The Dust Bowl Years
In the 1930s, a devastating ecological disaster took place in the regions of Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. It had a huge area of effect and the decade during which it took place was termed ‘The Dust Bowl’. Clouds of dust blotted out the skyline as they rolled over the land. Visibility was reduced to a bare minimum and the air became unhealthy to breathe in.
Soil erosion had occurred on a massive scale by a combination of man-made factors and a series of consecutive droughts over the ten-year period. The dust that was rolling over the plains was actually eroded topsoil, leaving the region barren and infertile. Popularly accepted man-made factors included over-farming that depleted the soil’s nutrients and destroyed grasses which held the soil together, as well as the introduction of harvesting technology that was more efficient in gathering but damaged the soil. (NDMC on the Dust Bowl Years, 2006). The disaster precipitated because of a series of droughts that left the soil dry and dusty, eventually blown away by winds.
The main socioeconomic cause was likely a drop in crop prices which influenced farmers to farm more extensively and intensively, as well as abandoning soil preservation processes such as the resting of the land, planting of windbreaks, and care for beneficial soil organisms. The 1929 Great Depression caused financial strain on farmers who had, in prior years, purchased more capital in a bid to expand their operations. Furthermore, bumper wheat crops increased overall supply in the market and pushed down prices as recession caused a drop in demand (NDMC, 2006).
Socioeconomic effects include farmers who had to sell their farms because they were unable to pay off loans made to finance their asset purchases, as well as the mass migration of residents of the uninhabitable area to the surrounding regions.
Scientific rationality and capitalism are two practices that are carried along in the current of globalization, and I feel that the above example illustrates the kind of negative impacts they can have on people and the environment.
The reduction of the relationship between the land and farming to that of a mechanical equation has encouraged over farming and poor care of land. The discovery of the key roles of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium (N-P-K) in the nutrition of plants, and the subsequent development of synthesized fertilizers has led to theories that suggest that the relationship between land and farming is as simple as: Input chemical nutrients to produce more food. (Pollan, 2006:146) It has also given farmers the option of farming their land without rest by pouring in more chemical fertilizers to increase growth of plants, and the 1930s episode shows that they will exercise that choice in dire situations.
In his book, the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan studies methods of sustainable farming (Pollan, 2006:130). His study suggests that farms that diversify their livestock and crops can provide abundant produce on a level equal to those of conventional, monoculture farms, without any harm to the environment. This is achieved through processes of crop rotation and animal rotation, and the giving of special attention to cultivation of pasture and the production of natural fertilizers from animal waste. He suggests that this counter-cultural trend is growing in the States, but he also highlights some of the obstacles that prevent more farms from diversifying their produce in this way. Firstly, distributing companies find it economically unsound to deal with transporting and storing many different types of crops from one particular farm; they would rather follow the principle of economies of scale and buy large amounts of a single crop from one farm. Secondly, government subsidies encourage farmers to keep producing corn as part of their agenda to keep food prices down (why this is bears further investigation); farmers receive money from both buyers and the government for the corn that they produce (Pollan, 2006:53).
However, the continued oversupply continues to drive down the price of corn in the market, and for farmers to continue to maintain their standard of living and pay fees, their only option is to produce more corn, which eventually drives prices down more. The result is that agribusiness companies continually research ways to goad consumers into eating more corn (various forms such as corn syrup in drinks and corn in cereal), in spite of the fact that naturally, the demand for food is generally inelastic (there SHOULD be a limit to how much each person can eat, though companies work tirelessly to distort this limit through advertising and product design). Chemical fertilizer manufacturers profit from this cycle of over-stimulated production and artificial demand creation as well, because farmers pay out for more fertilizers to stimulate production.
The historical shift from subsistence to commercial farming, as well as the proliferation of efficiency-oriented technologies, has culminated in episodes of behavior by farmers that can be characterized as desperate and sometimes hysterical. The agricultural system is tied to a profit-oriented, capitalist system that does its best to distort the reality that food consumption is not elastic, and encourages monoculture farming for a number of reasons. Ultimately, I feel that the US government should shoulder a greater part of the blame in today’s context, as its agenda to subsidize food prices and keep them low is what artificially stimulates supply and, in the long run, withholds from farmers what is due to them for their labors.
Reference list
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 2: ‘The Farm’. Penguin Books.
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 8: ‘All Flesh Is Grass’. Penguin Books.
Michael Pollan. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Chapter 9: ‘Big Organic’. Penguin Books.
National Drought Mitigation Center. (2006). NDMC on ‘Drought in the Dust Bowl’. Taken from http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm. Retrieved on 2 November, 2008.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
HS103 blog entry 11 (Response to 'Technology and Energy')
Light
In 1879, after numerous attempts, Thomas Edison succeeded in producing the first commercially viable light bulb. Following this, developments in electrical energy distribution by Edison and his peers led to entire cities being electrically powered and lit up, the first of which was the town of Roselle, New Jersey on January 19, 1883. Thomas Edison pursued his research on his own accord, and was not coerced or pressured by others into making his inventions. The results (intended and unintended) of his passion and drive have, and continue to change the face of cities, even today.
Today, power is generated by burning fuels and natural gases and main power stations. The electricity is transmitted at a high voltage to smaller substations within cities, and these provide low-voltage power to homes and businesses. The energy can be transmitted through overhead or underground wires. Because underground networks are somewhat expensive, they are often bundled with other utility lines (e.g. gas, water) to form common utility ducts.
When a new technology is embraced by society, the ramifications are rarely, if ever predictable. Its effects embed themselves so deeply into our daily lives that we rarely give them a second thought. I decided to write on this topic after a 3am stroll under the streetlamps in Nanyang Technological University. On reflection, I feel that the three most defining elements of the light bulb (and by extension all technology) are:
1. The unintended functions of technology- The functions of many kinds of technology can be used to positive or negative effect on others. Even when an invention appears to have only a positive function (e.g. medicine), those who control it can either provide or withhold it from the needy in order to exploit them.
2. Symbolic significance of technology- Sociology emphasizes the influence and dominance of society over the individual. In the book ‘Ten Questions’, the author writes that the individual’s ability to make a difference in society is limited (Charon, 2007) (edit). He writes that in order for lasting change to occur, it is likely that an individual first requires a power base in society. However, technology seems to contradict this point because many scientists underwent their research without any significant public demand or support, and yet their inventions and ideas went on to make radical changes in the landscape of society. While some might argue that it was only through a power base that these inventions gained popularity, I would think that that argument ignores the question of why the power base gathered in the first place. It was the charisma, imagination, and virtues in these ideas that compelled people to support them, rather than the people making an arbitrary, conscious choice.
3. Increasing ignorance and accountability for technological function and consequences- Sir Joshua Reynolds had a famous quote: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." The average person has no time to learn the mechanics and designs of his hand phone, computer, or microwave oven. This leads to two consequences: The first is that of unintended (often negative) consequences of the use of technology, and the second is that of increasing specialization and interdependence within a community.
I wish to use some examples concerning lighting and electrical power distribution to illustrate points 1 and 3.
The path which the use of technology takes is largely unforeseeable. Analysts may succeed in making one or two predictions, but together with society in general, they often overlook many functions of technology which do not get utilized in a popular fashion until several years later. In the case of light, what seems most salient to me is the way that it has allowed to human activity to continue on a massive scale during night-time.
On one hand this has allowed human productivity to increase significantly. On a personal level, a student like me has the option to study and work on assignments past midnight without any disruptions because of the stable supply of lighting and energy. On a wider scale (and a darker note), this same light provides chances for companies that use extensive manual labor to extend operation hours and coerce desperate workers into working 16-18 hour shifts (Lilley, 2004), in atrocious conditions, for pitiful wages. This takes place in countries that have poor enforcement of workers’ rights, are rife with corruption, and have underdeveloped economies and infrastructure that forces them to rely on cheap labor as a way of attracting foreign investment.
Electric lighting is also the foundation for new forms of global culture. The nightlife of a city is often touted as part of its cultural allure, and all cities develop their own forms of nightlife, perhaps reflecting something about human nature and desire. Whether officially or unofficially recognized, the clubs and pubs in the city serve various functions from supporting the tourism industry to the business industry (businessmen may often try to sweeten the deal with their clients over beer and company with women in pubs or KTV lounges). And could Zouk, the Ministry of Sound, and other nightclubs in Singapore function without the functional and aesthetic uses of different kinds of light? Dancing in the dark would be dim-witted.
Humans have used this newfound time at night for both industry and revelry. Those who do so willingly often do not count the cost to their health of repeatedly staying up so late. Those who have no choice feel their bodies wearing down, but they can do little about it. Either way, it seems that research on the effects of technology on our health and society rarely keeps pace with technological advancements and the lifestyles that follow it. I think it is understandable that research on the effects of inadequate sleep come about only years after the trends take place. However, there is a darker side to this. Companies that produce products such as hand phones for instance, are making something that has a radioactive component to it. Although they are in the best place to research and fix the problems that their products cause to people’s health, the likeliness is that as a group whose predominant concern is profit, they would be willing to overlook these problems even if they had some clues about their existence; if the problem is not easily noticeable or traceable over a few years, it seems economically senseless for them to spend money to account for this externality. For example, the movie Erin Brokovitch was an account of real story about a female lawyer who fought for compensation for a town of people who had suffered severe health problems because of their proximity to electrical power lines; her opponent was the company that built and used the power line, and naturally they tried their best to avoid blame, though they failed in the end. I feel that accountability is one of the key points of conflict between government (and non-government) research and regulatory bodies, and companies that invent and manufacture new forms of technology.
