Tourists, Travellers and Wanderers.

This trip has been most invigorating, in some ways, because I haven't always been able to do what I want to do. Personally, I thrive in being the most uncomfortable situations, mostly slightly toeing the line (like not paying for bus rides in both Florence and Rome*). I would very much prefer to engage in this whole romanticism, of telling my audience that I had inspiration while sitting at cafe, or gazing by the Seine. Alas, the inspiration for this post is really quite mediocre.  I was actually eating berry Tiramisu at Chez Propsper on Place de la Nation when this idea hit. The culmination of almost 16 days of traveling 3 cities perhaps formulated the real insight to this "typology", rather than informed (or "informed") academic texts.

The Tourist

Tourism is a huge economy, some cities like Florence almost entirely depend on it. Florence reminds me of the Phuket of the West - glitzy without any soul. In the same fashion, the Tourist sees what is on the map, simply going to the major galleries, taking pictures with David because one is supposed to do so, not understanding the significance of the work. One that pays big bucks for small meals, and have small hearts with big pockets. As one can already discern, such people repulse me because one goes there simply for the hype, the bang, the flash, so that they can make themselves look good when they return home. These people queue to go into the Lourve, trample all over others, talk loudly and make the worse stereotypes of their nationalities. They dislike others like them, and yet they are twins. The compare their homes to 2 effects: one to denounce their present destination, the other to glorify it. Both reactions yield an understanding that is made from the narrow world-view of their homes. Travelling to more places will not expand their minds, simply because they will always see the same thing, merely a comparison...The Tourist's journey is a trophy, one that can be encapsulated in the numerous souvenirs in their bags, the pompous fake venetian masks and the made-in-china keychains.

The Traveller

Often on a budget, off time and possibly not much funds available. The traveller is often quite well-informed and well-researched. The stereotypical image of a traveller includes well-used maps that have annotations all over, the ardent fan of "Tripadvisor" and "Lonely Planet" for restaurant recommendations and last but not least, the well-used backpack. The traveller can also be a tourist, hunting down the famous spots and do what can be called, "city-hopping". Staying long enough to savour the essentials before moving on. Going to Giolitti for Gelare in Rome, to London's famous roast duck at 4 seasons. They thrive on recommendations from forums, magazies and forums of other travellers. They might take pictures of the architecture of Notre Dame, but not necessarily join the queue to go in. There is no time, off to the next place, off to the next hideout and cafe. We must try the Macarons at Pierre Hereme and then shop at Rue Raspail....

The Wanderer

Tranistra, Bergen City, Singapore Changi Village. The off-the-beaten track, with no itinerary, often armed with a blank map and a keen eye, the wanderer seeks not to explore or to discover but simply to be. The aim is complete the moment the plane lands. The Wanderer laughs in the face of danger and bathes in the delight of the unknown. They simply want to live the moment as it comes, talk to people as approached. They could almost pass off as locals, simply walking the streets, and sitting in front of cafes smoking. They don't have a fixed must-see place simply, because they have already been, or have simply no interest to go. They seek out what makes the city alive and what makes it simultaneously mundane and exciting. They combine both the visual sense of the traveller's anticipations, and the profanity of the dweller. They do not expect and can be often surprised. Tourists ask them for directions on the streets, to which the Wanderer smiles and shrugs. There are moments that only exist in certain places, amongst certain company, with certain variables that forms a unique composition...

*My logic is really simple: If I can get away with it, the system probably deserves to fail by allowing me to get off scott free for 13 consecutive days of traveling for free by bus.

When travel is not about anticipation

There is a difference between travel and holiday. The former seeks to explore, to consciously put oneself in an uncomfortable position and aims to be inspired by "being in the moment". The latter is about a getaway, the escape from the banal realities of life, when we can eat, drink and be merry.

This December for me, is to a holiday but a travel experience. I have never been put in a position where I have to make all the ticket bookings, the accommodation arrangements, and on top of that, still plan the intinerary. So far, I have been asked by a strange for sex, almost got knocked down by cars on the tiny italian streets, and tasted weird and strange foods that turn out to be surprisingly good. I am proud to say that I've trodden in the Florentino rain for an hour, ate like a pig for breakfast, lunch and dinner, as well as moved like a sloth when the mood suits me.

