Andre writes:
To be unfairly treated is very hurtful. When do I feel that I have been unfairly treated, how one defines fairness? Is more fairness in a society always a gain?
I would feel it unfair if I judge that I have been singled out for poor treatment or I have not received my entitlement; We make a judgement that triggers an emotion: that in itself is interesting. It may be that because we are essentially social animals, the fact that we equate discrimination with rejection, raises very strong emotions. From birth we are hardwired to entitlement, the baby cry for milk is part of its survival kit. As social beings, divided into family cells, neighbourhood clans, nations…we have devised and re-devised rules and customs distributing entitlements and duties. History shows that these distributions invariably advantage the powerful people: that is the strong and cunning and disadvantaged the meek. Throughout history rules and laws have been established that perpetuate our hierarchical society. That is where Justice lies today: the rule of law.
When the rule of law is ignored and we are denied our entitlement, we may have recourse to the court to redress some unfairness.
When the law tolerates or reinforces some discrimination; remedy may come in two ways: change the law democratically or if not possible, direct action which may lead to deadly conflict. A civilised society is defined by its statute and by the way the law is adhered to and administered. For every entitlement gained there has always been a struggle by a group or an other, against, often, a minority, who would fight to maintain their privileges. Fairness has never come as a gift to progress.
Does that mean that a society which treats all its citizen equally is a civilised society? A society that privileges a minority or even a majority, we would find abhorrent, unless it was deemed positive discrimination to redress unfairness.
There is some good news: A recent publication The Sprit Level (Why Equality is better for Everyone), shows that more equal society improve the life of all citizens, including the more affluent.
Related post:
Fairness vs Justice
Thursday 28 October 2010
Monday 18 October 2010
Le souvenir appartient-il au monde spirituel ou réel ?
La mémoire est l’une des caractéristiques qui lie les êtres vivants. En effet, il a été prouvé que les animaux sont dotés de cette capacité cognitive de rétention de souvenirs au même titre que les êtres humains. L’exemple le plus flagrant et bien sûr l’éléphant dont la mémoire est réputée très importante et dont un specimen a prouvé sa capacité à se souvenir des visages de personnes ayant fait souffrir son troupeau dans le passé. Mais qu’est-ce que la mémoire? Les souvenirs sont-ils inaltérables ? Quelle est la relation de la mémoire avec les autres fonctions psychologiques ?
N’étant ni neurologues ou scientifiques, nous autres, « Café-philosophes » avons essayé de définir la mémoire en tant que fonction neurologique qui sert a stocker, retenir et récupérer des souvenirs de notre vie quotidienne. Techniquement, comme l’a fait remarquer Kamel, tout ce qui se passe a chaque minute devient un souvenir, donc nous vivons constamment dans la mémoire, le passé.
Le model modal formulé par Atkinson et Schiffrin en 1968 va plus loin en établissant 3 sous-systèmes principaux à la mémoire : le registre sensoriel (qui peut retenir une grande quantité d’information sous forme visuelle), la mémoire à court terme (qui stocke des informations verbales pendant quelques secondes), et la mémoire à long terme (conception intuitive de notre mémoire qui retient des informations sémantiques , et dont la durée de rétention ne connaît pas de limites dans la durée ou la capacité). En effet, le rôle des sens dans la mémoire est important. On peut d’ailleurs reconnaître différents types de mémoires liées au sens : la mémoire photographique, auditive, gustative, tactile ou encore olfactive. Certaines personnes possèdent d’ailleurs d’exceptionnelles mémoires : n’est-ce pas sa mémoire photographique du détail et sa capacité d’observation qui ont fait la célébrité de Sherlock Holmes à travers le monde ?
La relation entre les sens et la mémoire a déjà été débattue par Descartes qui, dans ces Règles pour la Direction de l’Esprit, déclare dans sa 8e règle « qu’en nous, l’intelligence seule est capable de connaître, et qu’elle peut être ou empêchée ou aidée par 3 autres facultés, c’est à savoir l’imagination, les sens et la mémoire. Il faut donc voir successivement en quoi ces facultes peuvent nous nuire pour éviter [l’intuition], ou nous servir pour en profiter ». Freud quant a lui apporte la notion de « refoulement », processus de blocage de certains souvenirs traumatisants enterrés dans l’inconscient, et qui parfois peuvent donner naissance à de faux souvenirs, des fantasmes. Dans ces 2 cas, il est néanmoins suggéré que la mémoire ne stocke pas seulement les souvenirs, mais que ceux-ci portent l’empreinte de nos perceptions et de nos émotions.
