An interesting question popped up in the National Church Survey (or something, something) on Sunday.It was something along the lines of "How willing are you to discuss personal problems with members of your congregation?" and there was another which went "How open is your church to openly discussing personal problems?"
The gist of it was "How much do you trust your fellow church-mates?" and it likely then draws some conclusions as to the health of the Church and its congregation. Interesting to see how this data is eventually presented to Churches and how the Church uses it going ahead.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Clocks of differing speeds
We have 5 clocks in the apartment, something interesting considering that this place is barely 70sqm. Our place is so tiny that two of the clocks are on opposing walls. It wasn't really meant to be like this, but a mistake at IKEA led to us having too many clocks and yeah.. When you have as little furniture as we had, you'll put anything up.
The interesting thing about these clocks is that they run in two separate people-zones; Ja time and Sheng time. If the clock was set by Sheng, it would be 10mins fast. If me, it will be within half a minute of the actual time (Unless your really patient, you can't control the seconds on $5 IKEA clocks)
I like to think that this is a simple sign of how much a sanctuary the physical boundaries of my room are. The world moves at an accelerated pace, whether or not i want to keep time. But in my own space, I'm right where i want to be, when i want to be.
The interesting thing about these clocks is that they run in two separate people-zones; Ja time and Sheng time. If the clock was set by Sheng, it would be 10mins fast. If me, it will be within half a minute of the actual time (Unless your really patient, you can't control the seconds on $5 IKEA clocks)
I like to think that this is a simple sign of how much a sanctuary the physical boundaries of my room are. The world moves at an accelerated pace, whether or not i want to keep time. But in my own space, I'm right where i want to be, when i want to be.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Constantly There
I'm not bemoaning the simple days gone, I don't think i have experienced quite enough to justify such thoughts. I'm not trying to bitch about the unique plight i find myself in, because i know that I'm not that screwed up. The last two lines are also not entirely about differentiating myself from others, it's just about stating where I am at right now.
So from here it seems like a few things consistently pop out at me. The first being the difficulty in leading a consistent life when you hold yourself to a higher standard then what you would naturally veer towards. Age, experience and a certain amount of maturity helps you make the right choices in sticky situations.
But the questions never go away; they never go away. The first thoughts which plague you in your weaknesses, are the same ones you are going to be encountering again and again throughout your life. The form may differ, but the root issues always remain the same.
It is exactly because of this struggle that i see my faith as instrumental to life. The concept of divine intervention is a necessary truth to me, for I see every man as i see myself, broken and unable to lift himself out of such a fate. He can try and at times he might succeed. In fact, he could be extremely successful for a long period of time. Such is the spirit of man.
But man is a finite object and so is his strength, one day it will fade and he will falter. It then matters not what he has done until that moment, for all is meaningless when confronted with abject failure. What then, what will he do next!
As with all man, I am part pessimist, part optimist and many other complex bits I have no hope of adequately explaining or listing. This complex dance between one's many "selfs" leads to an individual either accepting or rejecting the notion of a higher power. Don't ask me what the magic formula is here thou, i don't think anyone has a clue.
ja
So from here it seems like a few things consistently pop out at me. The first being the difficulty in leading a consistent life when you hold yourself to a higher standard then what you would naturally veer towards. Age, experience and a certain amount of maturity helps you make the right choices in sticky situations.
But the questions never go away; they never go away. The first thoughts which plague you in your weaknesses, are the same ones you are going to be encountering again and again throughout your life. The form may differ, but the root issues always remain the same.
It is exactly because of this struggle that i see my faith as instrumental to life. The concept of divine intervention is a necessary truth to me, for I see every man as i see myself, broken and unable to lift himself out of such a fate. He can try and at times he might succeed. In fact, he could be extremely successful for a long period of time. Such is the spirit of man.
But man is a finite object and so is his strength, one day it will fade and he will falter. It then matters not what he has done until that moment, for all is meaningless when confronted with abject failure. What then, what will he do next!
As with all man, I am part pessimist, part optimist and many other complex bits I have no hope of adequately explaining or listing. This complex dance between one's many "selfs" leads to an individual either accepting or rejecting the notion of a higher power. Don't ask me what the magic formula is here thou, i don't think anyone has a clue.
ja
Monday, August 24, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
NSM: Who's accountable? What ideology are we embracing?