It's often cliche, how writers and artists find inspiration when they are are 'away'. There is a sense of mystery and intrigue when one is away, because you're a tourist, a visitor (that in some places, can be unwanted). You have the benefit of insight from the outside. You are in the moment, yet you are not. It is the dialectic of being in the place, and yet not quite being IN it.

It is also about learning what we always take for granted, the public transport system, the way people order coffee at one of the many small caffes in Rome for instance. In a city, it's amazing how much we already know,  and how much cities are similar in their rhythm and pattern. We automatically know what do in a train stataion (the yellow line seems pretty universal so far) and we instinctively reach out for the red button to call for a stop at the street.

So traveling is about meeting new people, but not  always nice ones. It can be about transgressing the familiar, the known, and find out after all, you have escaped not from a place, but from yourself. We can be who we want to be in a land of strangers, knowing you have no strings attached to this place and absolutely no obligation to go back there. It is a fantasy, and yet also reality - you can be who you are without substantially being judged. Traveling is not about anticipation, it is about revelations.

Writing Anxieties

I wanted to blog about something else entirely, one that is about being critical at Critical. However, after collecting my first extended paper, the guts that spurred my motivations for the previous article deflated.

My paper was on citizenship, and call for geographers to interrogate the assumptions of their writing, and how their criticisms are "nothing new" because it falls into the pit of dualisms, making the mistake they were criticising others of making. I have longed been impatient with geography as a discipline. For one that stresses links between social facts (see Durkheim and Suicide), it fails to draw links between disciplines on a fundamental level where we take a step back and really see where our logical arguments lead us. We are content with being critical, without actually analysing what does the geist of critic really is. For me, it presents a fundamental shift, the debunking of base assumptions - the challenge for others to accept the implications of their conclusions.

The comments of the paper were fair. First and foremost, I have problems in English expressions. Secondly, I did not justify why I used certain theories (because there were too apparent to me, some times I forget to lay it out plainly to people). Thirdly, my limited language is inhibiting the full extent of my ideas.

There are a couple of things I have learnt from this paper. It is not my ideas that are problematic, it is the way it is presented. I should count myself lucky because many people with higher linguistical ability would have to work on the conception. Language is something that comes with practice and continuous editing, and with that, I hope that I can be a better writer.

Someone recently started reading this blog and was taken by how I write. I am truly flattered, and humbled at the same time that people liked to hear more of my ideas. Due to this affirmation and consequent critical response from my supervisor, I wish to improve so that I do not disappoint myself - my ideas are worth much more than the limited language abilities I am right now.

“Writing is a form of thinking. If that’s true, the advice often given to writers—first get your thought clear, and only then try to state it clearly—is wrong.”

Howard Becker Writing for Social Scientists

Often times, I do not know what to think until I start writing. I become anxious because there was this pressure to want the "perfect" idea, and ever since I found that book, it became clearer that writing itself is a continous process that does not end when the letters enter .docx. It is simply the beginning of a very long journey of discovery. I think when I write, and write to think.

I am bummed at my paper because there was pride involved. I was used to being "good" and became too comfortable at my knowledge, that I didn't think about working at my abilities. This semester, I visited the writing centre and didn't receive very constructive feedbacks - it simply affirmed what I wanted to hear. In some sick fashion, I was yearning for criticism, but on my own terms. When it was finally dished out, it hurt. I guess at this point, I comprehend now that criticism is not looking for what you already know what is wrong with yourself, but to accept that there are many other blind spots that only people who have experience can point them for you. That is why we all have supervisors to "keep us in check". Yet, I am also afraid, that I won't make it in time. Having said, that is beyond my control because if I never try, I'll never know.

Now...I guess I have to visit those Primary School English section of Popular Bookshops to refresh my grammar somewhat.

