Signup
LoginSelflessness as a societal norm in Singapore?
17 posts
-
-
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Self sacrifice is defined as the quality of concern for the welfare of others over your own welfare.
• Using the above definition, do you see selflessness as a societal norm, especially in Singapore?
Give examples if possibleEdited by michellegohhuifen 15 Jul `08, 11:32PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by michellegohhuifen:
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Self sacrifice is defined as the quality of concern for the welfare of others over your own welfare.
• Using the above definition, do you see selflessness as a societal norm, especially in Singapore?
Give examples if possible
Hui Fen, didn't u observe and analyse before u throw this question to the forumers to answer?
-
-
-
Under one of the seven traits in Max Weber's rational social organisation in today's industrialised society.
1) Distinctive social instititions
2) Large-scale organisations
3) Specialised tasks
4) Personal discipline
5) Awareness of time
6) Technical competence
7) Impersonality. Finally, in a rational society, technical competence takes priority over close relationships, rendering the world impersonal. Modern social life can be viewed as the interplay of specialists concerned with particular tasks, rather than people broadly concerned with one another. Weber explained that we tend to devalue personal feelings and emotions as "irrational" because they are often difficult to control.
Rationality and alienation
Bureaucracies, Weber warned, treated people as a series of cases rather than as unique individuals. In addition, working for large organisations demands highly specialised and often tedious routines. In the end, Weber envisaged modern society as a vast and growing system of rules seeking to regulate everything and threatening to crush the human spirit.
An irony found in the work of Marx reappears in Weber's thinking: rather than serve humanity, modern society turns on its creators and enslaves them. In language reminiscent of Marx's description of the human toll of industrial capitalism, Weber portrayed the modern individual as "only a small cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism that prescribes to him and endlessly fixed routine of march". Thus, knowing well the advantages of modern society, Weber ended his life deeply pessimistic. He feared that the rationalisation of society would end up reducing people to robots.
Durkheim explanation of modernity & anomie and evolving societies.
Modernity and anomie
Compared to traditional societies, modern societies impose fewer restrictions on everyone. Durkheim acknowledges the advantages of modern freedom, but he warned of a rise in anomie, a condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals. What so many celebrities describe as "almost being destroyed by their fame" is one extreme example of the corrosive effects of anomie. Sudden fame tears people away from their families and familiar routines, disrupting society's support and regulation of an individual, sometimes with fatal results. Durkheim instructs us, therefore, that the desires of the individual must be balanced by the claims and guidance of society - a balance that has become precarious in the modern world.
Evolving societies: the division of labour
In pre-industrial societies, explained Durkheim, strong tradition operates as the social cement that binds people together. In fact, what he termed the collective conscience is so strong that the community moves quickly to punish anyone who dares to challenge the conventional ways of life. Durkheim called this system mechanical solidarity, meaning social bonds, based on shared morality, that unite members of pre-industrial societies. In practice, then, mechanical solidarity springs from likeness. Durkheim described these bonds as "mechanical" because people feel a more or less automatic sense of belonging together.
Durkheim considered the decline of mechanical solidarity to be a defining trait of modern society. But this does not mean that society dissolves; rather, modernity generates a new type of solidarity that rushes into the void left by discarded traditions. Durkheim called this new social integration organic solidarity, defined as social bonds, based on specialisation, that unite members of industrial societies. In short, where solidarity was once rooted in likeness, it now flows from differences among people whose specialised pursuits make them rely on one another.
For Durkheim, then, the key dimension of change is a society's expanding division of labour, or specialised economic activity. As Max Weber explained, modern societies specialise in order to promote efficiency. Durkheim fills in the picture by showing us that members of modern societies count on the efforts of tens of thousands of others -- most of them complete strangers -- to secure the goods and services they need every day.
So modernity rests far less on moral consensus (the foundation of traditional societies) and far more on functional interdependence. That is, as members of modern societies, we depend more and more on people we trust less and less. Why, then should we put our faith in people we hardly know and whose beliefs may differ radically from our own? Durkheim's answer: "Because we can't live without them". In a world in which morality sometimes seems like so much shifting sand, then, we confront what might be called "Durkheim's dilemma": the technological power and expansive personal freedom of modern society come only at the cost of the receding morality and the ever-present danger of anomie.
Edited by maurizio13 16 Jul `08, 2:12AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by michellegohhuifen:
Thks for those who have replied.
FYI:
This is not a GP essay nor my homework.
We are trying to get reponse from the public to substainiate our findings in our project work.
Pls continue to contribute
We value your opinions and suggestions .
Thank you
Who are the we and what project are you doing?
-
-
-
Selflessness?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh wow.
We had a courtesy campaign, and yet still have so many problems about our civil rights, have signs telling us to give our seats for the elderly and those who need it, instead of all these automatically, you think we would value the welfare of others over our selfish, self-centered lives?
Our lifestyle already make it difficult to even consider for others, being so focused on time, money, and wanting the best for ourselves. Selflessness is a rarity here, if there is any true selflessness, that would be dying with track jumpers trying to save their lives.
Take the case where one fell into the MRT tracks, his wife (or so I recall) ran to help him, but all the other Singaporeans around just stood and watch as the man get killed by the train.Girl, leg stuck in gap of tracks. Instead of wedging her out, Singaporeans took out their HP cam first, before even considering helping her out.
And the best place to see the bad side of us: Stomp.sg. Uncontrolled, uncivilized, citizen journalism.
The good deeds are few and far, occasionally it get reported, and I am sure there are many people with good intention, but for every occasion reported where Singaporeans make a mockery out of others, the more I feel that I'm surrounded by pricks.
-