In the study of new social movements (NSMs), one of the more intriguing facts about them ( at least, to me) is that they exist as anti-systemic organizations which are not necessarily separatist by nature. That NSMs act outside of the government (in order to retain their independance) while attempting to reform or address imbalances in society caused by either (i) inadequate legislation or (ii) adequate legislation but little real implimentation. Famous movements often cited are stuff like "Greenpeace (which i am opposed to for a plethora of reasons)", the Black Civil Rights Movement, so on and so forth. Now, combine this with another fact about NSMs, that participation in these movements are not class or self-interest motivated, but are based on ideological grounds, for the good of society as a whole. The general idea you get here is that NSMs are considered to be good for society, because (i) the fact that their membership is broad and diverse (spread out across whole spectrum of society) represents humanity "moving beyond" self and seeking ways to address issues of inequality or other issues which have significant impact on human life in general , (ii) NSMs provide a sort of overwatch role on governments, by ensuring that there is a platform for discussion of issues an government might not wish to address, to apply political pressure upon governments from , (iii) social movements of the past have tangibly shaped the formation of the political systems in place today, NSMs expected to do the same for our immediate future.
Now this all sounds bright and dandy, but then a few issues immediately pop to mind. (i)Who's watching the watchdog? and (ii) Exactly what ideology does an NSM espouse? Which culture influences it? Is it a form of cultural imperalisation? and most importantly (iii) If a vehicle of political pressure exists outside of the official system, does that not open up the state to undue external influences? There are quite a few more rotating around but it's being quite hard already to sort through my brain, i prefer not to confuse myself further. I'm sure these are pretty basic questions and the answers are floating around upthere somewhere.
Now this all sounds bright and dandy, but then a few issues immediately pop to mind. (i)Who's watching the watchdog? and (ii) Exactly what ideology does an NSM espouse? Which culture influences it? Is it a form of cultural imperalisation? and most importantly (iii) If a vehicle of political pressure exists outside of the official system, does that not open up the state to undue external influences? There are quite a few more rotating around but it's being quite hard already to sort through my brain, i prefer not to confuse myself further. I'm sure these are pretty basic questions and the answers are floating around upthere somewhere.
The scene: Inequality
What is cultural capital? In your opinion is cultural capital important as a factor responsible for the reproduction of social inequality? Why?
Cultural Capital can be ascribed to knowledge of the preferred behavior traits, beliefs, language, aesthetic, education, social preferences and other various nuances of the dominant class within a society. In short, it’s knowing what exactly is in demand and having the means to fulfill it. It is my belief that cultural capital is a major factor which aids in the reproduction of social inequality. As the dominant class sets the standard, the result is that members of society born into the dominant class are A) endowed by birth with a larger amount of cultural capital and by upbringing B) predisposed towards the easier acquisition of cultural capital. These two factors translate into a higher amount of starting resources available to an individual, which in turn puts the individual in a better position to acquire social capital and eventually, economic capital.
It starts from schooling, when we reward students for their ability to contribute and communicate in a manner deemed suitable by the dominant culture, students of other classes find it harder to integrate into the system and achieve academic success simply because they come from backgrounds which do not support the production of such capital. Accordingly, as we move up the system the bar is raised and a bigger proportion of students (not of the dominant class) find it increasingly hard to assimilate and succeed, eventually these students drop out of the system. Without the higher academic qualifications which almost always equate to an increased ability to acquire economic capital, social inequality is perpetuated.
Secondly, if cultural capital is measured in terms of an individual’s ability to assimilate the dominant’s culture characteristics, behavior and so forth. Such a concept necessarily propagates social inequality because such behaviors are learnt over a lifetime. The mannerisms we adopt are usually that of the people we are socialized with most during our formative years. I.e.: family. These gestures, mannerisms that are repeated over the years are representative of a person’s values, character and identity. It is almost impossible for an individual to “unlearn” a lifetime of experiences and to comfortably adopt a totally alien behavior pattern which does not conform to his formative experiences, values and most importantly, reconcile itself with his economic position. Have you ever been in a social situation whereby you felt "out of place"? That even if you wore the same clothing, cut your hair in the same style and used the lingo that your friends did, you were somehow a pretender? Think that and then amplify it through all aspects of life.
