Are humans only capable of being selfish?

Today, I woke up and felt like having Mr bean for breakfast. Okay, maybe it was lunch... (all right, past lunch). I walked down to the Mr bean shop at the MRT station near my place, anticipating the first bite into the warm soft pancake.

I walked past an elderly cleaner lady on my way out of my housing estate. I smiled and said hi. On impulse, I stopped and asked if she wanted something to eat from Mr bean. She looked shocked. She did not even know what Mr bean was, it seems. And she asked, "you want to spend for me?" It seemed like she didn't mind having some food, so I decided I'd get her something.

So I bought her a chocolate pancake (my first love, and hence the first flavour I felt I should give someone who I am introducing Mr bean to). When I walked past her again on my way back home, I passed her the pancake, and she looked like she didn't know what to say. I said,  "Chocolate, very nice". She broke into a smile. When I had turned away, she called out, "Girl, thank you."

It made me think about the act of kindness and giving. Sometime in my university education, in taking a Psychology class, we learned about altruism. Some people believe that altruism does not truly exist - the unselfish act of helping someone is not really unselfish, as the person helping derives something out of helping; he or she feels a sense of satisfaction, or derives some other feelings of meaning in carrying out the act(s).

At that time, I really sat down and thought about it. I never thought of it in that way. Could it be that humans are ultimately just completely selfish beings? It was an uncomfortable thought for me, I must admit. I spoke to my brother about it, and he said he felt it was a whole complex array of factors why people help others - and if some part of it was feeling good about oneself, it need not be a bad thing. I agreed with him, it certainly is complex and variable, each person's motivation for helping.

I feel that not everyone is as equally-inclined to help. What makes someone more likely to want to help people, and others more likely to think of themselves (or immediate loved ones)? If someone is more likely to gain something (e.g. feel satisfaction) out of helping someone, doesn't that make that person more empathetic and kind already? Compared to the other person, who does not gain anything out of bringing joy or relief to another, the first person who gains something from helping, gains because he or she feels for people, and hence derives a sense of satisfaction from being able to make a difference. In other words, just the fact that some people gain something (for themselves) out of helping others, reveals the importance they place on making someone's life better. Gaining something out of helping seems to me to be a 'side effect' or even a necessary outcome of a concern for others.

It is of course also important to note that the 'gain' in helping is intrinsic and often personal and small. The person who helps and does not gain money or increased status in life, but merely gains a personal meaning out of doing so, can't be fairly accused of being selfish can she? Being selfish for material gain and glory (which seems to be accepted in the capitalist rat race of today) should perhaps be differentiated from feeling satisfied in the act of giving. In the latter, the prior concern is giving gain to another, instead of to oneself.

Nevertheless, however this debate goes, if I can make someone happy today, I will be happy to do so. If Mr bean can make a difference to someone else's day, then I will share Mr bean.

Life's simple pleasures, indeed.

A local radio DJ's comments

Dear editor,

I am sending this email because I am uncomfortable with Mr Young's comments just aired in his late-night show.

I was tuning in to Mr Young's late-night show on 987 on Friday, December 17th. In the short span of time I was tuned in, Mr Young made several comments about various female celebrities, including Nicole Scherzinger. What I noticed was that most of his comments of the female celebrities revolved around their bodies. He alluded to their curves, hotness, and at some point pointed out that hotness was about moving fats of the body around. He then said for women, fat could be moved from the butt (if it were too big) to the "chest area", and then said that for women the chest area can never be too big.

I understand that this a radio programme for the young, but I feel the objectification and sexualization of the female celebrities that Mr Young readily does is not the best thing, considering the young tend to be influenced enough by the media, and the young are increasingly falling to eating disorders and other afflictions associated with being self-conscious about their bodies, and the attempt to attain a certain ideal beauty standard, one that Mr Young makes clear he finds desirable.

As a radio celebrity with many listeners, I think it is reasonable to hope that our local DJs will be more aware of social trends and be more concerned about promoting respect for people (not only for their physicality), and to help young people be positive about their self-image.

Moreover, in responding to a caller who had won tickets to some event, Mr Young immediately asked the male caller to bring three of his hottest friends, again emphasizing the importance of good looks. And then he at once followed with asking if the friends would be females. When the caller said he did not know, Mr Young was (or acted) shocked. He said he thought the caller did not know the sex of his friends, like he was bringing friends from Changi Village. Here, Mr Young alluded to the transsexuals of Singapore. When the caller said "no la...", Mr Young breathed a sigh of relief and implied the idea of 'Phew, that's good'.