Dans sa semi-autobiographie « A la recherche du temps perdu », Marcel Proust se souvient de son passé en utilisant la « mémoire involontaire », définie par Wikipedia comme un processus par lequel des souvenirs reviennent à la mémoire sans efforts volontaires de la part du sujet par le moyen d’indices rencontrés dans la vie de tous les jours. D’autres écrivains tels que Lord Byron ou encore Huysmans se sont inspirés de phénomènes de société, n’ayant pas vécu d’aventures extra ordinaires : cloîtrés dans leurs demeures bourgeoises, ils ont passé la majorité de leurs temps à « fantasmer » et a analyser le sens de leurs vies banales et ennuyeuses. C’est leur imagination liée à leur mémoire et leur créativité artistique qui ont rendu leurs œuvres uniques, alors que d’autres personnes ont peut-être vécu des aventures hors du commun, mais leur manque de créativité ne leur permet pas « d’enregistrer » leurs expériences ou souvenirs.
Bien sûr, l’inclusion de notre perception dans le processus de la mémoire s’avère un atout incontestable, et la preuve en a été donnée a maintes reprises, notamment dans le milieu criminel ou les témoins doivent faire appel a leurs souvenirs. Cependant, l’inclusion de nos sens et sensibilités dans ce contexte ne revient-il pas à introduire la notion de manque de fiabilité ou d’impartialité de notre mémoire ?
Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle notre mémoire est de moins en moins sollicitée ? La technologie nous permet de stocker des informations à l’infini et de les retrouver a convenance : depuis l’invention de la calculatrice, les enfants n’ont plus besoin de se souvenir de formules mathématiques ; l’ordinateur, l’invention la plus acclamée du 20e siècle n’a pas seulement révolutionné nos méthodes de communication, mais il a également remplacé les efforts humains considérables engagés dans l’archivage de données ; les enregistrements vidéos sont maintenant utilisés dans les tribunaux. Certains pensent que le futur de l’humanité est menacé d’être remplacé par des machines, comme Stanley Kubrick le met en scène dans sont film 2001, concept qui désolerai Charles Péguy qui considère que « […] la mémoire fait toute la profondeur de l’homme » (Clio, 1931).
Il est également permis de se demander jusqu’ou l’histoire, supposée être la mémoire officielle de notre collectivité, peut-être crue, et quelle proportion de vérité elle contient. Est-il possible que tout ce que nous avons appris, tout ce que nous avons lu n’était rien d’autre que mensonges ? Comme Napoléon l’a déclaré, « qu’est l’histoire sinon une fable sur laquelle tout le monde est d’accord » ?
N’étant ni neurologues ou scientifiques, nous autres, « Café-philosophes » avons essayé de définir la mémoire en tant que fonction neurologique qui sert a stocker, retenir et récupérer des souvenirs de notre vie quotidienne. Techniquement, comme l’a fait remarquer Kamel, tout ce qui se passe a chaque minute devient un souvenir, donc nous vivons constamment dans la mémoire, le passé.
Le model modal formulé par Atkinson et Schiffrin en 1968 va plus loin en établissant 3 sous-systèmes principaux à la mémoire : le registre sensoriel (qui peut retenir une grande quantité d’information sous forme visuelle), la mémoire à court terme (qui stocke des informations verbales pendant quelques secondes), et la mémoire à long terme (conception intuitive de notre mémoire qui retient des informations sémantiques , et dont la durée de rétention ne connaît pas de limites dans la durée ou la capacité). En effet, le rôle des sens dans la mémoire est important. On peut d’ailleurs reconnaître différents types de mémoires liées au sens : la mémoire photographique, auditive, gustative, tactile ou encore olfactive. Certaines personnes possèdent d’ailleurs d’exceptionnelles mémoires : n’est-ce pas sa mémoire photographique du détail et sa capacité d’observation qui ont fait la célébrité de Sherlock Holmes à travers le monde ?
