THE VULNERABILITY AND RATIONALISATION OF PROSTITUTES WITHIN MERITOCRATIC CAPITALISM~SOUTHEAST ASIAN MIGRANT WORKERS IN TAIWAN
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study sought an insightful understanding of the effects of social meritocratic capital—an inevitable phenomenon/mechanism whereby individuals receive social recognition, respect, and other benefits due to their monetary achievement—on Southeast Asian migrant workers’ behaviours and their ingrained perceptions through investigating their life stories and inner voices reflecting the factors inducing them to participate in the prostitution world. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was employed to scrutinise the qualitative data collected from a series of in-depth interviews with four Southeast Asian migrant women in Taiwan. This study led to the following conclusions: (1) These migrant workers moved overseas due to their pure and simple intention of pursuing better lives for themselves and their family; (2) The internal factors (family reputation and wellbeing) and external ones (unexpected events and a meritocratic society) simultaneously pulled and pushed them, eventually turning them out of their normal careers; (3) They were stuck in the very depths of an extravagant but vicious world by the shock, even attraction, of “big money” characterising a meritocratic capitalist order; and (4) Innocence and ‘purity’ get lost easily, even unconsciously, in the social context of meritocratic capitalism and wishful rationalisation of questionable behaviours, flouting convention and morality, with self-sacrifice and compensation, and self-rationalisation.
Downloads
Article Details
JATI PUBLICATION ETHICS & PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT:
These guidelines are fully consistent with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct (https://publicationethics.org).
We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible principles of transparency and measures against publication malpractices. The Department of Southeast Asian Studies, as the publisher, plays its role of guardianship over all processes of publishing seriously, and we perform our ethical and other tasks.
- General duties and responsibilities of editors
Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals. This means the editors should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve their journal; have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record; preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. In addition to these general duties, the editors accept the obligation to apply best will and practice to cope with the following responsibilities: - Editorial Board
Will generate editorial board from recognized experts in the field. The editor will provide full names and affiliations of the members and updated contact information for the editorial office on the journal webpage. - Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. - Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors should follow the format of reporting the original research with accurate data gathered. The author should include sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. It is unacceptable if the author performs malpractices in the paper. - Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have produced original articles and must appropriately cite or quote if the authors have used the work and words of others. - Concurrent Publication
It is ethical and acceptable for an author to submit or publish the same research or manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication. - Acknowledging the Sources
Authors should cite properly publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. - Paper authorship
Those who have contributed significantly to the paper should be named as an author and co-authors. Those who have participated in the aspects of the research should be listed as contributors. All co-authors should have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. - Announcement and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should include the financier or grant giver if the manuscript or research is financed by the research grant or any financial support body. - Errors in published works
The author is responsible for communicating and co-operating with the editor to retract or correct the paper when a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work. - Publication decisions
The editor should decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. - Peer review process
All journal's content (articles) are subjected to a double-blind, peer-review process. Articles are first reviewed by editors and may be rejected because it is not dealing with the subject matter. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to two experts who are unknown to each other in the field of the paper.
Reviewers are asked to classify the paper as publishable, with amendments and improvements, or rejected. Reviewer's evaluations usually include what to do with the article. The author then sees the reviewer's comments.
Editors should be ready to justify any important points from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication. Editors should publish guidance to both authors and reviewers on everything expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and referred to or linked to this code. - Fair play
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editors' decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, and the study's relevance to the journal's aim. - Digital Archiving
The editor will ensure digital access to the journal content by the University of Malaya Journal depository section at http://jati-dseas.um.edu.my and MyJournal at http://www.myjurnal.my/public/browse-journal-view.php?id=39. - Confidentiality
Editor and any editorial staff must keep confidential all information about the manuscript's submitted and review process to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. - Publication and Submission fee
Authors are freed from submission fees. Authors are required to pay the Article Processing Fee, RM300 or USD80. - Open Access Policy
The journal is freely available online. Authors must agree with this open access policy which enables unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles. The articles are published under the Creative Commons copyright license policy CC-BY. - Reporting standards
Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be identified as such. - Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used the work and words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
References
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574-601. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0038781
Bell, D. A. (2012). Meritocracy is a good thing. New Perspectives Quarterly, 29(4), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2012.01339.x
Bettache, K., Chiu, C. & Beattie, P. (2020). The merciless mind in a dog-eat-dog society: neoliberalism and the indifference to social inequality. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.002
Campbell, A. (2015). Sex work’s governance: Stuff and nuisance. Feminist Legal Studies, 23(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-015-9279-3
Cargile, A. C., Mao, Y., & Young, S. L. (2019). What’s hard work got to do with it? Diversity course impact on meritocracy beliefs and dialogue about race. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 68, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.10.005