Here, Mr Young was subtly discriminatory towards the transgendered community in Singapore, already a very marginalized group. It may be subtle, but then most media messages that people internalize are plenty, all-around, and each seemingly subtle, yet in totality effective in propagating and reinforcing certain narrow and discriminatory ideas.

Thank you for your time,
Nina Carlina

Madonna: More than Meets the Eye

Hello everyone, this blog entry is about 'the gaze' or the 'male gaze'.
The link below brings you to my school assignment in which we were to write a reflection in blog style.

It was written for my Visual Culture class - the first of its kind to begin in NUS. It was a truly enlightening module which taught us how the creation of images and the seeing and viewing relations in society are bound by societal structures. What we see, how we read the images, how we look at images and people, who gets to look at who etc were explored.

While I expected advertising and mass media to be a significant part of this course from the beginning, I was surprised that the course analyzed the 'surveillant gaze', the 'medical/ professional gaze' and the 'institutional gaze' as well. For example, the surveillant gaze includes an analysis of the implications of many of us increasingly being under the watch of CCTV cameras in modern society.

Anyway, this is a write-up my grader appreciated (yay!), and I hope you will too. (:

Here it is:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13I27PoGDk_5tynsxsQlxSC4htcr_TMqJyzJn4cWj0ho/edit?hl=en#

My feet and Me.

my feet were cute.

my feet carried me winning through the finishing line of the race.

my feet were cute

until I placed them in an exquisite pair of heels.

They cut. They hurt. They did not look pretty.

my feet has little marks that would not go.

Pushing my bare feet into the soft ocean sand...

my feet is mine again.

Society's clear-cut definition of beauty.

Don't place yourself in them 

rows of similarly cut, plentiful pretty 

painful

straps. 

advertizing and what it means for us

Hi everyone, since I have not had the time to share my feelings recently, here is an article I wrote a while back. It was published in the UCSD Women's Center newsletter while I was a volunteer there.

http://women.ucsd.edu/_files/newsletterpdfs/WINTER%20NEWSLETTER%202010.pdf

Or you can see it through google docs at:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1270a0379d6482ed&mt=application/msword&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D0a57995ef1%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1270a0379d6482ed%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3Df_g64w8r3o0%26zw&sig=AHIEtbR7Y9fa8gRx-X9X-kM66edtz2j4mg&pli=1

An Anthropological analysis of Singapore: Gift-giving Between Families of Couples in Long-term Dating Relationships

Grade: A. This was one of the most original and thoughtful essays I read. You have really tried to probe the feelings and motivations that go into these very expressive practices and the sometimes tricky matter of getting the balance right... I am pleased to see you thinking anthropologically/ sociologically about the phenomenon you are describing!

This was the comment and grade I got from Professor Waterson for the essay I wrote in a class I took in NUS - Anthropology and the human condition. I was extremely pleased! We were meant to write on gift-giving, and many students wrote of ang bao giving. I chose to write about a topic that interested me personally. It may be the first time that this practice of gift-giving among families of dating partners in Singapore has been analysed anthropologically!

Professor Waterson emailed me at the end of the semester and asked me for feedback about her class. She shared with me she had worries that she was not presenting her class in a way that students understand what anthropology is all about. I had never had a professor cross the student-teacher boundary so personally before. It was quite a nice feeling of being trusted and valued!

Some background information to references made in the essay:

The Dobe Jus are a group of people who live in Africa. They are hunter-gatherers and all of us homosapiens today came from this group, when groups of this people disbanded and travelled and moved to places we now know as Europe and Asia among others. Hxaro is their gift-giving practice.

This was my essay:

Gift-giving Between (Chinese) Families of Couples in Long-term Dating Relationships in Singapore

In Singapore, generalized reciprocity (almost uncalculative selfless giving) seems only to exist in the family, and sometimes only the nuclear family. Gift exchanges between friends and colleagues appear to be based on balanced reciprocity (equal give and take of gifts, favors and help over time). It will be interesting to observe what kind of gift reciprocity relationship exists between people whose relationship lies between family and friend. One such relationship is between the families of a Singaporean Chinese couple in a long-term dating relationship.