La relation entre les sens et la mémoire a déjà été débattue par Descartes qui, dans ces Règles pour la Direction de l’Esprit, déclare dans sa 8e règle « qu’en nous, l’intelligence seule est capable de connaître, et qu’elle peut être ou empêchée ou aidée par 3 autres facultés, c’est à savoir l’imagination, les sens et la mémoire. Il faut donc voir successivement en quoi ces facultes peuvent nous nuire pour éviter [l’intuition], ou nous servir pour en profiter ». Freud quant a lui apporte la notion de « refoulement », processus de blocage de certains souvenirs traumatisants enterrés dans l’inconscient, et qui parfois peuvent donner naissance à de faux souvenirs, des fantasmes. Dans ces 2 cas, il est néanmoins suggéré que la mémoire ne stocke pas seulement les souvenirs, mais que ceux-ci portent l’empreinte de nos perceptions et de nos émotions.
Dans sa semi-autobiographie « A la recherche du temps perdu », Marcel Proust se souvient de son passé en utilisant la « mémoire involontaire », définie par Wikipedia comme un processus par lequel des souvenirs reviennent à la mémoire sans efforts volontaires de la part du sujet par le moyen d’indices rencontrés dans la vie de tous les jours. D’autres écrivains tels que Lord Byron ou encore Huysmans se sont inspirés de phénomènes de société, n’ayant pas vécu d’aventures extra ordinaires : cloîtrés dans leurs demeures bourgeoises, ils ont passé la majorité de leurs temps à « fantasmer » et a analyser le sens de leurs vies banales et ennuyeuses. C’est leur imagination liée à leur mémoire et leur créativité artistique qui ont rendu leurs œuvres uniques, alors que d’autres personnes ont peut-être vécu des aventures hors du commun, mais leur manque de créativité ne leur permet pas « d’enregistrer » leurs expériences ou souvenirs.
Bien sûr, l’inclusion de notre perception dans le processus de la mémoire s’avère un atout incontestable, et la preuve en a été donnée a maintes reprises, notamment dans le milieu criminel ou les témoins doivent faire appel a leurs souvenirs. Cependant, l’inclusion de nos sens et sensibilités dans ce contexte ne revient-il pas à introduire la notion de manque de fiabilité ou d’impartialité de notre mémoire ?
Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle notre mémoire est de moins en moins sollicitée ? La technologie nous permet de stocker des informations à l’infini et de les retrouver a convenance : depuis l’invention de la calculatrice, les enfants n’ont plus besoin de se souvenir de formules mathématiques ; l’ordinateur, l’invention la plus acclamée du 20e siècle n’a pas seulement révolutionné nos méthodes de communication, mais il a également remplacé les efforts humains considérables engagés dans l’archivage de données ; les enregistrements vidéos sont maintenant utilisés dans les tribunaux. Certains pensent que le futur de l’humanité est menacé d’être remplacé par des machines, comme Stanley Kubrick le met en scène dans sont film 2001, concept qui désolerai Charles Péguy qui considère que « […] la mémoire fait toute la profondeur de l’homme » (Clio, 1931).
Il est également permis de se demander jusqu’ou l’histoire, supposée être la mémoire officielle de notre collectivité, peut-être crue, et quelle proportion de vérité elle contient. Est-il possible que tout ce que nous avons appris, tout ce que nous avons lu n’était rien d’autre que mensonges ? Comme Napoléon l’a déclaré, « qu’est l’histoire sinon une fable sur laquelle tout le monde est d’accord » ?
Sunday 17 October 2010
Fairness vs Justice
Everybody knows: Life is unfair. Some were born rich, some poor; some intelligent, some not; some beautiful, some plain; some healthy and strong, some weak and sickly. It’s the luck of the draw. What can we do about it? If everybody was born equal, then the world would lack any diversity or variety as we know it. Life is unpredictable. You win some and you lose some. We need to be philosophical. That’s the raison d’être for our café-philo.
Nevertheless, inequality has always been the main culprit of turmoil and conflicts. Gross social injustice causes havoc in the world, uprisings, riots, revolutions, wars… No earth-shattering revelations here.
