In all, I found the module to be of general relevance. Although the topics covered are along the lines of the study of linguistics, the how and why differences happen and exists along social lines would help me in articulating and analyzing some future experiences.
This to be important as the 'tools' taught in this module would enable myself and the class as a whole to better handle the cultural intricacies in the future especially when dealing with individuals from around the world in the working world. Be it the public and private sector, I find that the progress of globalization and its growing importance compels individuals to better understand and handle situations especially when it comes down to face-to-face relations if we are to survive in this global economy.
Of all the sessions, I find the presentations to be the most endearing. This is because, I saw through my own research and the first hand research of others the application of what we have learned in the 12 weeks that passed. Although results of the groups are imporatnat, I find the learning process to be most important. The formualtion of an actual research is something undergraduates rarely do in NUS.
Often, we rely heaviliy on second hand or even third hand sources for our own learning needs. The main thing I learned from the research is that learning through first hand discovery is far more lasting than learning through books and other contraptions the academic world has conjured up. I say this as an academic myself as after suffering through many modules of political science, this assertion is ever more true.
I thought the tutorials were fun in the beginning few sessions. However, after the mid-term break, I felt that the mood of the class was on the decline rapidly. With many other modules' deadlines due and the fact that the mental attention span is closing faster, I guess one can see why tutorial sessions were getting drearer. On the bright side of things, I find the tutorial sessions to be well developed by the lecturer although perhaps fixed groups could have been formed in the beginning sessions in order to facilitate comfort in talking and discussion of the topic matter.
One aspect of the learning experience I did not really feel comfortable with was the use blogging for reflections. Perhaps, I make this comment on the basis that my own experiences in the internet community. Through research, I've found that one's digital identity is a extremely powerful tool for manipulation and blackmail. Hence, my paranoia and disdain for any form of digital identity. However, the e-reflections serve to a small degree to me the function of solidifying the learning process. While it may seem cool to have learning through blog entries, it actually caused me to dread this module's lecture because I have to comment on it. I like the topics relatively well, but I have a stronger negative feeling for this blog. Hence, one can notice the extremely late posts in this blog.
With that said, I wish I had time to learn more about linguistics in depth without having to be graded upon. With training in engineering and political science, I pride myself as a Jack of all trades and master of none. Likewise, I do like learning and gaining new insights about new topics everyday, but to a larger degree a dislike for assessment exists.
I think this module would be beneficial in the long journey of life. As I journey on I can only pray whatever I have learned in university as well as this module would help me in my goal of service to God and country.
Semper Fidelis
PS. This blog identity will be deleted upon completion of the semester. Take care and God bless
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Face, Politeness, and Power
E-learning week, how interesting the human species have developed technology and learning modes.
Although I went through this lecture at home, I found myself intrigued by the topic. I always thought politeness is merely something imbued from upbringing and tradition and would be hard to articulate in clear terms as the topic itself is subjective in nature.
In particular, politeness and context appealed to me as the most interesting part of the topic.
On reflection, I notice that we often use polite language for the sake of polite language. Of course, offence may still be taken if one rudely interrupts a conversation or request an item. However, I find that polite language has actually lost its meaning. Take for example, MRT rides. On numerous occasions, I find myself being shoved aside with "excuse me" being used as a verbal recompese for the indiscretion purporsively extended. Another example is when we do shopping or just merely browse through products that we may or may not intend to buy. Often, the shop attendants would announce their intention to assist but the question I ask myself is, What if I announce my intention not to buy anything as yet without the nice flowery language? Would I be considered more rude to lie and cause the attendent to waste his time on me or be more forthcoming with my intentions?
If the purpose of politeness is to minimize rude behaviour, then on what basis does one measure what constitutes rude? Taking the situational context, how one perceives the situation and hence the language used is based on the norms and upbringing of the individual. Social context in terms of relativeness of the individual to another group or individual is similarly based on how one percive his or her relation to the other party.
Take for example, a recent case whereby a old cleaner uncle told off a prime minister of a small country when the prime minister commented on his willingness to work even at a old age beyond that of normal retirement. In this case, the old cleaner uncle perceives his social standing as irrelevant to the position of the prime minister. In some cultures, it is even rude to treat a person different based on his or her social standing. What I am trying to say is that politeness ought to be used only when truly intended to be nice for the sake of individual respect for the other individual regardless of any other context.
