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
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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)