Being a family person in a committed romantic relationship may account for the trend of young adults pulling in their partners to spend time with their families. With later marriage, partners may spend a couple of years interacting with the family before the knot is tied. It is generally hoped by the young adult that the partner is accepted as family member. The partner begins to join in for family outings, celebrations, and even holidays sometimes. In the words of my mother, ‘because he is important to you, so he becomes important to us too.’ As a result of this, during important festivals and events, gifts too are extended to the partner and his/ her family through the partner. Similarly with the Dobe Ju, once two families’s parents have agreed upon the marriage of their young, they begin sending each other gifts (kamasi) through their children, to “reinforce their relation”. However for the Jus, because they have marriage in mind more solidly than it is for dating couples, kamasi gift-giving takes the form of a standard ritualised activity – Hxaro exchange, while it remains more of a tradition and not an obligation for the families of these couples.

Nevertheless, when engaged in, there appears to be implicit rules to this particular developing culture of gift-giving in Singapore (from here on referred to as Y gift-giving). I propose it is influenced by the traditional Chinese gift-giving practices between the two families of a bride and groom-to-be.

During the recent Mid-Autumn festival, my parents bought mooncakes for my boyfriend’s family. Unbeknownst to me, my father had protested, saying: “kaya minta minta ajah.” (“It’s as though we are begging them to take in our daughter.”) I was intrigued by this. Doing a bit of research, I found that in the traditional Chinese practice, it is only the groom’s family that presents gifts before and during marriage to the bride’s family. The idea of the girl marrying into the man’s family is an age-old patrilineal one. Similar to bride price, the groom is expected to compensate to the family for the gift of a bride and at the same time demonstrate his financial ability. In the Chinese tradition, even a list is presented indicating the value of each gift. Such an ideology still somewhat remains – watered down due to factors like the advent of the nuclear family over multi-generational households. However because ultimately, the girl still ‘loses’ her surname, and the new family is the man’s in the formal sense, my parent’s generation still expects the groom’s family to ‘woo’ the girl into the family, and gifts remain a way to demonstrate keenness and financial responsibility.

We can then perhaps explain why my father protested. He felt that at the very least, the man’s family should initiate gift-giving. This idea was reiterated by my mother, who said that ‘if you start first, means you want it more’, and the man’s side is expected to demonstrate this, since they stand to ‘gain’ more. A parallel is seen in the Jus, where besides kamasi, the groom must prove his worth by living with the girl’s family and providing ‘gifts’ to the family in terms of meat from hunting and other services.

In Y gift-giving, returning of a gift once you are given one is almost obligatory, even if not to express interest in long-term commitments. This is as my mother said, ‘just courtesy’. This I realize is a very universal human tendency to return the gift, prompting research like that of Mauss on the ‘spirit’ of the gift, which causes such a strong need to reciprocate. Perhaps this lack of ‘courtesy’ actually implies a rejection of an extension to form a relationship, and this is very ‘un-human’ because we are social beings, as Maurice Godelier said, “Human beings…produce society in order to live”. Being social to such an extent is distinctly human, and this sociality is what drives exchange - an idea supported by Levi-Strauss. Hence unsurprisingly, people who do not return a gift in Hxaro eventually isolate themselves in friendship.

Besides the ‘rules’ for who starts gift-giving first and the need to return, there are ‘rules’ about what to give. It seems there is an unspoken comparing of gifts. In response to the question of how she chose what ‘level’ of cost/ quality mooncakes to get, my mother said, “cannot be lower than the ones we get for ourselves”. It conveys ‘disrespect’ and ‘disregard’. On the last day of the Mid-Autumn festival, because my boyfriend’s family had not given my family any mooncakes, he went mooncake hunting as he ‘felt bad’. However, as it was the last day and it was late, all the places except ‘breadtalk’ had run out. My boyfriend was immediately hesitant as the ‘level’ would not match up to the ‘East Ocean Teochew restaurant mooncakes’ my parents had chosen. Similarly it is not uncommon for parents to ask how much angbao money was given to their child from the partner’s parents, and a conscious effort is made to measure up in their angbao for the partner.

The Ju claim that during Hxaro exchange, what passes hands does not matter, as they “trade with people, not with things”. At first glance, this may seem in contrast to Y gift-giving, where gifts are ‘compared’. However, although the parties appear to be calculative about the economic value of the gifts exchanged, in fact they, like the Ju, are not concerned about profiteering. As for the Ju, it is what the gift symbolizes that matter. Returning the gift is important for both. For the Ju, because the exchange relationship is much more long-term, there is more time for an eventual ‘evening out’ of give and take. When one Ju member accepts a ‘lesser’ gift today, she knows that she has a friend to visit and count on in the future. In this respect, the Ju hxaro exchange is similar to Y gift-giving in that the actual gift is not what the exchange is done for: The Ju trade with people (friendship and future security), Y gift-giving is actually done to demonstrate consideration (interest) in establishing a (future) potential caring relationship and basic respect (expected of most relationships).