Thus, with the ability to acquire cultural capital seemingly biased towards one’s “birthright”; and a pre-condition on success within society being the ability to contribute cultural capital of an substantial amount, competition from a young age (schooling) which rewards said social capital only further widens the gap between the classes as the dominant class increasingly excels and advances, while other classes are left trailing. This is a formula which sets up the dominant class for success and relegates the lower classes to their positions within society.
Some further thoughts with regards to this issue. Does concepts such as meritocracy build upon or tear apart such social conventions. Taking away class-reproductions and replacing them with inter-racial issues (or is race and class undeniably intertwined?) , how does cultural capital work then, if inequality in reproduction can be found in almost any situation. Is highlighting cultural capital helping us to resolve an issue? Or does it create an excuse for failure?
note: post is a mostly a reproduction of an assignment recently submitted. Hope google match doesn't have me "plagiarizing" myself!
Cultural Capital can be ascribed to knowledge of the preferred behavior traits, beliefs, language, aesthetic, education, social preferences and other various nuances of the dominant class within a society. In short, it’s knowing what exactly is in demand and having the means to fulfill it. It is my belief that cultural capital is a major factor which aids in the reproduction of social inequality. As the dominant class sets the standard, the result is that members of society born into the dominant class are A) endowed by birth with a larger amount of cultural capital and by upbringing B) predisposed towards the easier acquisition of cultural capital. These two factors translate into a higher amount of starting resources available to an individual, which in turn puts the individual in a better position to acquire social capital and eventually, economic capital.
It starts from schooling, when we reward students for their ability to contribute and communicate in a manner deemed suitable by the dominant culture, students of other classes find it harder to integrate into the system and achieve academic success simply because they come from backgrounds which do not support the production of such capital. Accordingly, as we move up the system the bar is raised and a bigger proportion of students (not of the dominant class) find it increasingly hard to assimilate and succeed, eventually these students drop out of the system. Without the higher academic qualifications which almost always equate to an increased ability to acquire economic capital, social inequality is perpetuated.
Secondly, if cultural capital is measured in terms of an individual’s ability to assimilate the dominant’s culture characteristics, behavior and so forth. Such a concept necessarily propagates social inequality because such behaviors are learnt over a lifetime. The mannerisms we adopt are usually that of the people we are socialized with most during our formative years. I.e.: family. These gestures, mannerisms that are repeated over the years are representative of a person’s values, character and identity. It is almost impossible for an individual to “unlearn” a lifetime of experiences and to comfortably adopt a totally alien behavior pattern which does not conform to his formative experiences, values and most importantly, reconcile itself with his economic position. Have you ever been in a social situation whereby you felt "out of place"? That even if you wore the same clothing, cut your hair in the same style and used the lingo that your friends did, you were somehow a pretender? Think that and then amplify it through all aspects of life.
Thus, with the ability to acquire cultural capital seemingly biased towards one’s “birthright”; and a pre-condition on success within society being the ability to contribute cultural capital of an substantial amount, competition from a young age (schooling) which rewards said social capital only further widens the gap between the classes as the dominant class increasingly excels and advances, while other classes are left trailing. This is a formula which sets up the dominant class for success and relegates the lower classes to their positions within society.
Some further thoughts with regards to this issue. Does concepts such as meritocracy build upon or tear apart such social conventions. Taking away class-reproductions and replacing them with inter-racial issues (or is race and class undeniably intertwined?) , how does cultural capital work then, if inequality in reproduction can be found in almost any situation. Is highlighting cultural capital helping us to resolve an issue? Or does it create an excuse for failure?
note: post is a mostly a reproduction of an assignment recently submitted. Hope google match doesn't have me "plagiarizing" myself!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Why do we involve ourselves in the study of social sciences? Is it not an field of study which (while interesting) essentially leaves us with little cultural capital in this increasingly pragmatic world? Why do we need concern ourselves with understanding the concepts and nuances of everyday life, the reason for the existence of certain cultural traits and norms? One is perfectly able to function and pass through life without the need to answer such issues. Why understand yourself? Why understand the question? Why question the system?
I really do wish i had the answers to these questions. I don't really know what I'm doing.
I really do wish i had the answers to these questions. I don't really know what I'm doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)