Finally, technology creates increasing specialization and interdependence within a society (Haha, is this what Durkheim means by organic solidarity?). Chains of employment and industry form around a single technology. In the case of the light bulb, the city and its citizens find itself in need of manufacturers, repairmen, packaging manufacturers and packagers, and installers. Considering the diverse array of places in which light bulbs are used, the people associated with their use and production can be said to be an integral (though not celebrated) part of society… I guess I confused the idea of organic solidarity brought up in class to mean that people gain a sense of belonging and identification with others because of their dependence on each other (e.g. I feel a sense of community with my plumber). I disagreed with this idea because I thought it was the opposite: Those with resources to employ these workers are more likely to feel like superiors ‘providing’ employment for them, rather than grateful and connected with them… Now, I understand organic solidarity to mean that people are brought together, and continue to live together in cities and communities simply because they must depend on each other. A feeling of community and belonging is not a necessary part of this.
To me, technology reflects key characteristics of human nature, although I’m not sure how to articulate them. Perhaps it shows the single-mindedness of humans, both in the pursuit of their dreams and their use of technology while ignoring externalities such as the damage to the environment or tiny but consistent damages to their health. Certainly it represents human potential and the power for an individual to change society. I get this feeling that a more cultivated approach to invention and regulation will lead to technologies that are beneficial in every way, rather than acting as a trade-off between quantity and quality, speed and safety, or nature and humanity.
Reference list
Charon, Joel. (2007). Ten Questions. Chapter 8: “Does the Individual Really Make A Difference?”. ThomsonWadsworth.
Lilley, Sasha. (Aug 11, 2004). Corpwatch: Sweating for the Olympics. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11493 on November 2nd, 2008.
In 1879, after numerous attempts, Thomas Edison succeeded in producing the first commercially viable light bulb. Following this, developments in electrical energy distribution by Edison and his peers led to entire cities being electrically powered and lit up, the first of which was the town of Roselle, New Jersey on January 19, 1883. Thomas Edison pursued his research on his own accord, and was not coerced or pressured by others into making his inventions. The results (intended and unintended) of his passion and drive have, and continue to change the face of cities, even today.
Today, power is generated by burning fuels and natural gases and main power stations. The electricity is transmitted at a high voltage to smaller substations within cities, and these provide low-voltage power to homes and businesses. The energy can be transmitted through overhead or underground wires. Because underground networks are somewhat expensive, they are often bundled with other utility lines (e.g. gas, water) to form common utility ducts.
When a new technology is embraced by society, the ramifications are rarely, if ever predictable. Its effects embed themselves so deeply into our daily lives that we rarely give them a second thought. I decided to write on this topic after a 3am stroll under the streetlamps in Nanyang Technological University. On reflection, I feel that the three most defining elements of the light bulb (and by extension all technology) are:
1. The unintended functions of technology- The functions of many kinds of technology can be used to positive or negative effect on others. Even when an invention appears to have only a positive function (e.g. medicine), those who control it can either provide or withhold it from the needy in order to exploit them.
2. Symbolic significance of technology- Sociology emphasizes the influence and dominance of society over the individual. In the book ‘Ten Questions’, the author writes that the individual’s ability to make a difference in society is limited (Charon, 2007) (edit). He writes that in order for lasting change to occur, it is likely that an individual first requires a power base in society. However, technology seems to contradict this point because many scientists underwent their research without any significant public demand or support, and yet their inventions and ideas went on to make radical changes in the landscape of society. While some might argue that it was only through a power base that these inventions gained popularity, I would think that that argument ignores the question of why the power base gathered in the first place. It was the charisma, imagination, and virtues in these ideas that compelled people to support them, rather than the people making an arbitrary, conscious choice.
3. Increasing ignorance and accountability for technological function and consequences- Sir Joshua Reynolds had a famous quote: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." The average person has no time to learn the mechanics and designs of his hand phone, computer, or microwave oven. This leads to two consequences: The first is that of unintended (often negative) consequences of the use of technology, and the second is that of increasing specialization and interdependence within a community.
I wish to use some examples concerning lighting and electrical power distribution to illustrate points 1 and 3.
The path which the use of technology takes is largely unforeseeable. Analysts may succeed in making one or two predictions, but together with society in general, they often overlook many functions of technology which do not get utilized in a popular fashion until several years later. In the case of light, what seems most salient to me is the way that it has allowed to human activity to continue on a massive scale during night-time.
On one hand this has allowed human productivity to increase significantly. On a personal level, a student like me has the option to study and work on assignments past midnight without any disruptions because of the stable supply of lighting and energy. On a wider scale (and a darker note), this same light provides chances for companies that use extensive manual labor to extend operation hours and coerce desperate workers into working 16-18 hour shifts (Lilley, 2004), in atrocious conditions, for pitiful wages. This takes place in countries that have poor enforcement of workers’ rights, are rife with corruption, and have underdeveloped economies and infrastructure that forces them to rely on cheap labor as a way of attracting foreign investment.
Electric lighting is also the foundation for new forms of global culture. The nightlife of a city is often touted as part of its cultural allure, and all cities develop their own forms of nightlife, perhaps reflecting something about human nature and desire. Whether officially or unofficially recognized, the clubs and pubs in the city serve various functions from supporting the tourism industry to the business industry (businessmen may often try to sweeten the deal with their clients over beer and company with women in pubs or KTV lounges). And could Zouk, the Ministry of Sound, and other nightclubs in Singapore function without the functional and aesthetic uses of different kinds of light? Dancing in the dark would be dim-witted.
Humans have used this newfound time at night for both industry and revelry. Those who do so willingly often do not count the cost to their health of repeatedly staying up so late. Those who have no choice feel their bodies wearing down, but they can do little about it. Either way, it seems that research on the effects of technology on our health and society rarely keeps pace with technological advancements and the lifestyles that follow it. I think it is understandable that research on the effects of inadequate sleep come about only years after the trends take place. However, there is a darker side to this. Companies that produce products such as hand phones for instance, are making something that has a radioactive component to it. Although they are in the best place to research and fix the problems that their products cause to people’s health, the likeliness is that as a group whose predominant concern is profit, they would be willing to overlook these problems even if they had some clues about their existence; if the problem is not easily noticeable or traceable over a few years, it seems economically senseless for them to spend money to account for this externality. For example, the movie Erin Brokovitch was an account of real story about a female lawyer who fought for compensation for a town of people who had suffered severe health problems because of their proximity to electrical power lines; her opponent was the company that built and used the power line, and naturally they tried their best to avoid blame, though they failed in the end. I feel that accountability is one of the key points of conflict between government (and non-government) research and regulatory bodies, and companies that invent and manufacture new forms of technology.
Finally, technology creates increasing specialization and interdependence within a society (Haha, is this what Durkheim means by organic solidarity?). Chains of employment and industry form around a single technology. In the case of the light bulb, the city and its citizens find itself in need of manufacturers, repairmen, packaging manufacturers and packagers, and installers. Considering the diverse array of places in which light bulbs are used, the people associated with their use and production can be said to be an integral (though not celebrated) part of society… I guess I confused the idea of organic solidarity brought up in class to mean that people gain a sense of belonging and identification with others because of their dependence on each other (e.g. I feel a sense of community with my plumber). I disagreed with this idea because I thought it was the opposite: Those with resources to employ these workers are more likely to feel like superiors ‘providing’ employment for them, rather than grateful and connected with them… Now, I understand organic solidarity to mean that people are brought together, and continue to live together in cities and communities simply because they must depend on each other. A feeling of community and belonging is not a necessary part of this.
To me, technology reflects key characteristics of human nature, although I’m not sure how to articulate them. Perhaps it shows the single-mindedness of humans, both in the pursuit of their dreams and their use of technology while ignoring externalities such as the damage to the environment or tiny but consistent damages to their health. Certainly it represents human potential and the power for an individual to change society. I get this feeling that a more cultivated approach to invention and regulation will lead to technologies that are beneficial in every way, rather than acting as a trade-off between quantity and quality, speed and safety, or nature and humanity.
Reference list
Charon, Joel. (2007). Ten Questions. Chapter 8: “Does the Individual Really Make A Difference?”. ThomsonWadsworth.
Lilley, Sasha. (Aug 11, 2004). Corpwatch: Sweating for the Olympics. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11493 on November 2nd, 2008.
HS103 blog entry 10 (Response to 'Population and Health')
The population of pre-independence Singapore was often left to its own devices, and as a result of factors such as cultural values and unceasing immigration, the population growth rate was incredibly high. When the PAP came into power in 1959, it felt itself predisposed to check the rapid population growth in order to create more stability and manage development. Symbolic markers of their efforts include the ‘Two is Enough’ campaign in the 1960s, and the subsequent ‘Have Three Or More If You Can Afford It.’ Campaign in the 1980s which was meant to reverse the overly-successful effects of the ‘Two is Enough’ campaign (perhaps the effects of increased education on family patterns was underestimated during the 1960s).
In 2007, the fertility rate for Singaporean females was 1.29 (Singstat on Demography, 2007), a number significantly lower than what is needed to replace the population. Higher levels of education, increased individualism, and perceived difficulties in starting a family here are some of the contributing factors towards the low fertility rate. The PAP-led government is fervently attempting to reverse the changes they helped set into motion. The question is whether or not they’re efforts since the 1980s have been effective, considering that the fertility rate of women then was 1.82. It might be worthwhile to observe one of the government’s latest initiatives, the Social Development Unit.