Just as gift-giving serves these ‘building’ functions, it can also be a source of ‘breaking’ relationships. At the end, my boyfriend’s family never returned the mooncakes. I was surprised that my mother was fully aware of this, implying she was looking out to see if the gesture was returned. She expressed her disappointment, and regret in having made the first move, for she felt ‘rejected’.

One can observe another form of Y gift-giving – the exchange between the partner and the family (rather than between the parents of either side). In this Y gift-giving, gifts are exchanged not to express interest, respect or for ‘measuring up’ in the traditional sense. Here gifts are used to express care and over time become less of a balanced reciprocity and more a generalized one. Yet it does not approach the same level of ‘generalization’ as would a parent and his child. In other words, I would suggest that the relationship in Y gift-giving is an in-between stage – just as a person in a liminal position normally experiences certain ‘powers’, the partner benefits, and in ways the family benefits too: from having (the joys of) an additional ‘child’ without having to raise the child. This relationship seems to parallel the Jus in their Hxaro exchange. The friends they make are almost like family in that exchanges are delayed and based on trust and it is not balanced reciprocity but one that approaches but does not reach generalized reciprocity. Likewise the Ju are in a more ‘powerful’ position with an ‘increased’ family size.

Based on personal experience and that of my sister, I suggest that even the ‘casual’ gift-giving of the couple with their partner’s family involves a substantial degree of social ‘rules’.

Early gifts typically are most ‘universal’. My sister explains that before you get to know the family well, it is ‘safest’ to get food, as it is universally enjoyed. Hence before I even went to my boyfriend’s house for the first time, I had given him a chocolate cake my family enjoys for him to bring back. To me it is a way to start a caring and giving relationship. It is apparent that this gift-giving is perpetuated when the partner actually visits the house. My boyfriend seemed to find it quite obligatory to bring something each time he came over, during the first few times. It was as though to justify him coming into the home. At a time when he does not know the family well enough to feel fully welcomed and appreciated for his own character, there seems to be a need to substantiate this with a gift. As one gets to know individual members of the family more, gifts tend to get more personal such as a facial soap or a wallet and then physical gifts may become rarer as the partner is appreciated as a member of the family to love and accept love from. The gifts become the acts of love that are exchanged.

In this way, Y gift-giving has the potential to move towards generalized reciprocity in a way that Hxaro exchange will not. In Hxaro, material exchange maintains social relations, while in Y-gift-giving relationships, gifts may only be expected on special traditional Chinese festivals like the Mooncake festival. Beyond that, gifts are actually not expected, they are not the basis of a relationship and they become rarer as the partner becomes increasingly family. This idea of gifts being a more formal way of showing care at the beginning of the relationship seems to be supported by my sister’s experience where ‘language barriers’ and a busy parent of her partner prevents a movement towards ‘being family’ and hence physical gifts continue to be the main way my sister reminds her partner’s family that she cares.

The value of the gift in Hxaro exchange and Y gift-giving is not the economic value. In the same light, Graeber warns us from trying to understand value from a strictly economical, self-maximizing point of view. Understanding the value of the gift in its larger context and realizing that ideas are often ranked by human societies may prove useful in understanding Y gift-giving. For example, keeping in mind the Chinese traditional patrilineal practices explains to us how the gift becomes especially significant for men seeking a woman’s hand. Noting modern day Singapore’s characteristics, we see that interacting with the in-laws (and other members of the family) is so much so unavoidable that the young adults are making an effort to integrate their partners into their families even before marriage, and this has resulted in a modern gift-giving ethos initiated and largely maintained by the young and not their parents. Categorizations of whether a gift is given or not, who gives the gift, the type of gifts, when it is given, how it is presented etc are not merely ideas, they are ranked ideas. Hence there is a value of the gift – a value in giving a gift rather than not, a value in the man giving the gift rather than the woman, a value in giving personally baked cookies rather than bought ones and so on. Human sociality (humans are social beings) may explain human reciprocity in general, but the larger web of meanings and the ranking of ideas drive personal motivation explain why human societies engage in the particular gift-giving that they do.

End of essay.

Reciprocity is a trait universal to humans (and probably higher order social creatures). Do you know anyone who does not engage in reciprocity (of gifts, favors, love...) at all?

Cirque de soleil's sexy show in Vegas fails to be progressive

*the portrayal of a black man in Zumanity -

hyper-sexualized and reduced to an animal.

