The topic of divorce and marriage was the first thing that struck me during the lecture. In Singapore, the marriage rate (per 1000 unmarried women) decreased from 47.9% in 2002 to 42.6% in 2007. The divorce rate (per 1000 married women) increased from 7.2% in 2002 to 8.3% in 2007 (Statistics Singapore on Marriages and Divorces, n.d.). Another statistic that might put things into perspective is the increase in divorces, from 2,708 in 1987 to 7226 in 2007.
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 Singapore is not sufficiently discerning, and that this would eventually lead to the validation of elitism (Lydia Lim, 2008). While I am certainly on their side of the debate, I don’t wish to ignore that there have been some very positive results that have occurred because of merit-based practices. Singapore has actively encouraged women to join the workforce, unwilling to cut the country’s talent pool in half by ignoring them. As a result, there is practically no gender bias regarding career competence or innate intelligence here today. I would ask you to examine your personal experience for memories of any trend of explicit or implicit gender discrimination in your conversations with peers. I think that many people (at least those in their 20s) would find it hard to remember a time when stating one’s belief in the superiority of male intelligence was even barely acceptable among one’s peers. It would be most daring to assert such ideas during one’s law, accounting, or social science tutorials, within classrooms that have roughly equal representation of men and women.
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 Singapore is quite high, and this gives her the option to leave an unhappy marriage without worrying about monetary support (Sernau, 2006). The ‘career-minded woman’ is a viable way of life here. Wifehood is not much of a measure of self-worth for a significant number of well-educated young Singaporean women, and this affects marriage, divorce, and childbirth all at once. In other words, they have the means to leave a marriage, they have an ideal of what they want to leave that marriage for, and increasingly, no one is looking down on them for it.
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 Singapore’s economy and demographic, and that childbirth is a duty to one’s nation. I nod my head and smile condescendingly. Others say that these factors only give uncommitted, irresponsible spouses an excuse to bail out, and there is a grain of truth in that. But ultimately, I think that for the most part, the increased ability of women to initiate divorces has, for the most part, led to the dissolution of those marriages that were real on paper, but had no real love or respect inside them. Yes, the social turmoil that has resulted is undeniable, but I believe that given time, new generations of men and women will work out new, better ideals of how they want to treat each other as partners, and that marriages will increasingly become founded on respect and common ideals, rather than out of necessity or convenience.
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. (May 13, 2004). Gap Acknowledges Labor Violations; Retailer Vows to Crack Down Abroad. ‘The Washington Post’. Retrieved 24 August, 2008, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-181263.html
Max Weber. (1930 translation). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Retrieved on 24 August 2008.
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.
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.