The Social Development Unit was formed in 1984. Today, its main website is called ‘Lovebyte’ (www.lovebyte.org). Among the many pages in the website, several dating and communication services are promoted, and social events are advertised. One of the website’s mission statements is: “We want to create awareness amongst you, our eligible graduates, on the importance of marriage and family, and the need to start early.”
By 2006, more than 33,000 SDU members had gotten married, an average of 1700 each year. (MCYS on SDU, 2006).
Something interesting to take note of is that all of the membership plans, without exception, allow entry only to university graduates, a detail that is most curious considering that limiting membership works against the government’s explicitly stated goal of increasing the population. It suggests that the SDU is trying to achieve a particular kind of population growth, one skewed towards the higher educated. If it is simply a matter of observably lower fertility rates among university graduates, why should such stringent regulations exist for those outside of university circles?
Even assuming that SDU influence and activities has some significant part to play in encouraging 1700 marriages per year, the number is still relatively small and statistics show that fertility rates are still declining, regardless of the SDU’s efforts.
Overt SDU activities, such as the ‘Romancing Singapore’ campaign in 2003, are often stigmatized by a noticeably large proportion of Singaporeans. One often-cracked joke is that SDU stands for “single, desperate, and unwanted.” It seems as if there is a growing cynicism towards government-initiated attempts to influence the lifestyle choices of everyday Singaporeans; the reaction may be especially strong considering the SDU’s blunt approach to a social pattern of intimacy that is synonymous with ideas such as fated meetings, romance, and spontaneity.
It is more likely that the SDU will be more successful if it directs its efforts towards more subtle initiatives. The building of benches and chairs in quiet corners of parks and riversides are some examples of common-sense works by the SDU. SDU also sponsors events in more casual settings within universities; these events do not have any explicit themes of love or romance, but they can emphasize goals of social interaction between university students. The role that the SDU ought to play is similar to that of the aquatic animals in the movie, “The Little Mermaid”. While the mermaid and the sailor were sitting together on a small boat in a pond, the aquatic animals quietly sang in the background, creating the right atmosphere and mood for the couple.
That having been said, at present the SDU’s efforts are hampered by several factors. The first is its preoccupation with increasing the birth rates of university students alone. The second is that its sometimes inelegant approach is seen as offensive and demeaning to an increasingly cynical population. The third and final factor is that its efforts may very well be at odds with a Singapore culture that, for a whole host of reasons, does not look kindly upon the idea of having three children or more.
Reference List
Singstat on Demography. (2007). “Yearbook of Statistics 2008.” Pg 39. Retrieved from ‘www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/yos2008.pdf’ on 20 October 2008.
MCYS on Social Development Unit. (14 June 2006). “Social Development Unit.” Retrieved from ‘app.mcys.gov.sg/web/faml_promarry_sdu.asp’ on 20 October 2008.
In 2007, the fertility rate for Singaporean females was 1.29 (Singstat on Demography, 2007), a number significantly lower than what is needed to replace the population. Higher levels of education, increased individualism, and perceived difficulties in starting a family here are some of the contributing factors towards the low fertility rate. The PAP-led government is fervently attempting to reverse the changes they helped set into motion. The question is whether or not they’re efforts since the 1980s have been effective, considering that the fertility rate of women then was 1.82. It might be worthwhile to observe one of the government’s latest initiatives, the Social Development Unit.
The Social Development Unit was formed in 1984. Today, its main website is called ‘Lovebyte’ (www.lovebyte.org). Among the many pages in the website, several dating and communication services are promoted, and social events are advertised. One of the website’s mission statements is: “We want to create awareness amongst you, our eligible graduates, on the importance of marriage and family, and the need to start early.”
By 2006, more than 33,000 SDU members had gotten married, an average of 1700 each year. (MCYS on SDU, 2006).
Something interesting to take note of is that all of the membership plans, without exception, allow entry only to university graduates, a detail that is most curious considering that limiting membership works against the government’s explicitly stated goal of increasing the population. It suggests that the SDU is trying to achieve a particular kind of population growth, one skewed towards the higher educated. If it is simply a matter of observably lower fertility rates among university graduates, why should such stringent regulations exist for those outside of university circles?
Even assuming that SDU influence and activities has some significant part to play in encouraging 1700 marriages per year, the number is still relatively small and statistics show that fertility rates are still declining, regardless of the SDU’s efforts.
Overt SDU activities, such as the ‘Romancing Singapore’ campaign in 2003, are often stigmatized by a noticeably large proportion of Singaporeans. One often-cracked joke is that SDU stands for “single, desperate, and unwanted.” It seems as if there is a growing cynicism towards government-initiated attempts to influence the lifestyle choices of everyday Singaporeans; the reaction may be especially strong considering the SDU’s blunt approach to a social pattern of intimacy that is synonymous with ideas such as fated meetings, romance, and spontaneity.
It is more likely that the SDU will be more successful if it directs its efforts towards more subtle initiatives. The building of benches and chairs in quiet corners of parks and riversides are some examples of common-sense works by the SDU. SDU also sponsors events in more casual settings within universities; these events do not have any explicit themes of love or romance, but they can emphasize goals of social interaction between university students. The role that the SDU ought to play is similar to that of the aquatic animals in the movie, “The Little Mermaid”. While the mermaid and the sailor were sitting together on a small boat in a pond, the aquatic animals quietly sang in the background, creating the right atmosphere and mood for the couple.
That having been said, at present the SDU’s efforts are hampered by several factors. The first is its preoccupation with increasing the birth rates of university students alone. The second is that its sometimes inelegant approach is seen as offensive and demeaning to an increasingly cynical population. The third and final factor is that its efforts may very well be at odds with a Singapore culture that, for a whole host of reasons, does not look kindly upon the idea of having three children or more.
Reference List
Singstat on Demography. (2007). “Yearbook of Statistics 2008.” Pg 39. Retrieved from ‘www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/yos2008.pdf’ on 20 October 2008.
MCYS on Social Development Unit. (14 June 2006). “Social Development Unit.” Retrieved from ‘app.mcys.gov.sg/web/faml_promarry_sdu.asp’ on 20 October 2008.
HS103 blog entry 9 (Response to 'Urbanization')
I visited Manhattan in the city of New York during the month of April, as winter gave way to spring. My mother, my sister, and I took up a residence at the Hyatt hotel for the duration of our two week stay, a decision that cost us something close to S$500 a night. The location was near the center of Manhattan, and this gave us easy access to the boutiques and high fashion stores that my mother was keen to explore.
Walking on the streets gave us sharp sensations as we absorbed the flood of new experiences. The air had a cold bite to it, and everyone on the streets had either coats or suits on. The more affluent dressed in fine, navy blue trench coats, while those with more modest backgrounds wore jackets. Every couple of streets we passed, there would be a homeless person swathed in worn, dull coats and scarves, with beanie hats on their head. Often they would have a trolley or shopping cart with them containing their possessions.
The pattern of the roads is a grid of numbered avenues and streets, a system that made navigating the city a simple task. Parking, apparently, is allowed on the streets but not the avenues, and often street roads are lined with cars unable to find spaces in the few (extremely few compared to Singapore) car park lots available. Since the pattern is a grid with very few variations, there are traffic lights in every junction, and this slows traffic down considerably, with taxis having an average speed of about 40km/h (as compared to Singaporean drivers who often drive at speeds of at least 50km/h or above within the CBD.).
On the streets of Time Square, we paid to take pictures with people dressed as famous American icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, Elmo from Sesame Street, and Batman. Theatres and concert halls could be found along every street in the area; neon lights and signs protruded from buildings overhead. As we traveled further north of the city towards Central Park, we entered a district of high fashion retail, with high-end stores such as Saks and Macy’s. Within these glitzy stores, we saw articles of clothing ranging from US$150 to as much as US$10,000. There was a myriad of Japanese and Parisian designer clothing. Levi’s Jeans were nowhere to be seen in this district. We contemplated drinking US$10 tea but decided against it in the end. Down the road there were more shops selling memorabilia, such as the Walt Disney store, the M&M store, and the Fox Network store.
We would often leave the avenues and duck into the streets to find affordable food (Cafes or eateries situated at junctions sold US$6 cups of orange juice.) Mexican burritos were in plentiful supply on these streets. Furthermore, tiny ethnic enclaves could be found along these narrow paths, such as Little Koreas or Little Chinatowns. These streets had shops selling cultural objects or sub-par manifestations of ethnic cuisine, although some shops did manage to provide delightful eating experiences.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the ‘kiasu’ label that Singaporeans have is not exclusive to us. One salient moment was when we discovered that our ‘US$500-a-night hotel’ did not provide complimentary water; a dispenser outside sold 800ml bottles of water for US$2 each. Furthermore, baggage carts at the airport were not free for use, but cost US$2 each to rent.
Manhattan is a place where the most highly regarded representations of culture meet, be it in the form of designer clothing or of world-class performers from all around the globe performing in its concert halls and theatres, and this is what draws people year after year.
Walking on the streets gave us sharp sensations as we absorbed the flood of new experiences. The air had a cold bite to it, and everyone on the streets had either coats or suits on. The more affluent dressed in fine, navy blue trench coats, while those with more modest backgrounds wore jackets. Every couple of streets we passed, there would be a homeless person swathed in worn, dull coats and scarves, with beanie hats on their head. Often they would have a trolley or shopping cart with them containing their possessions.