A few weeks ago, I watched the cirque de soleil show ‘Zumanity’ in Las Vegas.

Zumanity is the sexy show of the troupe’s repertoire. It was naughty, racy and bared skin – in a playful tasteful way. It deserves credit for trying to be open and inclusive of sexual diversity – there was homosexual references, dressing out of narrow prescriptions for appropriate male/ female attire, and ambiguously sexed figures.

Yet despite its seemingly liberal appeal, Zumanity is still stuck in deep- rooted conventional ideas.

For one, the homosexual scenes in the show do not actually support being positive about homosexuality; they are a narrow and sexist representation of homosexuality. The show only depicts lesbian behaviour which seems to cater to the heterosexual male's pleasure.

This reflects the current situation in mainstream society where images of 'lesbian behaviour' is much more prevalent than that of male homosexuality in society.

Women and girls express intimacy with each other much more freely than men or boys do. For example, it is not uncommon to see females hold hands but when males do the same, there is much more public discomfort. In mainstream media and pornography these days, it is not unusual to see images of beautiful women being sexual with each other. It is very rare to see male homosexual images if one does not go looking for them.

I suggest that the reason why mainstream society ‘accepts’ female homosexuality more than male homosexuality is that depictions of female-female sexuality does not really imply homosexuality, and it provides for male pleasure.

Female-female sexuality is trivialised and ‘simplified’ to not being ‘really’ homosexual – it is simply girls having fun. This is seen in the acts that we see these girls engaging in – it is hardly more ‘serious’ than kissing. This unrealistic portrayal of lesbian sexuality is mild enough to be sexually entertaining for men - perhaps a man may like to see two beautiful women kiss but watching them have sex may not be as arousing since in “full- on” or "real" lesbian scenarios, he is not involved in the picture at all - real lesbian women will not be attracted to him.

This realistic “full – on” lesbian images may not be appealing to men also especially if one or both of the two women is ‘butch’ or (conventionally) unattractive. Therefore we see that in society the images of female homosexuality features the media's idea (and hence conventional idea) of the feminine sexy women – the women are always beautiful in a way that feeds the desire of the (mainstream) heterosexual men. Having two ultra feminine gorgeous women kiss and play around entertains the heterosexual man perhaps because it suggests that he gets to have sex with two sexual beautiful women – women who show their sexuality with each other but eventually still need him for the ‘main action’.

That depictions of female- female sexuality at present is mainly for the heterosexual male explains why there are no male homosexual mainstream images – It is not really homosexuality that the media is ‘supporting’. Ironically, it upholds the heterosexual norm, and a rather sexist one at that, because female sexuality is not depicted realistically, and is not seen as being accepted on its own but having to exist with a man, and catering to men as well.

It is apparent that Zumanity still abides by the mainstream societal conventions in this way – beautiful women frolick with each other in the show, but there was not even one scene of two men that suggests male-male sexuality – not even ‘mild’ behaviours like embracing.

Another way in which Zumanity fails in being liberal from conservative/ mainstream expectations is the portrayal of the coloured people. There were two coloured people in the show; the lady fit the stereotype of the uncivilised ‘closer to nature’ black tribal person, and the man was fully depicted as being more animal than human. The lady was wearing ‘tribal clothing’, had her body and face painted, and her dance was wild and raw. The man was reduced completely to an animal. He had horns and a tail, he was on a leash the whole show, always on his knees crawling, and he was the pet of a white person. The show even went as far as to make direct references to him being an animal a few times. For example, when the black man pounced and snarled, a performer said, “ooo… even I have not tried bestiality”.

There exists a widely held idea in society that black people are more sexual, aggressive and less able to control their urges and impulses. Often black people are hyper-sexualised by media. One way in which this is done is the playing up of the sexual appetite and penis size of black men. Implications can be severe. For example, black girls who are raped are less likely to be helped by the law enforcement personnel because officials may consciously or sub-consciously have the mindset that the black girls were promiscuous and hence were ‘asking for it’ (Of course another problem in that is that people do not want girls to be sexually liberal and such girls are deemed ‘promiscuous’ and hence deserve to be raped).

Zumanity failed to step out of this narrow-minded unjust stereotype of black people in their show. It was in fact highly played up, which shocked and disappointed me. I expected more of an internationally acclaimed progressive group.

Watching Zumanity that night was a sobering reminder that society still has a long way to being fair and accepting to homosexuals and black people, as well as being that much less sexist.