Citizenship: the ties that bind

Citizenship are not abstract “civic ties” between people but rather, are intimate relationships between people such as friendship and romantic relationships. Therefore, these relationships socialise people into members of society. It is what ties the micro to the macro – and gives us the connection to other “strangers” in society. Indeed there are no real strangers in society, and we are either friends, or indifferent parties. Even as enemies we are able still find a connection. Hence, we are made citizens because of the ties we have here rather than over-arching political discourses. The implications is therefore twofold. One one hand we do not have to rely on passports and state policies to define who we are and the efforts are limited insofar as creating the enduring ties that a friendship has. Secondly, people may physically hold different passport and sworn different allegiances, however the interpersonal ties will hold them as part of this society.

Hence friendship cannot be ignored in terms of cultivating citizenship amongst individuals. It is the creation not of civic value, but rather the value of friendship and intimacy. So the reasons why youths are excluded from the civic society is owed to the claim that their allegiances are fluid because their life is "changing" and only become “full” members when their interpersonal networks are solidified – only and only then, can their stake in society be counted as legitimate. Although adults can face changes in their lives as well, but often the lifecourse perspective see that adults often achieve a stage of relative stability or maintenance where huge changes are unlikely to occur within their interpersonal networks. If anything, adults gain and expand networks, which further integrate them further into society - legitimating their status as committed members and hence garnering the rights to vote for the community.

Making friends

At this juncture, I feel that making friends is more complicated, and often tangled with a lot of vested interests especially when we're making friends, or "friends" in the workplace.

Perhaps this is why people join "social events", it's as if we're not always constantly surrounded by people already. It's simply logic really. When people in a place of competition, it is difficult to feel forgiving, or see the good in people. Once we take ourselves from that context, it is easier to let your guard down, and thereafter, let people in.

No wonder company retreat always seems like an uneasy affair - for me.

However, what about making friends? After a quarter of a lifetime, it would be almost common sense isn't it? I feel that as I grow older, I learn how to socialise more, and befriend less. I am less trusting of individuals, and often find it difficult to step out of my comfort zone. Friends become something that is almost like a mirage. On one hand you want to believe that you are friends, yet the skepticism that crawls in is that whether this person is really just your friend because they want to do some social networking through you, or just make use of the resources you possess?

I choose to (naively) believe that you'll come to recognise your Friend when both of you possess that level of connection. It's akin to finding a soulmate really, when you are able to connect at a level far beyond honesty and shame - when it's finally okay to have socially awkward moments and make faux pas. Whether if this person is from the workplace, or any of the social events, having a simple conversation will allow you to understand your position.

I like to think that making friends is having a homing beacon. You put your antennae out there and see which signals you catch. It gets harder because antennae can get shorter due to our own insecurities, but if we are willing to risk our dignity and pride, we may find precious friends in a sea of strangers who may be also looking for us with their own beacon.

Atheist Belief

Prima facie, this blogpost might furrow some brows. "Atheists have beliefs?"

Let me assure that this is entirely possible, and although I may not elucidiate as eloquently as Alain de Botton who wrote the more famous "Religion for Atheists", I do want to address some deep-seated beliefs, and how contradictions are resolved ironically - via religion.

This post was inspired firstly when my friend had this quote on Facebook:

Lewis's defense against atheist, forms his underlying argument which starts from the fact that you must accept the following premises to accept his argument:

1. If thought is not designed by anyone, therefore we cannot trust that our thoughts are what they really are and not by some random design of chemistry.

2. Hence, it is unfathomable that Atheists' arguments against God is true since they might just be random

3.If those thoughts are not random, then you must accept that someone must have put those thoughts there in the first place and it must be a higher being since no known human have that ability.

I suppose it is a neat defense against the religion-hating Atheists (what Alain de Botton suavely calls "neo-atheists"). If we use the argument of neo-atheists that religion or even God is irrational, then C.S Lewis's arguments, along many others actually do defend their point very succintly. However even C.S Lewis misses the point entirely. 

The existence of God is not about an argument - it is as pointless to ask why would a parent love a child and yet another won't. We will risk into particularising or worse, over-generalising accounting some vague notion on pathology of the parent who abandons his/her child or engages in acts of incest for instance. Hence as much as neo-atheists engage in theist bashing calling them irrational, Chesterton was quite right in calling the neo-atheists equally irrational - nonetheless in the fable of the monk Michael to the atheistic scientist Lucifer. 