The pattern of the roads is a grid of numbered avenues and streets, a system that made navigating the city a simple task. Parking, apparently, is allowed on the streets but not the avenues, and often street roads are lined with cars unable to find spaces in the few (extremely few compared to Singapore) car park lots available. Since the pattern is a grid with very few variations, there are traffic lights in every junction, and this slows traffic down considerably, with taxis having an average speed of about 40km/h (as compared to Singaporean drivers who often drive at speeds of at least 50km/h or above within the CBD.).
On the streets of Time Square, we paid to take pictures with people dressed as famous American icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, Elmo from Sesame Street, and Batman. Theatres and concert halls could be found along every street in the area; neon lights and signs protruded from buildings overhead. As we traveled further north of the city towards Central Park, we entered a district of high fashion retail, with high-end stores such as Saks and Macy’s. Within these glitzy stores, we saw articles of clothing ranging from US$150 to as much as US$10,000. There was a myriad of Japanese and Parisian designer clothing. Levi’s Jeans were nowhere to be seen in this district. We contemplated drinking US$10 tea but decided against it in the end. Down the road there were more shops selling memorabilia, such as the Walt Disney store, the M&M store, and the Fox Network store.
We would often leave the avenues and duck into the streets to find affordable food (Cafes or eateries situated at junctions sold US$6 cups of orange juice.) Mexican burritos were in plentiful supply on these streets. Furthermore, tiny ethnic enclaves could be found along these narrow paths, such as Little Koreas or Little Chinatowns. These streets had shops selling cultural objects or sub-par manifestations of ethnic cuisine, although some shops did manage to provide delightful eating experiences.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the ‘kiasu’ label that Singaporeans have is not exclusive to us. One salient moment was when we discovered that our ‘US$500-a-night hotel’ did not provide complimentary water; a dispenser outside sold 800ml bottles of water for US$2 each. Furthermore, baggage carts at the airport were not free for use, but cost US$2 each to rent.
Manhattan is a place where the most highly regarded representations of culture meet, be it in the form of designer clothing or of world-class performers from all around the globe performing in its concert halls and theatres, and this is what draws people year after year.
HS103 blog entry 8 (Response to 'Globalized Identity')
Christian fundamentalism is a movement that opposes liberal interpretation and practice of Biblical doctrine, and encourages a return to strict and literal interpretations of doctrine. It is a movement that has no clear central leadership or themes; some Christian fundamentalists keep their strict way of life within their own society or individually, whereas others engage actively in politics and some even openly criticize and oppose people of other faiths. Despite their differences, what Christian fundamentalists seem to have in common is the promise of a return to ‘better times’, where society was supposedly more stable and cohesive, and people were more ‘moral’ as opposed to the lawlessness and deviance that they associate with the dominance of extreme liberalism. My question today is whether or not this is indeed true. Has Christian fundamentalism led to greater social cohesion? I wish to examine divorce rates in these states.
There is an often used adage in Christian circles that ‘families that pray together, stay together.’ However, the Barna report, a study on divorce rates interviewing 3,854 adults in 48 states, concluded that divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than those of non-Christians, especially Atheists and Agnostics (Report on
The bible states in both the Old and New Testaments that divorce is not to occur unless the grounds are those of adultery. If indeed, fundamentalist churches follow such interpretations strictly, why should the divorce rates of this group be so much higher than those of other, more liberal religious groups? My belief is that a return to fundamentalist interpretations can no longer facilitate a return to a time when rates of divorce were lower, and that in fact such rates are not an indicator of healthy cohesion in family units; they are instead indicative of the repression of women by consensus on religious doctrine. For instance, a strict, literal interpretation of the bible means that women must tread quietly in church and not make a ‘nuisance’ of themselves. Furthermore, the elements of patriarchy inherent in Biblical texts would become emphasized to an extreme if given a legalistic interpretation. Such edicts find themselves at odds with both modern values of equality and modern realities of women who are gaining equal ground next to men as opposed to the restrictive lifestyles of traditional women. Fundamentalist approaches no longer have any logical appeal in the face of arguments for gender equality, and their insistence on traditional views of subservient women only aggravate domestic situations rather than supporting them.
In conclusion, I believe that a return to traditional and fundamentalist approaches to religion do not necessarily yield the benefits that are promised. The clashes with modern views about marriage, relationships, and equality in fact deepen conflicts in family units.
Reference list
B.A. Robinson. (2008)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
HS103 blog entry 7 (Response to 'Democracy and Human Rights') Edited 061008
I find that the nature of democracy as ‘majority rule’ poses some innate contradictions to the idea that democratic rule is backed by the public for the good of the public. For the American president to be elected this year, he needs to win at least 270 electoral votes out of 538. In the event that he should win by the slimmest margin, 268 votes to the contrary will have been overruled. To increase the percentage of votes required to win would also be to increase the risk of a deadlock between the supporters of the candidates. I wish to highlight what I think are two salient contradictions of democracy: The issue of majority rule, and the question of the public’s objectivity in certain decisions.
Victories in democratic processes, such as the election of presidential figures, often leave the views of significant minorities unrepresented in the final decision. This means that it is always the dominant groups in an electoral process that hold decision-making power, and although it is in the interest of the ruling group to account for the needs of minorities at times, there are certain areas where dominant groups eagerly make decisions in their own interest, exerting their power over minorities and those not included in the democratic process. Slavery in the United States of America carried on for about 200 years until 1865. A country that is supposedly synonymous with democracy entertained this practice, which modern society has for some time seen as grotesque, for slightly more than two centuries.
Furthermore, in democratic societies where popularity battles are publicised by many different forms of media, affluent people have more say as they have the resources to spread their message through advertising and to fund the causes they support. On the other hand, the disadvantaged poor in society generally have greater concerns in living day-by-day and in social welfare; people working two jobs at the same time are less likely to have time to think or even to rally to political causes outside their immediate concern. This also means that they inevitably become a stable source of votes to parties which offer more social welfare, as their fates are more closely tied to the success of such an outcome (Herbert J. Gans, 1971). Democracy provides one vote per person, but the amount of freedom a person has to use that vote is not necessarily the same for everyone.
The second issue is one the questions the public’s ability to make good decisions at all. This is an argument much favoured by the PAP government in Singapore, which has been known during certain times in history to chastise the public for what it calls ‘swing voting’, warning that the ‘illogical’ election of inadequate leaders would quickly lead to the country’s destabilization. These arguments generally favour governments. However, I accept the validity of it in questioning the objectivity of democratic populations in certain areas of life. Let us look at the Singaporean context. Debate over the repeal of laws constraining gays in Singapore was fierce, with a bulk of ethical arguments and a few pragmatic ones such as the attraction of the ‘pink’ dollar to Singapore. I would point out that this debate mainly concerned the plight of a relatively peaceful minority group and was steeped in ethical argument. It was easy for Singaporeans to be concerned and to argue fiercely over this. However, on another issue of the introduction of greater ERP coverage over the country, the vast majority of the public became incensed, and the need for such a program was questioned vehemently. At times, the government was accused of using taxpayers’ money unwisely. The argument from the proposition was that it was necessary to cut down traffic congestion in many areas before it slowed down work efficiency considerably. Furthermore, it was a decision coupled with other policies (such as the increase in COE prices) meant to discourage the use of cars and to encourage the use of public transport. It can be argued that the extreme reaction of the population was due to the extreme ‘unfairness’ of the policy. However, in this case, I would argue that the closeness of this topic to the lives of individual Singaporeans was a strong factor in understanding their reactions. Given that global issues have highlighted the problem of strained fuel dependency, as well as the more or less tangible benefit of less congested roads (the extent of this can be debated fiercely), I would characterize the average Singaporean’s reaction as ‘emotional’, although understandably so. Still, this highlights that when the issues become personal, more emotional elements are bound to come into play and this can affect the ability of democracies to make decisions effectively.
EDIT
The remarks on my paper asked if the points I was highlighting were problems with democracy or with states that did not practice democracy properly. I maintain that for the most part, what I've written is linked directly to democracy itself. Trying to give each citizen an equal vote does not reflect the reality of varying degrees of social inequality in all societies. My point about the objectivity of the people is also something that I feel applies universally, not just in Singapore. If people have to make choices by voting, it is inevitable that their judgment on some matters will be skewed, depending on their social contexts... Well, if I don't think I could propose offhand that some matters should be decided by the public and others decided by the government; deciding which matters those should be could take longer than the decisions themselves.
Still, I think that it is a reality that needs to be addressed somehow. While I think that the study of political systems has practical use in terms of how we can refine and qualify our political system within its social context, I believe that when we talk about democracy or socialism, the fundamental question that we're asking is, "Who can be trusted?". Is it a socialist bureaucracy that holds centralized power (that corrupts)? Do they have the moral fiber to serve the people to the best of their ability, and will the people always be able to recognize that they are doing so? On the other hand,is it a democratic people who are not necessarily informed enough to make good decisions (although the argument is that democratic process is enough of a good in itself)? How do we bring about the growth of a good people and a good government, and what constitutes that good?
Reference list
Herbert J. Gans. (1971) Social Policy. “The Uses of Poverty”. Social Policy Corp.
