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.

Chemistry

Baking is all about chemistry. It really starts from finding the perfect hard preferably one that doesn’t break the bank. Then it leads up to unpacking it, seasoning the oven’s heating elements, giving the mixer a test spin.

What excites me most, is the browsing of books for ideas. I am enchanted by the various basic creaming methods, the science of balance between the 3 basic ingredients: eggs, flour, sugar. Various ratios, various temperatures, so many permutations.

Baking is a performance. The construction, the mixing and assembling of ingredients is deceptively and commonly assumed to be the “rehearsals” before the main show where the confectionery hits the shelves. Oh, what does one know about the years of trail and error, the wisdom of knowing the caramel’s temperature just by it’s colour, the play and combination of taste and colour. The actual show is really the execution of such knowledge during the baking session, the ground work of techniques and practice, like a concert, showcases when the baking process starts.

It’s all about chemical reactions. Baking, like music, is when strict method and scientific understanding meets artistic freedoms.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.6

Qualia

How do we know whether the red you see is the red I see? How do you know that what I call "warm" is what you experience as warm?

I suppose we cannot ever tell what each other feels, or how does it feel to have a million lens like flies since we won't ever have the physique is one.

Perhaps, the problem on the human level can be easily speed through music and still art.

The reason we so desperately seek to paint what we see, is to show others what our mind's eye see, to share our inner qualia. Music, sound the same to you and I, when we play in tune and in harmony. It's the absolute pinnacle of matching you're qualia with mine, and we CAN be sure that what you hear is what I hear, yet paradoxically we can derive different interpretations of it deep within our emotions.

I don't suppose qualia can be tested, but it can definitely be shared and expressed, albeit in limited avenues.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

The Hope invested in Youth?

Recently in my line of work, there has been a lot of talk about youth. During an interview with Dr Moeller (former ambassador to Denmark), he said that personally, he feels that his time was to make this period a better period than it was before previously. Coming from the cold war, he wtinessed the tides of change and felt somewhat bittersweet about this period, he wasn't too sure if he had made a positive difference, or have progressed very far from where he had come from.

This vested interest in youths, it would seem stems from the disappointment of one's time. Young people are often heralded as beacons of hope, an investment even, of a better future. The youths have their ideas of what they want to do, and learning from the past mistakes, they are seen to be innovative in their solutions.

Is that true? I am hesitant to call it conclusively so. While my business is one vested in youths, and true enough I do want to see that there is hope in the youths of the future. However, the concept of "youth" is very arbitrary, inconclusive and often just simply confusing.

What does it mean to be young and is this hope invested in youths something that is justified? Let me draw an example, the 'older' generation see young people potential that they themselves have achieved. The older generation have regrets, they have faced with disappointments. Indeed, how much of 'potential' they see in youths, one that is in actuality, cast upon them due to their own shortcomings? While they see unripe potential, I've come to see that youths are expected to act and to act in ways that are becoming of them - innovative but also docile, innocent but also mature. These are contradictory characteristics expected of youths - we cannot have both dichotomous natures embodied in one. Something seems to give here.

This is why I feel that youths today are not seen as the hope, but rather a form of redemption of the older generation. The youth of today are always in debt of the past generation. We are financially in debt due to our school fees/housing loans. We are constantly in emotional debt due to our lack of experience in life as we waddle through heartbreaks, betrayal and despair, we are also in familial debt, as we "return" what our parents have given us. There is much uncertainty with being young, and while one might argue that there are also plenty of choices, often I find that we take the choice that is a) imposed upon us by our elders, whether explicitly or implicitly or b) we take the path most well travelled.

As a result, we repeat the mistakes of those before us, and perpetuate this almost idealistic hope of redemption in the next generation, hoping that they don't follow our mistakes - and yet, still insisting that they do what is "right" (get a "right job", start a "right family", "settle down").

The youth doesn't bring hope for a better future, they simply serves as beacons of redemption from the previous generation. The previous generation see us as their second chances - to make the same choices, but to perform better instead of allowing us to make the choices for ourselves. We are not angels of hope, but puppets under the hands of those who are in a better financial position to manipulate.

What has human geography got to do with music?

The following article was published in NUS Geography Department Annual "Geosphere" magazine issue.

Music Geographies

I don’t know about you, but ever since I’ve arrived at NUS FASS, my eyes have been opened to a whole new world of ideas. I’ve read things that changed how I think such that I can never go back to the way I was before. There are many things which we didn’t know could be known and instead of filling up our brains, our best professors made us realise that we had one, constantly opening up new channels of inquiry.

So much of what we read is based on what is seen, and out of all our well-padded organs (exams just makes me put on so much weight), we are most aware our eyes. It’s true, is it not, since eyes are windows to the soul? Much of geographical studies are produced through observations and reproduced through texts and maps - the quintessential geographical tools. We are less aware of what we hear, smell or touch, unless it chafes what we “normally” experience.

Often we intuitively know what music is, without the need for anyone to define it. However when we actually start to define it, we find that it is difficult to do so. For instance, would you call the karaoke attempt by your neighbour at 9am on a Sunday music or noise? We then realise how music is defined is at once subjective because of where and when it is heard and the context of which it is considered acceptable performing space.