Chen, A. S., Lin, Y. C., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2011). The relationship between cultural intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture shock: A case from Philippine laborers in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.005
Cushman, F. (2020). Rationalisation is rational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43(28), e28: 1-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001730
Coşkun, E. (2018). Criminalisation and prostitution of migrant women in Turkey: A case study of Ugandan women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 68, 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2018.03.002
Cox, K. S., Casablanca, A. M., & McAdams, D. P. (2013). “There is nothing good about this work:” Identity and unhappiness among Nicaraguan female sex workers. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(5), 1459–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9390-y
Deng, J. B., Wahyuni, H. I., & Yulianto, V. I. (2020). Labor migration from Southeast Asia to Taiwan: Issues, public responses and future development. Asian Education and Development Studies, 10(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-02-2019-0043
Duru-Bellat, M., & Tenret, E. (2012). Who’s for meritocracy? Individual and contextual variations in the faith. Comparative Education Review, 56(2), 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1086/661290
Fergnani, A. (2019). Scenario archetypes of the futures of capitalism: The conflict between the psychological attachment to capitalism and the prospect of its dissolution. Futures, 105, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.006
Galiani, S., Gertler, P. J., & Undurraga, R. (2018). The half-life of happiness: Hedonic adaptation in the subjective wellbeing of poor slum dwellers to the satisfaction of basic housing needs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 16(4), 1189-1233. https://doi.org/10.1093/JEEA/JVX042
Gorry, J., Roen, K., & Reilly, J. (2010). Selling yourself? The psychological impact of street sex work and factors affecting support seeking. Health and Social Care in the Community, 18, 492-499.
Gugushvili, A. (2016). Intergenerational social mobility and popular explanations of poverty: A comparative perspective. Social Justice Research, 29(4), 402-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0275-9
Hing, L. S. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024618
Hoang, L. A. (2016). Vietnamese migrant networks in Taiwan: The curse and boon of social capital. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(4), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1080381
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
Kim, C. H., & Choi, Y. B. (2017). How meritocracy is defined today? Contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics and Sociology, 10(1), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-1/8
Konings, M. (2015). The emotional logic of capitalism: What progressives have missed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Laurin, K., & Jettinghoff, W. M. (2020). What kind of rationalisation is system justification? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002243
Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J. T., & Pohl, M. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29(2), 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.322
Liang, L. F. (2011). The making of an ‘ideal’ live-in migrant care worker: Recruiting, training, matching, and disciplining. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(11), 1815-1834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.554571
Lin, S., & Bélanger, D. (2012). Negotiating the social family: Migrant live-in elder care-workers in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Science, 40(3), 295-320. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853112X650854
Lipsey, D. (2014). The meretriciousness of meritocracy. The Political Quarterly, 85(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2014.12062.x
Liu, W. (2015). The embodied crises of neoliberal globalisation: The lives and narratives of Filipina migrant domestic workers. Women’s Studies International Forum, 50, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.03.008
Meroe, A. S. (2014). Democracy, meritocracy, and the uses of education. The Journal of Negro Education, 83, 485-498. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.4.0485
Ministry of Labor Taiwan. (2021, April). Statistics of foreign workers in Taiwan. https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/html/mon/i0120020620e.htm
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
Nkansah-Amankra, S., Agbanu, S. K., & Miller, R. J. (2013). Disparities in health, poverty, incarceration, and social justice among racial groups in the United States: A critical review of evidence of close links with neoliberalism. International Journal of Health Services, 43(2), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.43.2.c
Oliveira, A. (2012). Social control of immigrant sex workers: Transforming a group recognised as ‘at risk’ into a group viewed as ‘a risk’. International Journal of Migration, Health, and Social Care, 8(1), 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/17479891211231392
Poocharoen, O. O., & Brillantes, A. (2013). Meritocracy in Asia Pacific: Status, issues and challenges. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(2), 140-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13484829
Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2010). The frog in Kierkegaard’s beer: Finding meaning in the threat-compensation literature. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 889-905. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00304.x
Shane, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2017). It’s only a dream if you wake up: Young adults’ achievement expectations, opportunities, and meritocratic beliefs. International Journal of Psychology, 52(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12408
Seidman, I. E. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Sheikh, S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). The ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ of moral emotions: A self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209356788
Shohet, M. (2013). Everyday sacrifice and language socialisation in Vietnam: The power of a respect particle. American Anthropologist, 115(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12004
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. London: SAGE.
Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001354
Wang, Z., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2019). The more you have, the more you want? Higher social class predicts a greater desire for wealth and status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2620
Warikoo, N. K., & Fuhr, C. (2014). Legitimating status: Perceptions of meritocracy and inequality among undergraduates at an elite British university. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3108
Yacoub, A. R. (2019). Consensual sex work: An overview of sex-workers’ human dignity in law, philosophy, and Abrahamic religions. Women’s Studies International Forum, 76, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102274