it is paper such as Zuboff's that should help us to stop and question the intentions behind something like that. Is it because we as a society want to help people and these companies have an innovative way to do it? Or is it a bandaid being sold to us by these companies and institutions as just another way to profit off the consumer and commodify the human experience?

Bacchi, S, Bastiampillai, T, Jesudason, D. "Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Psychotherapy: A Challenging Frontier". Australas Psychiatry, vol. 33, no. 4, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12314210/

JCR 4
"Yet, feminist theories are the product of political struggles that were waged first in the streets before being institutionalized in universities; they are and always have been transnational and respond to global realities, because to theories is to create meaning, emotionally and politically, and not to produce abstract and easily relocatable ideas." (Ali 65)

A concept that I found continually present throughout the article was the idea of transnational feminism. Specifically in the ways that it is often centred in the framework and knowledge of western societies. The concepts and ideas within the feminist framework are often claimed as western knowledge and treated as though it is something inaccessible to the Global South. This imagined inaccessibility and gatekeeping of feminist theories through knowledge can and has been known to create somewhat of a saviour complex amongst those in the Global North. Ali highlights throughout their paper that feminist theories is not something that is solely institutionalized and that it is a product of the struggles faced in day to day life. It starts to dismantle the idea that those in the Global South need to be saved because they are not able to reach the feminist theories that are "accessible" in the Global North.

What narratives are up held when it is assumed that feminism and feminist theories are not accessible in the Global South? Who does that narrative benefit and who does it disadvantage?

This reading specifically made me think about my own experiences with feminism and how it has changed especially in the last couple of years. The way that women from places such as the Middle East have been discussed in the past have lended itself to position them as victims of where they live and the political power that has been enforced on them. This narrative often portrayed then, the white, western feminist as that of some kind of saviour for the oppressed. In the last couple of years, paper such as that by Ali have really shifted my mindset and opened my eyes into how that narrative is problematic. It strongly positions other women as not having any agency. It also helps to reinforce racial stereotypes and that of the white saviour. After taking a few GRSJ courses it has opened my lens to see feminism in more ways than just how it is framed in the west. The idea of transnational feminism has given me a more critical lens when understanding how feminism functions in different places and how we can start to decolonize the idea that the western knowledge is the only knowledge.

JCR 5
"Today, participation and commodification are closely linked to the production, circulation, consumption and operativity of images and visual communication, raising the question of the role networked images and aesthetics play for and within the proliferating surveillance capitalism." (Moskatova, Polza, Reichert, 6)

I choose the quote above because I think it links very well the concept of surveillance capitalism to the ways that we have seen it be used today in modern social media use. The way that social media platforms have transformed to make profit over participation has become a very unique industry. It functions to collect and prescribe value to social interaction in a new capitalistic form to gain wealth. What I found interesting within the paper by Moskatova, Polza, and Reichert was the building upon how social media has become monetized and the role aesthetics play in that. I think a large reason these platforms have been as successful as they are in accumulating wealth in data is the way that brands and other companies are now able to market. Instead of featuring solely the product that a company is trying to sell for example, they are able to humanize it by paying other people to display that product in their everyday life. This access to a human connection is what I believe has made these companies able to reach people in a way they haven't been able to before. Largely in part to the aestheticization of surveillance capitalism.

How do we protect ourselves from harmful advertising in a world of the social media influencing? In what ways can we begin to break away from the constant influencing for soley monetary gain?

While reading this paper, it made me think about the role of social media influencers and the continual rise of people who do it as their main job. In a society that values social media platforms very heavily, becoming an influencer as a sole means of making money has become easier. Brands will pay people lots of money to promote their product to an accumulated audience in hopes that they will see increased revenue. This kind of marketing strategy has been used I think as a part of surveillance capitalism. People who follow these influencer can start to create a parasocial relationship in which these companies benefit from. These platforms have tapped into the power of a human connection and being able to relate and trust someone who you feel lives a similar life to you. By creating that connection, the ability to influence and shape how someone behaves ties in closely to the issues that are seen within surveillance capitalism and behavioural modification. I think it will become a more closely followed subject as time goes on because of the relevance these influencers hold in the world right now. They have become a new tool for capitalistic growth within the means of social media platforms and further using concepts such as aestheticization to continue to control how people interact with these capitalistic strategies.