Victories in democratic processes, such as the election of presidential figures, often leave the views of significant minorities unrepresented in the final decision. This means that it is always the dominant groups in an electoral process that hold decision-making power, and although it is in the interest of the ruling group to account for the needs of minorities at times, there are certain areas where dominant groups eagerly make decisions in their own interest, exerting their power over minorities and those not included in the democratic process. Slavery in the United States of America carried on for about 200 years until 1865. A country that is supposedly synonymous with democracy entertained this practice, which modern society has for some time seen as grotesque, for slightly more than two centuries.
Furthermore, in democratic societies where popularity battles are publicised by many different forms of media, affluent people have more say as they have the resources to spread their message through advertising and to fund the causes they support. On the other hand, the disadvantaged poor in society generally have greater concerns in living day-by-day and in social welfare; people working two jobs at the same time are less likely to have time to think or even to rally to political causes outside their immediate concern. This also means that they inevitably become a stable source of votes to parties which offer more social welfare, as their fates are more closely tied to the success of such an outcome (Herbert J. Gans, 1971). Democracy provides one vote per person, but the amount of freedom a person has to use that vote is not necessarily the same for everyone.
The second issue is one the questions the public’s ability to make good decisions at all. This is an argument much favoured by the PAP government in Singapore, which has been known during certain times in history to chastise the public for what it calls ‘swing voting’, warning that the ‘illogical’ election of inadequate leaders would quickly lead to the country’s destabilization. These arguments generally favour governments. However, I accept the validity of it in questioning the objectivity of democratic populations in certain areas of life. Let us look at the Singaporean context. Debate over the repeal of laws constraining gays in Singapore was fierce, with a bulk of ethical arguments and a few pragmatic ones such as the attraction of the ‘pink’ dollar to Singapore. I would point out that this debate mainly concerned the plight of a relatively peaceful minority group and was steeped in ethical argument. It was easy for Singaporeans to be concerned and to argue fiercely over this. However, on another issue of the introduction of greater ERP coverage over the country, the vast majority of the public became incensed, and the need for such a program was questioned vehemently. At times, the government was accused of using taxpayers’ money unwisely. The argument from the proposition was that it was necessary to cut down traffic congestion in many areas before it slowed down work efficiency considerably. Furthermore, it was a decision coupled with other policies (such as the increase in COE prices) meant to discourage the use of cars and to encourage the use of public transport. It can be argued that the extreme reaction of the population was due to the extreme ‘unfairness’ of the policy. However, in this case, I would argue that the closeness of this topic to the lives of individual Singaporeans was a strong factor in understanding their reactions. Given that global issues have highlighted the problem of strained fuel dependency, as well as the more or less tangible benefit of less congested roads (the extent of this can be debated fiercely), I would characterize the average Singaporean’s reaction as ‘emotional’, although understandably so. Still, this highlights that when the issues become personal, more emotional elements are bound to come into play and this can affect the ability of democracies to make decisions effectively.
EDIT
The remarks on my paper asked if the points I was highlighting were problems with democracy or with states that did not practice democracy properly. I maintain that for the most part, what I've written is linked directly to democracy itself. Trying to give each citizen an equal vote does not reflect the reality of varying degrees of social inequality in all societies. My point about the objectivity of the people is also something that I feel applies universally, not just in Singapore. If people have to make choices by voting, it is inevitable that their judgment on some matters will be skewed, depending on their social contexts... Well, if I don't think I could propose offhand that some matters should be decided by the public and others decided by the government; deciding which matters those should be could take longer than the decisions themselves.
Still, I think that it is a reality that needs to be addressed somehow. While I think that the study of political systems has practical use in terms of how we can refine and qualify our political system within its social context, I believe that when we talk about democracy or socialism, the fundamental question that we're asking is, "Who can be trusted?". Is it a socialist bureaucracy that holds centralized power (that corrupts)? Do they have the moral fiber to serve the people to the best of their ability, and will the people always be able to recognize that they are doing so? On the other hand,is it a democratic people who are not necessarily informed enough to make good decisions (although the argument is that democratic process is enough of a good in itself)? How do we bring about the growth of a good people and a good government, and what constitutes that good?
Reference list
Herbert J. Gans. (1971) Social Policy. “The Uses of Poverty”. Social Policy Corp.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hs103 blog entry 6 (Response to 'War and Terrorism') Revised
Conflicts marked by terrorism have, unfortunately, a terrific shelf-life. The conflict between Israel and the various militant groups has ceased to end in any significant way since 1948. Conflicts between Indonesia and different separatist groups started as early as 1969, but have carried on till today. World Wars 1 and 2 lasted between 4 to 6 years. What element of terrorist conflicts enables them to persist for decades on end?
One reason is the access to means of conflict. Weapons manufactured in the past by Soviet and US industries were used by the respective countries they supported during civil wars and regional conflicts. It is speculated that there may even be 50 million AK-47 rifles still circulating in the world by both legal and illegal means (Sernau, 2006). It is an inexpensive rifle that can be purchased in large numbers. Beyond that, terrorists can also create carnage with even simpler means. Shrapnel-filled, home-made explosives and car bombs can be produced without the need for any kind of advanced technology. Furthermore, the civilians who are the targets of terrorists have little to no physical protection, unlike military personnel who wear protective vests and ride armoured vehicles.
Means are not enough to explain the prevalence of terrorist action. Suicide bombers do not give their lives up for a cause simply because they have the means to do so. Research has little to show about links between poverty and terrorist action (although the financial care of the suicide bomber’s family is one of the provisions made by some terrorist groups). It may be a factor, but I think that the deciding factor is one of religious indoctrination. Christian and Islamic literature has explicit accounts of holy wars. The Old Testament which the Jews (having no belief in the validity of New Testament books) use as their main religious text has several chapters where the Israelite nation was given a direct mandate from God to utterly annihilate every single person in the foreign lands they planned to move into.
I am not suggesting that this is the attitude of Jews today. However, the presence of such elements in religious doctrine can be, and are easily employed by terrorist groups to validate their ideologies. Suicide bombers are the best illustration of this; a great part of their motivation lies in the promise of a glorious afterlife which has been earned by their zealous devotion to their faith. Furthermore, it becomes even easier for them to take the lives of others as religious indoctrination objectifies foreigners, reducing them to one-dimensional ‘enemies of the faith’.
The targets that terrorists choose may be the most important factor of all. Terrorist attacks target people who have not consented to engage in any form of warfare, and unlike soldiers these civilians do not have the benefit of armoured vests or vehicles. Terrorist acts come without warning and it seems impossible for bereaved families to make sense of the deaths of their loved ones. The ruthlessness and blatant disregard for lives, combined with proud declarations made by the responsible parties, is only bound to engender a deep and pervasive hatred among the victims. It can be compared to the way criminals who target children are considered by their fellow criminals to be the worst human beings.
But is it really true that terrorists always choose violence over peaceful solutions? Is there a choice? I guess the answer is highly dependent on the context… hmm. I don’t know. Haha. I guess there are also other reasons for the perpetuation of terrorist violence, but these were the first few that came to mind…
Reference list
Scott Sernau. (2006). “Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and
Sustainability”. Chapter 6: War, States of Terror. Pearson.
One reason is the access to means of conflict. Weapons manufactured in the past by Soviet and US industries were used by the respective countries they supported during civil wars and regional conflicts. It is speculated that there may even be 50 million AK-47 rifles still circulating in the world by both legal and illegal means (Sernau, 2006). It is an inexpensive rifle that can be purchased in large numbers. Beyond that, terrorists can also create carnage with even simpler means. Shrapnel-filled, home-made explosives and car bombs can be produced without the need for any kind of advanced technology. Furthermore, the civilians who are the targets of terrorists have little to no physical protection, unlike military personnel who wear protective vests and ride armoured vehicles.
Means are not enough to explain the prevalence of terrorist action. Suicide bombers do not give their lives up for a cause simply because they have the means to do so. Research has little to show about links between poverty and terrorist action (although the financial care of the suicide bomber’s family is one of the provisions made by some terrorist groups). It may be a factor, but I think that the deciding factor is one of religious indoctrination. Christian and Islamic literature has explicit accounts of holy wars. The Old Testament which the Jews (having no belief in the validity of New Testament books) use as their main religious text has several chapters where the Israelite nation was given a direct mandate from God to utterly annihilate every single person in the foreign lands they planned to move into.
I am not suggesting that this is the attitude of Jews today. However, the presence of such elements in religious doctrine can be, and are easily employed by terrorist groups to validate their ideologies. Suicide bombers are the best illustration of this; a great part of their motivation lies in the promise of a glorious afterlife which has been earned by their zealous devotion to their faith. Furthermore, it becomes even easier for them to take the lives of others as religious indoctrination objectifies foreigners, reducing them to one-dimensional ‘enemies of the faith’.
The targets that terrorists choose may be the most important factor of all. Terrorist attacks target people who have not consented to engage in any form of warfare, and unlike soldiers these civilians do not have the benefit of armoured vests or vehicles. Terrorist acts come without warning and it seems impossible for bereaved families to make sense of the deaths of their loved ones. The ruthlessness and blatant disregard for lives, combined with proud declarations made by the responsible parties, is only bound to engender a deep and pervasive hatred among the victims. It can be compared to the way criminals who target children are considered by their fellow criminals to be the worst human beings.