In an attempt to prevent social upheavals, governments adopted a series of measures to deliver “fairness” and minimise “inequality” among different classes so as to alleviate these growing social tensions between the very rich and the very poor. We are impressed by these slogans or promises: “democracy”, “meritocracy”, “equal opportunity”, “political correctness”, “multiculturalism”, “racial and gender equality”, “gay lesbian rights”.
Result: the tip of the balance has tilted towards the other end. Democracy has not given any real power to people but only make the power more concentrated on the top. Jurisprudence has been all but lost as lawyers act in favour of special interest groups. Social welfare systems created opportunities for fraudsters to rob society. Employment policy over-corrected itself by turning the formerly advantageous into disadvantageous. Tax system is controlled by accountants who favour the rich and rip off the salary-earning class.
During the recent two years, we have witnessed the decline and fall of many investment banks and high-street banks found lacking in any self-restraint by speculating in high-risk “investment” futures options. Massive funds have been usurped by hedge fund managers who design new vehicles for their instant gratification. Their bonuses redirected to offshore accounts in Cayman Island and the British Virgin Islands. Government has to rely on the taxpayers’ contribution to rescue banks to maintain their profligacy.
We ask is it “unfair” to pay illegal immigrants social welfare on arrival? Or is it “fairer” to pay bankers unrestricted bonuses by using the tax-payer?
Nevertheless, inequality has always been the main culprit of turmoil and conflicts. Gross social injustice causes havoc in the world, uprisings, riots, revolutions, wars… No earth-shattering revelations here.
In an attempt to prevent social upheavals, governments adopted a series of measures to deliver “fairness” and minimise “inequality” among different classes so as to alleviate these growing social tensions between the very rich and the very poor. We are impressed by these slogans or promises: “democracy”, “meritocracy”, “equal opportunity”, “political correctness”, “multiculturalism”, “racial and gender equality”, “gay lesbian rights”.
Result: the tip of the balance has tilted towards the other end. Democracy has not given any real power to people but only make the power more concentrated on the top. Jurisprudence has been all but lost as lawyers act in favour of special interest groups. Social welfare systems created opportunities for fraudsters to rob society. Employment policy over-corrected itself by turning the formerly advantageous into disadvantageous. Tax system is controlled by accountants who favour the rich and rip off the salary-earning class.
During the recent two years, we have witnessed the decline and fall of many investment banks and high-street banks found lacking in any self-restraint by speculating in high-risk “investment” futures options. Massive funds have been usurped by hedge fund managers who design new vehicles for their instant gratification. Their bonuses redirected to offshore accounts in Cayman Island and the British Virgin Islands. Government has to rely on the taxpayers’ contribution to rescue banks to maintain their profligacy.
We ask is it “unfair” to pay illegal immigrants social welfare on arrival? Or is it “fairer” to pay bankers unrestricted bonuses by using the tax-payer?
Sunday 10 October 2010
Scientific memory or Romantic memory?
(The following debate was conducted in French: "Le souvenir, appartient-il au monde matériel, ou au monde spiritual?" The French version of this summary will follow shortly.)
Memory; is it merely a neurological function of recording and retrieving information from a past event: Or is it a fantasy, a ghostly apparition, or a poetic reinterpretation of our life experience? What is Freudian theory of « memory » ? Can memory be a reliable testimony / evidence of a past event? Can we trust anyone’s memory? What is the difference between « souvenir » and « mémoire » ? Memory, as a mental process of storing information, can it be replaced by technology, such as computer science? What is animal memory as opposed to human memory? These are questions our café-philosophers unearthed in our discussion yesterday.
Remembering and forgetting
Memory as a neurological function basically serves as a mechanism of storing, retaining and retrieval of information that we learn in our daily life. As memory records information that we perceived every minute, we can actually say that we are living in the past all the time, technically speaking.
Memory is not a function belonging uniquely to human beings. Most animals have superb memories, such as the elephant, who famously remembers every human face that has inflicted harm to his pride in the past – a vindictive species, who bears grudges against certain person and seeks to exact revenge when opportunity arises.
Some people are endowed with a photographic memory which enables them to become superb detective. Sherlock Holmes remarked that most people do not notice small things that pass in front of their eyes. It was his photographic memory and observation skills that marked him as the most famous private detective in the world.