Take the aforementioned case, the uncle could have told the prime minister tactfully he would rather not be working, using tact not because the other individual is of a higher social standing but of genuine respect for an likeminded flawed human. On the other hand, the prime minister may not be rude in his direct use of language, but rude in the sense that the content of his language may be deemed as offensive to some. As such, what could have been said to the old uncle is to ask out of genuine concern how is the state of health and ask what are the common things that the old uncle faces in his old age.
Differences ocur in society, but the need to minimize tensions need to be investigated. Is it for the grater good for self or greater good of others. That is the question I ask myself often when I ananlyse societal norms.
Although I went through this lecture at home, I found myself intrigued by the topic. I always thought politeness is merely something imbued from upbringing and tradition and would be hard to articulate in clear terms as the topic itself is subjective in nature.
In particular, politeness and context appealed to me as the most interesting part of the topic.
On reflection, I notice that we often use polite language for the sake of polite language. Of course, offence may still be taken if one rudely interrupts a conversation or request an item. However, I find that polite language has actually lost its meaning. Take for example, MRT rides. On numerous occasions, I find myself being shoved aside with "excuse me" being used as a verbal recompese for the indiscretion purporsively extended. Another example is when we do shopping or just merely browse through products that we may or may not intend to buy. Often, the shop attendants would announce their intention to assist but the question I ask myself is, What if I announce my intention not to buy anything as yet without the nice flowery language? Would I be considered more rude to lie and cause the attendent to waste his time on me or be more forthcoming with my intentions?
If the purpose of politeness is to minimize rude behaviour, then on what basis does one measure what constitutes rude? Taking the situational context, how one perceives the situation and hence the language used is based on the norms and upbringing of the individual. Social context in terms of relativeness of the individual to another group or individual is similarly based on how one percive his or her relation to the other party.
Take for example, a recent case whereby a old cleaner uncle told off a prime minister of a small country when the prime minister commented on his willingness to work even at a old age beyond that of normal retirement. In this case, the old cleaner uncle perceives his social standing as irrelevant to the position of the prime minister. In some cultures, it is even rude to treat a person different based on his or her social standing. What I am trying to say is that politeness ought to be used only when truly intended to be nice for the sake of individual respect for the other individual regardless of any other context.
Take the aforementioned case, the uncle could have told the prime minister tactfully he would rather not be working, using tact not because the other individual is of a higher social standing but of genuine respect for an likeminded flawed human. On the other hand, the prime minister may not be rude in his direct use of language, but rude in the sense that the content of his language may be deemed as offensive to some. As such, what could have been said to the old uncle is to ask out of genuine concern how is the state of health and ask what are the common things that the old uncle faces in his old age.
Differences ocur in society, but the need to minimize tensions need to be investigated. Is it for the grater good for self or greater good of others. That is the question I ask myself often when I ananlyse societal norms.
Cross Gender Communication
Cross Gender Communication is a topic that I found boring at first but found it amusing later. In the beginning, I thought the differences of conversation between the genders was widely the same despite cultural backgrounds. Proven otherwise, I am now aware that although gender differences do change the way discourse is carried out with similarly slight difference within the same gender conversation when applying cultural backgrounds.
In the context of Singapore, we have become a blend of western and asian cultures. I feel that the connotation of using certain terms to address sexes have been nullified. Instead, titles have become functional and in a sense a-gendered. Take for example the use of "Ms". As mentioned in class, Ms is mistaken commonly for a short for Miss. The use of either is only an functional word to pertain to the title of the individual.
Addressing an individual with miss or ms would not in the context of Singapore connote that the adressor is in any way discrimatory to the addressee's status. Singaporeans in general will relate to feminism to mean equality in job opportunities, and social status. However the terminology used to address individual would in general not connote any bias. The need for defense against bias only results when one is not confident of one's status wherever and whoever the individual might be, male or female.
Similarly, written language in general TODAY also do not have gender-bias meaning although some may argue otherwise. In the modern society, humans despite of their gender have been relegated to functional entities. The words to describe these functional groups and entities may have been brought down from the inherent bias of language, but the inherent implicit bias have not. When we think of doctors, prime ministers, or any function in society, we no longer have the notion that any is exclusive only to a certain gender. Except military service which I find is decareasingly a female service. However the conotation still exist.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)