But is it really true that terrorists always choose violence over peaceful solutions? Is there a choice? I guess the answer is highly dependent on the context… hmm. I don’t know. Haha. I guess there are also other reasons for the perpetuation of terrorist violence, but these were the first few that came to mind…
Reference list
Scott Sernau. (2006). “Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and
Sustainability”. Chapter 6: War, States of Terror. Pearson.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Response to Lecture 5: 'Crime'
Singapore is a country with many characteristics that seem contrary to those seen as contributing to high crime rates. It has a low unemployment rate; 3.5% of the eligible population in 2006 was unemployed (Singstat on Key Household Income Trends, 2007)). Drug trading here is met with harsh legislation (Traffickers can easily face the death penalty) and law enforcement. There is a growing income inequality gap but only a small fraction of citizens here can actually be said to lack basic needs. In a country with 4 million people and a high population density, 2006 saw 17 murder cases, 118 rape cases, and 361 rioting cases (Singapore Police Force on Index Crimes, 2006), numbers that are small when taken from a statistical perspective. From 2005 to 2007, there have been reductions in the number of crime cases recorded by the Singapore police force. However, as good as this record appears to be, I feel that certain aspects of Singapore as a society continue to act as structural influences towards crime, and this is manifested in cases of outrage of modesty, and thefts by youths. I will elaborate using these two examples.
Reported outrage of modesty cases in 2006 amounted to 1280 cases. One in four of these cases took place at common HDB block areas such as lifts, staircases/staircase landings, and void decks. Except for void decks, these are small, confined areas out of immediate public view. All of these places share the characteristic of being unattended by adults for the larger part of the day. Girls who are schooling are likely to be targeted as they return home at hours where most adults are away at work, and this supports the idea that the increasing distances between work, leisure, and residence have created more opportunities for criminals to prey on lone individuals who have no passers-by to help them. There is also less security in the sense that the presence of a strongly-knit community is absent; adults working for most part of the day and resting in the night are unlikely to form strong ties with block mates, not even their next-door neighbors. People find themselves isolated in this way, in spite of the huge number of people living in their immediate vicinity.
Shop thefts make up roughly 29% of all youth crime cases (1,260 out of 4,280 arrests). Singaporean youths do not enter shops to steal bags of rice or other essentials for living; they often take small items that are non-essential to basic living, ranging from cheap items like stationery to expensive items such as bags or hand phones. If their reason for stealing is not one of economic need, then other factors must be considered. The personal thrill of the act of stealing is one reason, but in the larger context of society it can be suggested that a culture that connects material possessions with self-worth drives youths to take risks of breaking the law in order to possess the same things that their more affluent peers do.
Materialistic and individualistic orientations are strong influences on crime in Singapore; white-collar crimes are a growing phenomenon here, and often they are committed by people who are already in strong financial positions. Singapore may now be dealing with wider and more pervasive manifestations of its culture in crime as well as other forms, and that may be a challenge that the government is ill-equipped to deal with in the years to come.
Reference list
Singapore Police Force on Index Crime. (2006). Statistics on Index Crimes, 2006. Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.spf.gov.sg/stats/stats2006_youtharrests.htm
Statistics Singapore on Income Indicators. (2007). Key Household Income Trends, (2007). Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s14.pdf
Reported outrage of modesty cases in 2006 amounted to 1280 cases. One in four of these cases took place at common HDB block areas such as lifts, staircases/staircase landings, and void decks. Except for void decks, these are small, confined areas out of immediate public view. All of these places share the characteristic of being unattended by adults for the larger part of the day. Girls who are schooling are likely to be targeted as they return home at hours where most adults are away at work, and this supports the idea that the increasing distances between work, leisure, and residence have created more opportunities for criminals to prey on lone individuals who have no passers-by to help them. There is also less security in the sense that the presence of a strongly-knit community is absent; adults working for most part of the day and resting in the night are unlikely to form strong ties with block mates, not even their next-door neighbors. People find themselves isolated in this way, in spite of the huge number of people living in their immediate vicinity.
Shop thefts make up roughly 29% of all youth crime cases (1,260 out of 4,280 arrests). Singaporean youths do not enter shops to steal bags of rice or other essentials for living; they often take small items that are non-essential to basic living, ranging from cheap items like stationery to expensive items such as bags or hand phones. If their reason for stealing is not one of economic need, then other factors must be considered. The personal thrill of the act of stealing is one reason, but in the larger context of society it can be suggested that a culture that connects material possessions with self-worth drives youths to take risks of breaking the law in order to possess the same things that their more affluent peers do.
Materialistic and individualistic orientations are strong influences on crime in Singapore; white-collar crimes are a growing phenomenon here, and often they are committed by people who are already in strong financial positions. Singapore may now be dealing with wider and more pervasive manifestations of its culture in crime as well as other forms, and that may be a challenge that the government is ill-equipped to deal with in the years to come.
Reference list
Singapore Police Force on Index Crime. (2006). Statistics on Index Crimes, 2006. Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.spf.gov.sg/stats/stats2006_youtharrests.htm
Statistics Singapore on Income Indicators. (2007). Key Household Income Trends, (2007). Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s14.pdf
Individualism, Capitalism, Power of words
HS101: The Charon Chp7 readings mentioned individualism, but it's still a hazy concept to me. I can accept that individualism has some roots in undiscerning meritocracy (Recent meritocracy debate in Spore about what constitutes merit) and materialistic culture. I can visualize it as having (but not necessarily) some links to moral subjectivism. I think it can be partly characterized as a reduced sense of owing something to society (meritocracy can encourage the idea that my success is based on my work and talent alone, not the influence or contributions of my society), as well as a sense of belonging to, and having pride in one's society. Still, I feel there's quite a lot I don't understand about this concept...
HS102: Reading all this conspiracy theory material about the power of discourse makes me think that the way the government shapes its language and discourse to its own ends is kinda cool, in a sick and twisted way.
HS103: Capitalism. I have a lot of unresolved thoughts about this, whether or not it is greatly responsible for social inequality, or whether or not it has evolved to encompass things once considered as externalities (factors that are ignored by market forces e.g. environment, social costs... They are not externalities if they become factored in). However, I think I can safely conclude that Capitalism has generated a lot more production volume, and has taken that production volume and applied it to the mass production of an unreasonably large pile of non-essential crap. Luxury cars, mp3s, clothes... I'm not saying I don't like these things but seriously, A LOT of these things are produced. We don't even use half of them. Think of all the commercially dominant Ipods being bought off the shelves. Now think of all the mountain-high piles of 'inferior' mp3s (cough c r e a t i v e cough*) left unsold. Hmm... I guess I'm being a bit biased but I'm sure there's some truth in this statement...
HS102: Reading all this conspiracy theory material about the power of discourse makes me think that the way the government shapes its language and discourse to its own ends is kinda cool, in a sick and twisted way.
HS103: Capitalism. I have a lot of unresolved thoughts about this, whether or not it is greatly responsible for social inequality, or whether or not it has evolved to encompass things once considered as externalities (factors that are ignored by market forces e.g. environment, social costs... They are not externalities if they become factored in). However, I think I can safely conclude that Capitalism has generated a lot more production volume, and has taken that production volume and applied it to the mass production of an unreasonably large pile of non-essential crap. Luxury cars, mp3s, clothes... I'm not saying I don't like these things but seriously, A LOT of these things are produced. We don't even use half of them. Think of all the commercially dominant Ipods being bought off the shelves. Now think of all the mountain-high piles of 'inferior' mp3s (cough c r e a t i v e cough*) left unsold. Hmm... I guess I'm being a bit biased but I'm sure there's some truth in this statement...
Non-assignment thoughts: Ethnocentrism
Thoughts about ideas brought up during school have been piling up in my head.
HS101's topic about ethnocentrism got me thinking. Ethnocentrism is defined as 'the tendency to use our own cultural values, ideas, and rules as a starting point for thinking about and judging other people.' It can often lead to the condemnation and punishment of others who have differing values. It tends to lead to the dehumanizing of outsiders within our own perception; this attitude makes it hard for us to see other people's points of view.
Ethnocentrism is admitted to be a natural tendency of human beings, but at the same time it is unambiguously characterized as a lack of awareness, a negative trait... I think that it's important to objectively question our beliefs and ideals, but assuming that we find resolutions to these questions, there comes a point when you either cease to question or you simply doubt for the sake of ritual.
To avoid the pitfalls of ethnocentrism, we should actively discern between matters of preference and matters that require complete adherence to, so that irrational conflict does not occur over pointless matters. As much as is feasible, the boundaries of our shared values should extend to include as many people as possible, recognizing whatever may be universally common between human beings. Shared values can theoretically fall into two categories:
- Values that are discovered to be shared in some form or another by the vast majority of civilizations in the world.
- Values that we choose to agree upon, regardless of whether a 'universal mandate' has been proven to exist or not.
After we've thought hard about these questions and come to conclusions, there ought to come a time when we embrace these ideas in a most ethnocentric manner. Ethnocentrism has often encouraged the rationalization of inhumanity and oppression, but leading a life in constant doubt of the concreteness of values is only going to encourage debased humanity and reckless freedom. There is a fine line between sincere searching for answers and rationalization, not by value judgments but by the lack of them.
Ethnocentric thought and relativistic thought should each have their seasons in our lives. The value of ethnocentrism is not just social cohesion/sense of belonging, nor is it simply a way for us to feel anchored or make sense of things; ethnocentrism provides a sort of moral energy that propels us to action. The Charon readings emphasize the relations between ethnocentrism and destructive conflict. However, it should be accepted that ethnocentric expectations of oneself can be beneficial to others. If one's ethnocentrism demands charity and personal sacrifice, the results can be food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and encouragement for the destitute.