If memories are used as important testimony/evidence in criminal prosecutions, we have to ask, can memory, as a mental process as opposed to material evidence, be trusted as a wholly reliable source of information? It is arguable that all memories are merely fantasies or imaginations. According to Sigmund Freud, repressed memories of traumatic events in childhood can resurface in later years, but they may well be false memories. As years passed, memories of many details are likely to fade, and one tends to make up the blank spots in their memories by using imaginations.
Memories used in education are now aided by the development of technology. Since the invention of calculators, children are no longer required to memorise the formulae of maths. The computer is the most acclaimed invention of the 20th century which not only revolutionised communication systems, it also largely replaced human effort of laborious record keeping. It seems that the future of Mankind is indeed under the threat of being taken over by machines – as predicted in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001.
Poetic memories
As our café-philosophers are not neuroscientists, or cognitive psychologists, it is better to devote our debating skill to discussing the romantic/sentimental aspect of “memories.”
Some authors like to declare in the introduction of their books that their story is based partly on memories of true facts, and partly on imagination. But who cares if you say it refers to actual facts or not? As we have already discussed above, all memories can be fabricated unless there is supporting material evidence.
In Marcel Proust’s “A la recherche du temps perdu”, a semi-autobiography, he recalled his past by using what he named as “involuntary memory (la mémoire involontaire)” – “a conception of human memory in which cues encountered in everyday life evoke recollections of the past without conscious effort.” (Wikipedia)
Some poets and writers (e.g. Lord Byron) consciously sought adventures in society to find inspiration for their creative writing. Many non-creative people may have lived through the most extraordinary events in their life but unable to record their experiences as a result of their lack of talent, while certain creative people (e.g. M.Proust, J.K.Huysmans) have never experienced any exciting event in their entire life. Cooped-up in their bourgeois homes, they spent most their days fantasizing and contemplating the meaning of their cloistered existence. It is their imagination and fantasy, not their memory of actual events that added charm to our boring and grey existence.
A final thought, to what extent can HISTORY - supposedly the official records of our collective memories - be trusted, how much of it is truth? What if all we had been taught, all we had read in the history book were nothing but lies? As Napoleon remarked once, history is "a fable agreed upon."
 |
| Persistence of memory |
Memory; is it merely a neurological function of recording and retrieving information from a past event: Or is it a fantasy, a ghostly apparition, or a poetic reinterpretation of our life experience? What is Freudian theory of « memory » ? Can memory be a reliable testimony / evidence of a past event? Can we trust anyone’s memory? What is the difference between « souvenir » and « mémoire » ? Memory, as a mental process of storing information, can it be replaced by technology, such as computer science? What is animal memory as opposed to human memory? These are questions our café-philosophers unearthed in our discussion yesterday.
Remembering and forgetting
Memory as a neurological function basically serves as a mechanism of storing, retaining and retrieval of information that we learn in our daily life. As memory records information that we perceived every minute, we can actually say that we are living in the past all the time, technically speaking.
Memory is not a function belonging uniquely to human beings. Most animals have superb memories, such as the elephant, who famously remembers every human face that has inflicted harm to his pride in the past – a vindictive species, who bears grudges against certain person and seeks to exact revenge when opportunity arises.
Some people are endowed with a photographic memory which enables them to become superb detective. Sherlock Holmes remarked that most people do not notice small things that pass in front of their eyes. It was his photographic memory and observation skills that marked him as the most famous private detective in the world.
If memories are used as important testimony/evidence in criminal prosecutions, we have to ask, can memory, as a mental process as opposed to material evidence, be trusted as a wholly reliable source of information? It is arguable that all memories are merely fantasies or imaginations. According to Sigmund Freud, repressed memories of traumatic events in childhood can resurface in later years, but they may well be false memories. As years passed, memories of many details are likely to fade, and one tends to make up the blank spots in their memories by using imaginations.
Memories used in education are now aided by the development of technology. Since the invention of calculators, children are no longer required to memorise the formulae of maths. The computer is the most acclaimed invention of the 20th century which not only revolutionised communication systems, it also largely replaced human effort of laborious record keeping. It seems that the future of Mankind is indeed under the threat of being taken over by machines – as predicted in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001.
Poetic memories
As our café-philosophers are not neuroscientists, or cognitive psychologists, it is better to devote our debating skill to discussing the romantic/sentimental aspect of “memories.”