Even within spaces, music play an important part in shaping how we feel and in turn how we react to certain things. Clubs hardly play slow music without a bass, and lounge bars often do not play pop music. It seems that music can treat a place, and our socialised reactions against certain genres then in turn dictate how we react with each other in the space. Spaces also shape musical performances. From rock concerts to classical symphonies - each venue is shaped and marketed differently due to their needs and social function. We all know the raw energy that comes from pop/rock concerts where rules of propriety are suspended - it’s almost expected that loud sounds (or some would argue noises) are allowed or even encouraged. Yet the pindrop silences in classical concert halls amplifies the fool that applauds during the wrong time (between movements for instance)  which can draw accusatory glares towards your direction, if the fool happens to be you. It singles someone out as being not informed, making one feel not belonged and out of place.

Some composers have even used spatial elements to create music. Iannis Xenakis for instance, took the architectural-mathematical principles that shape spaces and used them to create works like Metastasis. While his avant garde ‘music’ to the layperson might be ‘noise’, it is without a doubt that spatial influences on music is profound - both literally and figuratively. To bring things back on simpler terms, we often associate the high strings with horror show bathroom scenes (in fact, I’ve tried watching a horror show with the speakers mute before, and the effect was hilarious) and soundtrack composers have more than once tried to evoke emotions ranging from epic (think Spartacus) to the quiet (Pride and Prejudice). Some movies are completely devoid of music and rely on the very absence of it, to create tension throughout (I am Legend). Whether it be fantasy or reality, sounds paint spaces as much as light colours our world.

Yet, can we describe music as much as how we have experienced it? Unlike sight, we cannot draw ocular imaginations based on what we are listening to, although many songs and lyrics point to specific locations in which the listeners can evoke feelings from. What about instrumentals? I find myself drawing different auditory images and emotions depending on where I am currently at. The same song or piece can become differently, based on what I am doing, how I am feeling at that moment as well as where I am. Music, despite it’s permanent quality due to improvements in technology (digital recordings etc), will always have a transient quality and is momentary, because of its audience. Therefore, like spaces, people react differently towards music depending on the time of day, and the peculiar emotional connections we develop historically. We may hear the same way, but we always listen differently.

Geographers have called for a beyond-visual understanding of spaces. Therefore, as much as our education opens our eyes, it is our ears that also need opening. Adding sound is like adding colour to a black and white television. It makes things pop - so to speak. While eyes are windows to the soul, our ears make our souls act.

Social media have revamped how we see ourselves, as well as how we see ourselves in the eyes of others. We can now gaze into their lives, without coming across as intrusive, and yet we also feel a little uneasy when someone has been ‘stalking’ us, or when someone comments on your wall a little too soon, a little too often.

However who can deny that social media has had positive impacts on all of us? We keep in touch with old friends whom might have been awkward to call and close the drift of time that puts people apart. We might even heard a love match or two between strangers who ‘added’ each other on Facebook randomly and eventually made it to the wedding altar (not randomly of course). Facebook have nudged us, with every improvement to their interface, to take our lives a little more seriously as we upload photographs, update statuses and pindrop our location.

As smartphones help us record minuscule detail of our lives, we also lose a moment in participating in our lives. We don’t necessarily realise that holding a phone in front of our friend, can create a barrier. As we record more, we also interact less with others, or is it a complementary relationship - that as we record, we stop and smell the roses more? Do people actually care that you’ve ‘checked-in’ at a train station? Do we do it for the pleasure of recording a moment in history, or as a form of exhibition to our audience that you’re living a life and have something to prove it? Who are we answering to really?

There are some that reject social media (yes, people without a Facebook or Twitter account still exist). They claim that their lives are better lived “offline”, as they value the privacy of their lives. Some have told me that they feel uncomfortable sharing too much with acquaintances - especially with issues of sexuality and religious beliefs. For instance, I have a friend tell me once that he doesn’t use Facebook because it is quite ‘bo liao’ and still relies on smses to get things done. There are those that find it a waste of their time, filling in those Profile information for friends who already know their likes and dislikes. It can also feel quite personal, if you reject a friend request from your colleagues whom you don’t feel comfortable adding. 

Social media is contentious, however much one resist, we cannot deny that it’s influence is precisely built upon sheer numbers. The more people rely on it to arrange events/meet-ups, the more people feel left out and in turn get sucked into the whole ‘online’ community. Are we becoming closer? Or are we becoming increasingly far apart?

One thing that definitely has changed for the better, is the return of photo-taking. Never in our lives before Tumblr, Facebook and Instagram, have we dabbled in photography in such a scale. It seemed to be making a renaissance. People are snatching up DSLRs of all kinds and ranges, toying with cameras and advertising those shots on their walls. What encourages such behaviour even further, is the immediate response you get from others.  Photos become the subject for a conversation and to break the ice for those whom we haven’t spoken to in a while. Photos taken by people we know makes it personal and places or things we have heard of does not seem that distant as before. Suddenly taking a memorable or interesting profile picture is all the rage. We are all models as well as photographers and our friends become critics. We never dabbled that much in photography for our own pleasure as before, and we have social media to thank for that. 