My personal view is that successively better-educated generations are becoming more interested in questioning the basic assumptions of their social lives and ideologies. However, if you take a look at the key ideas in Charon's text, one of them is, "Values are matters of preference, and it is impossible to prove that certain ones are the true ones for all to follow." This statement is being pronounced as an intellectual, enlightened, and objective viewpoint; the trouble is that statements like this discursively shape the idea that real, universally held values are not substantial, and they can be easily be misinterpreted as, "There isn't really such a thing as right or wrong."
I believe that the assumption should always be held that, somewhere within collective mess of this world's clashing values, there are values that are innate (waiting to be discovered). Objective observation and questioning is the way that we can work towards discovering these values, and ethnocentric adherence to what values we have on hand should be what takes place when it becomes unreasonable to question further.
HS101's topic about ethnocentrism got me thinking. Ethnocentrism is defined as 'the tendency to use our own cultural values, ideas, and rules as a starting point for thinking about and judging other people.' It can often lead to the condemnation and punishment of others who have differing values. It tends to lead to the dehumanizing of outsiders within our own perception; this attitude makes it hard for us to see other people's points of view.
Ethnocentrism is admitted to be a natural tendency of human beings, but at the same time it is unambiguously characterized as a lack of awareness, a negative trait... I think that it's important to objectively question our beliefs and ideals, but assuming that we find resolutions to these questions, there comes a point when you either cease to question or you simply doubt for the sake of ritual.
To avoid the pitfalls of ethnocentrism, we should actively discern between matters of preference and matters that require complete adherence to, so that irrational conflict does not occur over pointless matters. As much as is feasible, the boundaries of our shared values should extend to include as many people as possible, recognizing whatever may be universally common between human beings. Shared values can theoretically fall into two categories:
- Values that are discovered to be shared in some form or another by the vast majority of civilizations in the world.
- Values that we choose to agree upon, regardless of whether a 'universal mandate' has been proven to exist or not.
After we've thought hard about these questions and come to conclusions, there ought to come a time when we embrace these ideas in a most ethnocentric manner. Ethnocentrism has often encouraged the rationalization of inhumanity and oppression, but leading a life in constant doubt of the concreteness of values is only going to encourage debased humanity and reckless freedom. There is a fine line between sincere searching for answers and rationalization, not by value judgments but by the lack of them.
Ethnocentric thought and relativistic thought should each have their seasons in our lives. The value of ethnocentrism is not just social cohesion/sense of belonging, nor is it simply a way for us to feel anchored or make sense of things; ethnocentrism provides a sort of moral energy that propels us to action. The Charon readings emphasize the relations between ethnocentrism and destructive conflict. However, it should be accepted that ethnocentric expectations of oneself can be beneficial to others. If one's ethnocentrism demands charity and personal sacrifice, the results can be food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and encouragement for the destitute.
My personal view is that successively better-educated generations are becoming more interested in questioning the basic assumptions of their social lives and ideologies. However, if you take a look at the key ideas in Charon's text, one of them is, "Values are matters of preference, and it is impossible to prove that certain ones are the true ones for all to follow." This statement is being pronounced as an intellectual, enlightened, and objective viewpoint; the trouble is that statements like this discursively shape the idea that real, universally held values are not substantial, and they can be easily be misinterpreted as, "There isn't really such a thing as right or wrong."
I believe that the assumption should always be held that, somewhere within collective mess of this world's clashing values, there are values that are innate (waiting to be discovered). Objective observation and questioning is the way that we can work towards discovering these values, and ethnocentric adherence to what values we have on hand should be what takes place when it becomes unreasonable to question further.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Response to Lecture 4: "Women and the Family"
The topic of divorce and marriage was the first thing that struck me during the lecture. In
There are a multitude of factors that influence divorce. Religion, rising costs of living, and the difficulties associated with starting a family in Singapore all play a part, but I would argue that the increasing emancipation of Singaporean women has been the greatest factor of all. Women instituted 68% of all non-Muslim divorces in 2007 (Statistics Singapore on Marriages and Divorces, 2007). This suggests that they were likely to have been able to meet their own financial needs, and it also suggests that women experienced more severe unhappiness in a marriage, compared to men.
I’d like to link this to the recent debate on meritocracy. Certain people have been raising concerns that meritocracy in
Some might argue that faculties like computer sciences and engineering are still largely dominated by men, but I believe most Singaporeans would not find this fact to contradict the largely accepted idea of intellectual equality between both sexes. A woman’s ability to find adequate employment in
So is this good or bad? I have both close friends and acquaintances who saw seen their parents split up. In most cases, it was the mother who initiated the divorce from abusive or disloyal husbands, and frankly I’m glad that they had the means to do so. Whose voice do we want to listen to on this matter? The government tells us that all this is bad for
References
Scott Sernau. (2006). “Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and
Sustainability”. Chapter 3. Gender and Family: Overburdened Women and Displaced Men. Pearson.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Response to Lecture 3: 'Work and Trade'
Just about all of the influential thinkers covered in this week’s topic recognized the immense potential for production inherent in the increasing division of labor. However, whichever side on the capitalist/communist debate they were on, most of them recognized pitfalls which could happen in systems of free trade and capital accumulation. They’re theories have become realized in today’s world, where articles about horrendously inadequate work conditions in factories are written routinely (Liedtke, 2004).
Emile Durkheim thought that an ‘organic solidarity’ would form between citizens of different statuses and with different vocations, because of their interdependence with each other. I would say that the common observation of most people belonging to a society with an extensive division of labor would hold this claim to be untrue. Most Singaporeans would be hard-pressed to proclaim their sense of kinship or identification with the cashier at the supermarket, the car mechanic, or the plumber. From the common perspective, it is likely that these people are not servicemen, but the vessels through which services are provided. This is likely because those employing the plumber do not feel a sense of vulnerable dependence on them; rather they perceive the plumber as depending on them for employment. For any sort of bonds to form between the two, an active effort to empathize with the other would be required.
I am a Methodist Christian, and the title of Weber’s book, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ (Weber, 1930), interested me. Weber examines the innate values of several Christian denominations, as well as the historical circumstances of the communities in context. It was surprising to me to find that a central argument was the religious sanction of one’s worldly work, a departure from closely followed ascetic values of orthodox Catholicism. If there are any economic-political ideologies that I associate with the Bible, they would be communism and monarchy; the Old Testament chronicled the lives of successive blood-related kings, and the Book of Acts in the New Testament describes a community which sold all its possessions and gave to each other as they had need. I realize that interpreted implicit values have just as much of an impact as explicitly stated ones. It’s also an eye-opener, because the consequences of religion are otherwise often described in a more polarized fashion. For example, religions are made in reference to terrorist acts; in the past wars were religiously sanctioned. On the other hand, religions have promoted widespread acts of charity and altruism. Religions are said to be either segregating or unifying, depending on who you talk to…
Whenever Karl Marx’s ideas are discussed in class, they make a deep and immediate impression on me. Though I would refrain from describing him as either an idealist or a realist, his observations on human nature seem to have a timeless quality to them. I always get the feeling that out of all the great writers discussed in the lectures, he was the one who displayed the greatest concern for the communities in his time. His ideas about the effects of capitalism on workers seem to have more of a human touch to them than those of Adam Smith. I’ll try to get some accessible readings of his some time soon…
Reference List
Michael Liedtke. (
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/ethic/
pro_eth_frame.html
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Response to Lecture 2: Class and Inequalities
Given the choice between leaning towards capitalism or socialism, I would choose the latter. My opinion is probably heavily influenced by the fact that I grew up in Singapore, a country that embraces many elements of capitalism and free trade, but does not allow it to have full reign in its economy, encouraging certain types of businesses to stay whilst discouraging the setting up of other types. It is a country that has nationalized great portions of public utility industries (e.g. water, electricity, gas, transport) and has its hand in extensive foreign investments made by gigantic government-owned companies. It is regarded by foreign analysts and critics as having a government with many socialist traits, such as single-party political dominance and high amounts of government influence in many facets of public and private life.
Most importantly, Singapore is regarded by these same analysts as being an incredible success story. Though burdened with its own share of social problems (e.g. low birth rates, high cost of living, lack of nationalistic sentiment), its problems do not include the massive unemployment, abject poverty, and social chaos that exists in other post-colonialist states, something I attribute to Singapore having been the recipient of the full benefits of colonialism, with none of the detriments accrued by other post-colonialist territories such as Africa. Colonialists often made the choice to build infrastructures for the exploitation of resources in resource abundant colonies; Singapore had no significant natural resources, and to their advantage the British built up infrastructure for trade that laid the foundation for future developments.
I agree with the broad themes of the lecture, that the capitalist ideology works best to unleash individual drives for profit and success, and that the free markets it advocates lead to increased production and specialization globally. On the other hand, I am wary of the ignorance of externalities (factors unaccounted for by market demand e.g. environment pollution) fostered by capitalism, as well as the tendency for highly successful businesses to use their clout to manipulate smaller companies and even governments to an extent. I think that appropriate government guidance and control can curb the influence of MNCs, keep regard for the state of externalities, and bring stability and a standard of quality to key public utilities.
