The aim of art: to approach Literature in the act of teaching. Another's aimless art offers no reproach. Teaching is the artful act aimed at impossibility.
Just some random, unconnected thoughts. I found the subtitle attractive and I like the idea of "reclaim[ing] the language of freedom" through government policies that ensure "social insurance", "checks and balances", as well as "direct citizen participation". I also like what the progressives do or rather did -- to "deploy power of the states" in order to "ensure that basic necessities are provided effectively and fairly".
But unfortunately, I was thinking of Foucault and how power doesn't only lie with the state. The system is so complex that even if the state's power were to be successfully redeployed, there are still (deep-seated) cultural practices and beliefs that continue to reproduce certain 'flows' of power. Related (partly) to Education is the whole thing Minister Heng (who is an economist?) was talking about recently. He seems to think there is a problem with the mindset of the people, not the system? While that's a rather simplistic way of looking at it because people's mindsets are formed and framed through other things (such as economic policies, culture and the media), I suppose he does have a point -- what happens when people begin to derive (seemingly?) "meaningful lives" from the very cultural 'values' that "exploit" them. How can "public policies (i.e. the system) protect individuals from [such instances of] extreme insecurity and exploitation"? Can you change the "system" to suit the people (culture/mindset) or change the people to suit the "system"? -- It becomes a pointless(?) chicken and egg question since each constantly defines the other?
I personally feel that people avoid talking about culture for fear of being labelled 'insensitive' or 'intolerant'. How can one tackle cultural 'issues' head-on and yet in a sensitive manner? I'm not sure how this is related, but for me, I'm frustrated by the Christianity's 'unwillingness' to dialogue (not with other religious groups or even across denominations) but within the community itself. There is a whole scholarship that has defined (and continues to define) christianity that is not discussed and taught. Instead it is probably locked up somewhere in the Vatican's vault, taken out sporadically (and reappropriated) to justify its stand against homosexuality and the use of condoms. Are there not more major issues/roles Christianity (and any other religion - for all the 'goodness' that it/they claim to teach and 'do for' humanity) take on? I think religious groups are afraid that 'dialogue' would lead to greater diversification rather than unification, opting instead to 'play it safe' and 'keep quiet' -- but is that necessarily the case? However, this reluctance to engage has (I think) led to a situation where 'religious ideas' have been 'diluted' (and ironically, 'strengthened') and deployed in the service of capitalism, forging ostensibly "meaningful lives" … the 'opiate of the masses'. Coming from a mission school, I remember being told time and time again that 'God only helps those who help themselves', only to find out later on that it is not a biblical phrase. So obviously some form of acculturation (jn the service of middle-class values) took place.
Moving back to the classroom, perhaps schools with religious affiliations could consider intensifying the study of religion. I suppose this goes for the 'teaching' of 'values' in schools as well. Rather than just read stories in Mother Tongue, perhaps students should be given access to the scholarship behind these stories rather than reducing everything to a general body of "universally acceptable" values (which don't or can't anyway be taught and/or are family specific). Rather than allow 'religion' and 'values' to become an opiate for the masses, why not turn it into a tool? I know this sounds absurd but what harm can learning more do right? Of course the logical question to ask would still be if this leads to greater unification or diversification? I personally feel it would lead to a greater understanding on both a personal and communal scale because very often learning about something more intently reveals the contradictions and conflicts that made 'it' possible. But I don't think conflicting discourses are necessarily something to be feared especially if the desire of the conflict is to arrive at the "Truth" (be it God and/or a more equitable society - after all, I do think that embedded in most religions lies a quest/desire for social justice). (and this whole thing arguably empowers?).
Just some random, unconnected thoughts. I found the subtitle attractive and I like the idea of "reclaim[ing] the language of freedom" through government policies that ensure "social insurance", "checks and balances", as well as "direct citizen participation". I also like what the progressives do or rather did -- to "deploy power of the states" in order to "ensure that basic necessities are provided effectively and fairly".
ReplyDeleteBut unfortunately, I was thinking of Foucault and how power doesn't only lie with the state. The system is so complex that even if the state's power were to be successfully redeployed, there are still (deep-seated) cultural practices and beliefs that continue to reproduce certain 'flows' of power. Related (partly) to Education is the whole thing Minister Heng (who is an economist?) was talking about recently. He seems to think there is a problem with the mindset of the people, not the system? While that's a rather simplistic way of looking at it because people's mindsets are formed and framed through other things (such as economic policies, culture and the media), I suppose he does have a point -- what happens when people begin to derive (seemingly?) "meaningful lives" from the very cultural 'values' that "exploit" them. How can "public policies (i.e. the system) protect individuals from [such instances of] extreme insecurity and exploitation"? Can you change the "system" to suit the people (culture/mindset) or change the people to suit the "system"? -- It becomes a pointless(?) chicken and egg question since each constantly defines the other?
I personally feel that people avoid talking about culture for fear of being labelled 'insensitive' or 'intolerant'. How can one tackle cultural 'issues' head-on and yet in a sensitive manner? I'm not sure how this is related, but for me, I'm frustrated by the Christianity's 'unwillingness' to dialogue (not with other religious groups or even across denominations) but within the community itself. There is a whole scholarship that has defined (and continues to define) christianity that is not discussed and taught. Instead it is probably locked up somewhere in the Vatican's vault, taken out sporadically (and reappropriated) to justify its stand against homosexuality and the use of condoms. Are there not more major issues/roles Christianity (and any other religion - for all the 'goodness' that it/they claim to teach and 'do for' humanity) take on? I think religious groups are afraid that 'dialogue' would lead to greater diversification rather than unification, opting instead to 'play it safe' and 'keep quiet' -- but is that necessarily the case? However, this reluctance to engage has (I think) led to a situation where 'religious ideas' have been 'diluted' (and ironically, 'strengthened') and deployed in the service of capitalism, forging ostensibly "meaningful lives" … the 'opiate of the masses'. Coming from a mission school, I remember being told time and time again that 'God only helps those who help themselves', only to find out later on that it is not a biblical phrase. So obviously some form of acculturation (jn the service of middle-class values) took place.
Moving back to the classroom, perhaps schools with religious affiliations could consider intensifying the study of religion. I suppose this goes for the 'teaching' of 'values' in schools as well. Rather than just read stories in Mother Tongue, perhaps students should be given access to the scholarship behind these stories rather than reducing everything to a general body of "universally acceptable" values (which don't or can't anyway be taught and/or are family specific). Rather than allow 'religion' and 'values' to become an opiate for the masses, why not turn it into a tool? I know this sounds absurd but what harm can learning more do right? Of course the logical question to ask would still be if this leads to greater unification or diversification? I personally feel it would lead to a greater understanding on both a personal and communal scale because very often learning about something more intently reveals the contradictions and conflicts that made 'it' possible. But I don't think conflicting discourses are necessarily something to be feared especially if the desire of the conflict is to arrive at the "Truth" (be it God and/or a more equitable society - after all, I do think that embedded in most religions lies a quest/desire for social justice). (and this whole thing arguably empowers?).
ReplyDelete