Some authors like to declare in the introduction of their books that their story is based partly on memories of true facts, and partly on imagination. But who cares if you say it refers to actual facts or not? As we have already discussed above, all memories can be fabricated unless there is supporting material evidence.
In Marcel Proust’s “A la recherche du temps perdu”, a semi-autobiography, he recalled his past by using what he named as “involuntary memory (la mémoire involontaire)” – “a conception of human memory in which cues encountered in everyday life evoke recollections of the past without conscious effort.” (Wikipedia)
Some poets and writers (e.g. Lord Byron) consciously sought adventures in society to find inspiration for their creative writing. Many non-creative people may have lived through the most extraordinary events in their life but unable to record their experiences as a result of their lack of talent, while certain creative people (e.g. M.Proust, J.K.Huysmans) have never experienced any exciting event in their entire life. Cooped-up in their bourgeois homes, they spent most their days fantasizing and contemplating the meaning of their cloistered existence. It is their imagination and fantasy, not their memory of actual events that added charm to our boring and grey existence.
A final thought, to what extent can HISTORY - supposedly the official records of our collective memories - be trusted, how much of it is truth? What if all we had been taught, all we had read in the history book were nothing but lies? As Napoleon remarked once, history is "a fable agreed upon."
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Asker or Guesser?
"Dear Philosophers,
Are you an Asker or a Guesser? The question was going round the internet a few years ago following an insightful post on the Metafilter community forum. The theory runs like this. If you have been brought up in an Ask culture your role models encouraged you to be straightforward and to declare candidly what you wanted, a piece of cake, a present; later on, a date, a pay rise, a favour – fully accepting that the answer may be negative. You don’t take a ‘no’ personally, and you believe the people who turn down your requests don’t mean it that way.
If you shy away from boldly asking, however, you may be a product of the Guess culture. You avoid “putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes… A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won't have to make the request directly; you'll get an offer. Even then, the offer may be genuine or pro forma; it takes yet more skill and delicacy to discern whether you should accept."
As a boy I once spent a few days with a family where you didn’t ask for anything at the dinner table. It certainly trained you to anticipate the other guests’ needs: salt, a piece of bread, more water. It probably taught me too much, actually. I tend to be a Guesser when the time comes for asking favours. On the other hand I am hopeless at reading clues and deciphering hints. I was at ease in Russia, where people routinely and peremptorily demand your time, efforts and money, only to smile graciously if you tell them to get lost. Nice try.
Misunderstandings arise when Guessers meet Askers. The former view the latter as boor; the latter don’t perceive convoluted approaches, leaving Guessers in the agony of having to be more direct, or desist.
This country used to be part of the Guess universe, at least its elite were. Is it changing? I was having sushi the other day with a young student. He nonchalantly grabbed the last piece.
— What? he asked, seeing me rather indignant
— Shouldn’t you ask before taking the last piece?
— You wanted it?
— No
— So?
Maybe that’s the solution. Don’t ask. Don’t guess. Just grab.
Christian"
Monday 4 October 2010
Assumptions
Settling down into my seat on the underground I took a quick look round and noted, accompanied by that delightful frisson engendered by a fix of cultural pessimism so necessary for a revolutionary, that nearly all my fellow passengers where playing mindlessly with their mobile phones or texting messages of the utmost banality to recipients who were no doubt equally unaware of the crisis faced by global capitalism. Before opening my book which happened to be on the Baader Meinhoff group which I knew would shortly be giving give me frissons of a far more problematic nature I noticed a young lady of Moslem appearance quietly and intently reading her own little book. For a moment in time we were united against the philistines around us but of course this happy state of affairs did not survive my weakness for cultural stereotyping that of course completely subverts my other belief that races and nations do not have essences that are capable of resisting historic and political developments. I thought to myself with an unbecoming smugness grounded it has to be said in enlightenment values that I bet, a secular form of Pascal's wager of course, that she is reading some holy book. Eventually after some considerable effort and a neglect of my own book I was able to confirm this was the case. However I was rather troubled by my finding. Was the proof of my assumption further proof that the young lady was somehow more determined , in a philosophical sense, than I was in her choice of book and if so could it further be the case that she is less free than me and for what it is worth the other passengers on the train whose activities were only really determined by their choice of means of communicating rather than the content of their message. (I sense the ghost of McLuhan hovering over me). Yes I thought it does for I doubted that the young lady, if she had been so minded, would have been able to guess the nature of the book I was reading simply by looking at me as the potential choices I had were almost unlimited including a holy book. I have previous in this area as I have in the past noticed that Africa looking ladies generally when reading on the tube opt for the Bible. So far one might think so prejudiced, though a prejudice based on empirical evidence. Anxious then to entertain an antithesis I considered that the women have just as freely chosen to read the Koran (or commentary which this was in the case of my fellow traveller) or Bible as I have my book. But I have a nagging doubt that their choice involved the consideration of other literary possibilities that were eventually rejected as having merit but less immediate relevance to their lives. But in what way does this matter, if at all? I would have liked to have to talked to the young lady but of course being British I knew I would have to be wait to be introduced and as she got out after a couple of stops that was highly unlikely to happen.