While we grapple with our ‘online’ lives between living the moment or recording the moment that has passed, social media is essential but not fundamental to our relationships with others. The importance is just to strike a balance. It’s always great to meet up and give some hugs to a friend you haven’t met in a long time.

Why is the title of this blog called a Penopticon?

A panopticon is a design by Jeremy Bentham to watch prisoners using the least amount of guards. The design exposes all prisoners to the "all-seeing eye" of the guard tower in the middle. It looks a little like this.

This design is used in almost all modern prisons. Imagine yourself as a prisoner in one of the cells, can you truly shit in peace with someone watching you all the time? Essentially, you can't do anything and not get away with it.

I chose to do a word-play on this word to incorporate "pen" because essentially that's what writing is about. The "pen" represents language and through it, ideas and how it can in turn influence us in very subtle ways. The force is not overt, much like the gaze of the guards from the central tower, where the intangible power of simply being visible, can discipline the prisoners into order. It is not perfect, and resistance does occur, however by and large - most people comply.

This blog aims to fight against the panopticon, to keep questioning and investigating the more subtle power struggles in our lives, to ground certain large social issues and make it relevant to our personal lives. I hope, this would be a fruitful project for both myself, the writers to come, and my audience members.

What does it mean to help someone?

What does it mean when we say we help someone? It effect is very straightforward, where we help so as to make the other party feel/live better. It can range from small deeds of picking up a tissue for a friend, or the passion for helping those in sickness, or creating a system where we are able to make a village get out of poverty. I don't suppose one questions the goodness about helping others. However, we have similarly recognised that the effect of help is not 100% positive. What does foreign aid mean, when it's tied to ideology. For instance, to receive aid, countries in Thailand during the 1997 Asian Financial crisis have to be forced to enact liberal reforms that caused more harm than good because IMF prosits that all forms of liberal markets to be good. Yet we know that markets do fail. On the other hand while an NGO may dig wells to help the villagers so that they do not need to travel for miles for water, they invariably cause soil salinisation which rendered farms useless.

 My question about aid/help is a personal one. It extends from the assumption of goodwill. What does it mean to us, when we extend our help to others? I can think of 3 reasons.

1) We help others because we sympathise or feel pity Yet, by feeling pity for someone, aren't we placing ourselves in a position of higher power? Who are we to judge that the person requires our pity and our aid? If we start from this position, then the help-ee will thus find legitimate reason to rely on the help-er. This forms what can be seen as a messiah-complex: where you gain legitimacy to your power because of the deeds you do for others. In this case, this is simply an exercise of power over someone's will.

2) We help others because we feel good When we help someone because we ultimately feel good about it, then wouldn't that stem from a very self-interested vantage point? Would one still help others if the act no longer feels good? Does a social worker quit because he/she no longer finds fulfilment in helping her clients? People are as fickle as the weather and therefore if we were to base humanity entirely on the goodwill of others, we would have died out long ago.

3) We help others because we want something in return The last one is often frowned upon. Quid pro quo is often ranked to be the least worthy of mention. Most people see it as a transaction, rather than 'altruism'. Yet I feel that this is the type of 'help' that gets things done. While we may not admit it, but most often in our personal relationships, we try to help others so that we can show our affection for them, or to also gain their affection.

So how do we resolve the issue of help/aid? I guess the issue is that while it starts from the "I", it can also end with the "I". We should not pretend that we're helping others because of our goodwill, indeed such a form of altruism can be easily tested and many are uncomfortable in saying or admitting that they are actually not 100% altruistic.

I think it's perfectly normal and while the best of us try to be 'good' and help others, we are also fallible. We don't have to be ashamed for feeling less that perfect, we're not gods. So how do we then resolve this dilemma? I think admission that you're helping for personal gain is the start. Yet this gain need not me something that is breeds negativity. Instead, we can see that helping others as helping ourselves. We instead of telling ourselves that we can show them a better way (1) as a gesture of sympathy, or to do something so that we feel good about ourselves in return (2) or to simply gain merit, we help because we know that we can learn more about ourselves at the end of the process.

It sounds like a conclusion we are familiar with and one wonders why bother wasting precious time reading through. If you have slept well, all this time without doubting whether what you feel or do is conscientiously "good" or "bad", then I am sorry to have wasted your time. However, if you're like me who have this constant nagging feeling - whether you're bringing more harm and good by helping others, then I hope this little article have brought some resolution. I think that humanity is capable of evil under the veil of good, as well as good under the veil of evil.

We don't necessary read minds or hearts, but we can read actions and while we've always thought that 'help' as something that is good in and of itself, where it stems from is equally if not more important that the present act. I guess the implications for writing so is so that we remain humble in our actions towards others, and through the example of "helping others", I hope to send a message that our good intentions may not always have the best outcome if we do not complete the cycle and understand that by helping others, we are in fact helping and learning more about ourselves. In the end, one might realise that the one most helped, is in fact the "I".