I believe that in the context of our society, income inequality will remain a serious issue for years to come. Being a small-sized, resource-lacking country, our economic policy has led us to pursue things such as foreign investment, high-skill services, and research and development of new technologies. There is somewhat of a technological bias in favor of people with high enough education and knowledge to work with and research new technologies. Many of the strong points of our country's economy (perhaps, with the exception of tourism) tend to favor people who undergo long lengths of education to attain the skills required to provide specialized services. This puts Singaporeans who do not choose, or do not have the opportunity, to pursue a higher education at somewhat of a disadvantage. Furthermore, jobs like manufacturing, which usually represent incomes for middle-class workers, take up a small proportion of the country's economy.
A point that illustrates this would be recent articles in the Straits times about the discontinuance of famous hawker food stalls. It was reported that many of the hawkers' children were unwilling to continue the family trade, instead opting to use their family's finances to pursue a 'higher' education and standard of living.
Still, it must always be kept in mind that an overwhelming proportion of Singaporeans enjoy a decent standard of living, well above the threat of poverty. However, the issue of constantly regulating the income gap, and making sure that the well-to-do in Singapore do not become ignorant or contemptuous of the plight of fellow citizens, will always be a critical issue to Singapore's continued well-being.
I am enthusiastic to find out more about income inequality in South Korea and Japan, after viewing Don Reeve's 'Poverty in a Global Economy' reading, where it was mentioned that South Korea and Japan had very low rates of income inequality. I'm doing some light reading about Japan now; it's suggested that persisting cultural values and social policies have had great influence on Japan's relatively small income gap up to this point.
Most importantly, Singapore is regarded by these same analysts as being an incredible success story. Though burdened with its own share of social problems (e.g. low birth rates, high cost of living, lack of nationalistic sentiment), its problems do not include the massive unemployment, abject poverty, and social chaos that exists in other post-colonialist states, something I attribute to Singapore having been the recipient of the full benefits of colonialism, with none of the detriments accrued by other post-colonialist territories such as Africa. Colonialists often made the choice to build infrastructures for the exploitation of resources in resource abundant colonies; Singapore had no significant natural resources, and to their advantage the British built up infrastructure for trade that laid the foundation for future developments.
I agree with the broad themes of the lecture, that the capitalist ideology works best to unleash individual drives for profit and success, and that the free markets it advocates lead to increased production and specialization globally. On the other hand, I am wary of the ignorance of externalities (factors unaccounted for by market demand e.g. environment pollution) fostered by capitalism, as well as the tendency for highly successful businesses to use their clout to manipulate smaller companies and even governments to an extent. I think that appropriate government guidance and control can curb the influence of MNCs, keep regard for the state of externalities, and bring stability and a standard of quality to key public utilities.
I believe that in the context of our society, income inequality will remain a serious issue for years to come. Being a small-sized, resource-lacking country, our economic policy has led us to pursue things such as foreign investment, high-skill services, and research and development of new technologies. There is somewhat of a technological bias in favor of people with high enough education and knowledge to work with and research new technologies. Many of the strong points of our country's economy (perhaps, with the exception of tourism) tend to favor people who undergo long lengths of education to attain the skills required to provide specialized services. This puts Singaporeans who do not choose, or do not have the opportunity, to pursue a higher education at somewhat of a disadvantage. Furthermore, jobs like manufacturing, which usually represent incomes for middle-class workers, take up a small proportion of the country's economy.
A point that illustrates this would be recent articles in the Straits times about the discontinuance of famous hawker food stalls. It was reported that many of the hawkers' children were unwilling to continue the family trade, instead opting to use their family's finances to pursue a 'higher' education and standard of living.
Still, it must always be kept in mind that an overwhelming proportion of Singaporeans enjoy a decent standard of living, well above the threat of poverty. However, the issue of constantly regulating the income gap, and making sure that the well-to-do in Singapore do not become ignorant or contemptuous of the plight of fellow citizens, will always be a critical issue to Singapore's continued well-being.
I am enthusiastic to find out more about income inequality in South Korea and Japan, after viewing Don Reeve's 'Poverty in a Global Economy' reading, where it was mentioned that South Korea and Japan had very low rates of income inequality. I'm doing some light reading about Japan now; it's suggested that persisting cultural values and social policies have had great influence on Japan's relatively small income gap up to this point.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Response to Lecture 1: 'Introduction: Social Problems and Globalization'
Social problems can be caused by the seemingly uncoordinated, individual actions of groups of citizens. On the other hand, it is generally accepted that certain persisting conditions in a society's culture can extend the continuance of a social problem.
Listening to this reaffirms my view that the 'cause' and 'effect' of many social problems cannot, with much certainty, be concretely identified as the individual or his environment. It is hard to argue that the individual choices of men lead to social problems without taking into account that men, with their fundamental social natures, are profoundly affected by their respective cultures and social conditions. Conversely, arguing that the influence of an existing social framework upon individuals is the source of social problems is also difficult; the origins of that framework remain unexplained, as well as the differences in internal and externalized reactions by people towards that framework.
The question: 'Should the majority care about the minority?' was raised. Should one group's problem be considered a legitimate social problem if their problem is in turn an asset to another group? Peter L. Berger writes, "Sociology will be satisfying, in the long run, only to those who can think of nothing more entrancing than to watch men and to understand things human..."
Does a sociologist's code of professionalism dictate that he should abstain from trying to change society according to his own sense of ethics? Does it suggest that sociologists should ever only write things full of descriptions and devoid of prescriptions? Berger suggests that the best sociologists may well be neutral observers.
I believe that a sociologist's neutrality must compel him to consider the minority's woes as legitimate social problems. His stand of neutrality means that characteristics such as 'rich', 'poor', 'minority', and 'majority' are neutral and have no bearing on a person's worth as a human being. Whether or not indifferent majorities care about marginalized minorities is a separate issue. Sociologists should most certainly be aligned with ideals held by such articles as the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which states, 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'
Another response to this question is Robert Merton's view that a sociologist's contribution to the betterment of society is his examination of unforeseen, latent consequences (as opposed to 'manifest' consequences) of decisions made by groups in society, and to better inform them of the effects of their actions. I agree with the distinction that he has made, but I feel that he has not answered the question of how directly a sociologist should try to influence social problems. I accept that objectivity in research inevitably leads to more factual findings, but my preference would be to find a place where I could have a hand in both finding and applying sociological knowledge.
I agree that social problems cannot be understood in isolation, but require the consideration of the effects of globalization. We are living in a most interesting time, when the forces of globalization are ever evolving, perhaps unpredictably so. I guess that what interests me most about globalization at the moment are its economic effects, as well as its effects on the formation, retention, and realignment of values in individuals, especially youths.
These first few lectures and tutorials have been less substantive-based than they are concept-based, introducing to us new, broader ways of looking at social issues. I find it hard to open my mouth during tutorials as I realize that I truly know too little about the subjects discussed to speak intelligently about them. I suppose the spoon feeding stops after junior college, haha. I think that what I'll get out of this university education is really proportionate to what I put in in terms of initiative, effort, and the opportunities I grab for myself. I have other thoughts about this sociology course but I suppose I'll leave that for the next entry.
Listening to this reaffirms my view that the 'cause' and 'effect' of many social problems cannot, with much certainty, be concretely identified as the individual or his environment. It is hard to argue that the individual choices of men lead to social problems without taking into account that men, with their fundamental social natures, are profoundly affected by their respective cultures and social conditions. Conversely, arguing that the influence of an existing social framework upon individuals is the source of social problems is also difficult; the origins of that framework remain unexplained, as well as the differences in internal and externalized reactions by people towards that framework.
The question: 'Should the majority care about the minority?' was raised. Should one group's problem be considered a legitimate social problem if their problem is in turn an asset to another group? Peter L. Berger writes, "Sociology will be satisfying, in the long run, only to those who can think of nothing more entrancing than to watch men and to understand things human..."
Does a sociologist's code of professionalism dictate that he should abstain from trying to change society according to his own sense of ethics? Does it suggest that sociologists should ever only write things full of descriptions and devoid of prescriptions? Berger suggests that the best sociologists may well be neutral observers.
I believe that a sociologist's neutrality must compel him to consider the minority's woes as legitimate social problems. His stand of neutrality means that characteristics such as 'rich', 'poor', 'minority', and 'majority' are neutral and have no bearing on a person's worth as a human being. Whether or not indifferent majorities care about marginalized minorities is a separate issue. Sociologists should most certainly be aligned with ideals held by such articles as the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which states, 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'
Another response to this question is Robert Merton's view that a sociologist's contribution to the betterment of society is his examination of unforeseen, latent consequences (as opposed to 'manifest' consequences) of decisions made by groups in society, and to better inform them of the effects of their actions. I agree with the distinction that he has made, but I feel that he has not answered the question of how directly a sociologist should try to influence social problems. I accept that objectivity in research inevitably leads to more factual findings, but my preference would be to find a place where I could have a hand in both finding and applying sociological knowledge.
I agree that social problems cannot be understood in isolation, but require the consideration of the effects of globalization. We are living in a most interesting time, when the forces of globalization are ever evolving, perhaps unpredictably so. I guess that what interests me most about globalization at the moment are its economic effects, as well as its effects on the formation, retention, and realignment of values in individuals, especially youths.
These first few lectures and tutorials have been less substantive-based than they are concept-based, introducing to us new, broader ways of looking at social issues. I find it hard to open my mouth during tutorials as I realize that I truly know too little about the subjects discussed to speak intelligently about them. I suppose the spoon feeding stops after junior college, haha. I think that what I'll get out of this university education is really proportionate to what I put in in terms of initiative, effort, and the opportunities I grab for myself. I have other thoughts about this sociology course but I suppose I'll leave that for the next entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)