On a practical note.I said I'd try to keep a record of subjects proposed at Cafe. Should anybody remember any from say the last few months pleased let me know.I am only interested in the English speaking though on reflection it would be intriguing to compare them with the French language sessions
Sunday 3 October 2010
Etiquette
Interesting to find how many synonyms people have used for “Etiquette” during our last session of Café-philo: faux-pas, mannerism, code of conduct, protocol, rules of the game, formality, ritual, ceremony, decorum, politeness, and finally a ticket or a label.
Etymology: originated in France meaning “ticket” which defines the prerogatives of the nobilities. The 17th century European court education consists of the learning of code of etiquette, which includes sensitivity to language and demeanours, deference and pomposity, ceremonial behaviour and festive disorder, fostering the “natural” superiority appropriate to hereditary aristocracy. Such education was the aristocracy’s response to the absolutism in the French monarchy.
Etiquette differs from “good manners”. Etiquette is artificial set of rules imposed on society where good manners can be part of the natural instinct of being polite.
Exclusivity: Etiquette may reflect a person’s fashion and status. It often serves as a “ticket of admission” to a special club. In pre-Revolution Russia, speaking French was the decorum of the “polite society". In other words, a prerequisite for the status of an aristocrat in Tzarist Russia. Being of French origin arising from the practices in Louis XIV’s court, the notion of etiquette and decorum is frowned upon in the United States – a country without a history of monarchy and aristocracy. From the 20th century, the notion of etiquette in Europe has gradually been eroded by the notion of equality, along with the diminition of aristocracy. Conventional etiquette is only practiced in special ceremonies.
We may see distinct differences in social mores in different countries. Some etiquette serves no particular purpose except showing pure aesthetic values such as flower arranging. Some etiquette just seems so pointless that it verges on the ridiculous with its pomposity and ceremonies. The most commonly quoted Japanese etiquette is the Tea Ceremony. The tea serving in Japan has been so ritualised that it fascinates and mystifies outsiders with its theatricality which defies reasoning. Japan may not be the only country with tea ceremony. In Middle-Eastern countries, where the weather is arid and hot, mint tea is often served in a special manner to relieve the fatigue and thirst of Muslim brethren. Some rules of etiquette are similar in different cultures, such as the removal of shoes in sacred places as a common practice in both Buddhist temple and Islamic Mosque.
Culture clash: Some rules of etiquette in one country can often be seen as offence by another culture. Take table manners for example, the Orientals eat with chopsticks and they have a habit of slurping while eating noodles. This would be construed as revolting table manners in the West. Vice versa, where in America a guest is supposed to eat all he has been offered while this would be seen as greedy and gluttony behaviour in Oriental culture.
Rules of etiquette may reflect the underlying ethical code. Every society has its own code of conduct incorporated into the local legal system for the purpose of disciplining people’s behaviour and reinforcing the conformity of certain social convention. Certain code of social convention might be obstructive to the economic growth, for example, fasting on Ramadan or closing of business on Holy Friday can seriously reduce business output in the society. Because of different family values, Nepotism, which is illegal in the West, is considered quite normal in the East. Business dealings can be tricky when there is cultural clash. In China, the most important concept in business dealing is “face”, which loosely translates as honour, reputation, and reliability. Any breach of etiquette that causes embarrassment to oneself means loss of “face”. In America, to say “yes” means “yes”, “no” means “no” this kind of direct no-nonsense answer would be considered a “Faux-pas” in Asia. The stereotyped Oriental businessmen often give the impression of being non-confrontational, as they rarely give a straight answer as “no”. The usual answer is “they will think about it”, or they “will see”. Even the British use the expression “in due course” can be interpreted as a convenient way of avoiding a specific time or date.