God is about belief and it is not about why people believe. It is quite a pointless questions as I've tried to point out - too many individual factors and perculiarities from one's dispositions to external family circumstances or even sometimes a bolt in the blue.

I think the right question to ask is what about a particular belief in God that reaffirm an individual and therefore consequently, why do atheists like myself find reaffirmation without it? I think theists and atheists are not very much different. Whilst we may have dramatically different practices, rituals or even world views, the common denominator is that we believe. Hence rationality as a factor in argument against or for God is a moot point because reason and evidence has nothing to do it.

Asking why do you believe in God is the same as why do you love one and not the other. It is arrogance in claiming you know of God and hence He is deserving of your love, or that you claim to know God so much that He is not. Regardless, neo-atheists and neo-theists both stem from the seeds of our own lofty ideals that love is for us to give. Perhaps we should be humble in our claims and understand that "worth" may not apply in the sense of religion. It is something we attribute rather than to be taken as whole truths. 

Atheists are as guilty as Theists, for we both delve in the matter of faith and until we learn to respect the value of each other's views and engage with them than merely dissing them for being "irrational", we will continually fight for an endless battle of which there will be no end.

Parental advisory

I'm been on hiatus for a while now, being ambitious by taking up 2 roles between teaching and event organising. Being I'm this company really made me learn, and despite the mess and chaos of the (dis)organisation, I'm actually happy.

I try to deceive myself that the cute guy in the office was not a huge factor to that happiness.
This job is peculiar to me in many ways. Firstly, it combines both my passions, education and events organising. Secondly, I grew up not going to any tuition centre or having intensive lessons like some if the students here. I mean I was a lazy bum in my younger days when manga and fiction had precedence over math.

I ramble.

There are some observations which I've made over the months, over the stories that my boss and colleagues share with me. Some hilarious, others quite sobering.

Recently my ever friendly centre manager was traumatised by a parent who demanded to see my boss for her son's ailing grades. My boss wasn't in the office (dodged a bullet there!) and she instead lashed out at him. I don't suppose customer service is something I take to very well, however if I were there, I would have bitch slapped her.

Okay I exaggerate. In any case, this parent was blaming the centre. I don't teach her son, but from the other tutors who do, her son is lazy and just plain…blase about his studies.

Standing on the other side of the fence, I can understand her frustrations. I speculate, but perhaps the situation went a bit like this:

She knows her son is not performing well in school and is eager for his performance to improve. So being the resourceful parent, you seek out your friends for recommendations and enrolled your son into one. After throwing in money for a few months, you hope to see improvement and yet, the same result happens. Any average consumer would be upset. After all, when you buy something from a supermarket, you expect that some sort of utility, or returns for the money you paid.

There's a catch.

If I were there, I hoped to tell her that education and learning doesn't quite work that way. Teaching is really more of an art, part performance, part technical and all round dynamic. Learning is not something that can be taught, only encouraged and inculcated. After all, even the most enthused teachers can only go so far within 1.5 hours in the lesson. Parents spend most of their time with their child, shouldn't that love for learning start at home, groomed in schools, and pursued at length at tuition centres?

I shudder and give a forlorn look at the centre manager who took the bashing. Does he know he is taking a beating for the rest of society that have allowed for such parents? Does he know that the problems lies much deeper. It seeds from a parents' insecurity, a society's competitiveness and unforgiving attitude to failure. It seeds from capitalism - that everything that can be commodified will be  - where humane values like learning and passion is assumed to have a monetary value.

My parental advisory, albeit a naive one, is that your child needs to own his/her learning. If there is no sense of ownership, then they will never work hard for it. Pouring in money into tuition will only give a false sense of entitlement for your child, that he/she deserves getting good grades because an external teacher will always be there to somehow make them score - give them the special formula to the A.

A distinction must be earned and gained, not bestowed. Money may buy you grades, but it can never buy you distinction.