As a consequence of the globalisation, many cultural differences are on the verge of disappearing. With the rapid economic growth and the emphasis on “time is money”, some codes of etiquette are construed as obstacles or impediment of effective business dealings. Consequently, many conventional protocols have been dispensed with in the face of social demographic progress of the late 20th and early 21st century. The call for efficiency and effectiveness of management style requires that the modern men and women use plain language and direct answers in business world, effectively abolishing the nuances and subtlety of languages. How much does it say for the future of our civilisation?
A practical guide to business etiquette in different countries can be found here:
Kwintessential
“The French are often impressed with good debating skills that demonstrate an intellectual grasp of the situation and all the ramifications.” - from above website
 |
| Hunting etiquette in Book of Hours (Livre d'Heures), 1442 |
Etiquette differs from “good manners”. Etiquette is artificial set of rules imposed on society where good manners can be part of the natural instinct of being polite.
Exclusivity: Etiquette may reflect a person’s fashion and status. It often serves as a “ticket of admission” to a special club. In pre-Revolution Russia, speaking French was the decorum of the “polite society". In other words, a prerequisite for the status of an aristocrat in Tzarist Russia. Being of French origin arising from the practices in Louis XIV’s court, the notion of etiquette and decorum is frowned upon in the United States – a country without a history of monarchy and aristocracy. From the 20th century, the notion of etiquette in Europe has gradually been eroded by the notion of equality, along with the diminition of aristocracy. Conventional etiquette is only practiced in special ceremonies.
We may see distinct differences in social mores in different countries. Some etiquette serves no particular purpose except showing pure aesthetic values such as flower arranging. Some etiquette just seems so pointless that it verges on the ridiculous with its pomposity and ceremonies. The most commonly quoted Japanese etiquette is the Tea Ceremony. The tea serving in Japan has been so ritualised that it fascinates and mystifies outsiders with its theatricality which defies reasoning. Japan may not be the only country with tea ceremony. In Middle-Eastern countries, where the weather is arid and hot, mint tea is often served in a special manner to relieve the fatigue and thirst of Muslim brethren. Some rules of etiquette are similar in different cultures, such as the removal of shoes in sacred places as a common practice in both Buddhist temple and Islamic Mosque.
Culture clash: Some rules of etiquette in one country can often be seen as offence by another culture. Take table manners for example, the Orientals eat with chopsticks and they have a habit of slurping while eating noodles. This would be construed as revolting table manners in the West. Vice versa, where in America a guest is supposed to eat all he has been offered while this would be seen as greedy and gluttony behaviour in Oriental culture.
Rules of etiquette may reflect the underlying ethical code. Every society has its own code of conduct incorporated into the local legal system for the purpose of disciplining people’s behaviour and reinforcing the conformity of certain social convention. Certain code of social convention might be obstructive to the economic growth, for example, fasting on Ramadan or closing of business on Holy Friday can seriously reduce business output in the society. Because of different family values, Nepotism, which is illegal in the West, is considered quite normal in the East. Business dealings can be tricky when there is cultural clash. In China, the most important concept in business dealing is “face”, which loosely translates as honour, reputation, and reliability. Any breach of etiquette that causes embarrassment to oneself means loss of “face”. In America, to say “yes” means “yes”, “no” means “no” this kind of direct no-nonsense answer would be considered a “Faux-pas” in Asia. The stereotyped Oriental businessmen often give the impression of being non-confrontational, as they rarely give a straight answer as “no”. The usual answer is “they will think about it”, or they “will see”. Even the British use the expression “in due course” can be interpreted as a convenient way of avoiding a specific time or date.
As a consequence of the globalisation, many cultural differences are on the verge of disappearing. With the rapid economic growth and the emphasis on “time is money”, some codes of etiquette are construed as obstacles or impediment of effective business dealings. Consequently, many conventional protocols have been dispensed with in the face of social demographic progress of the late 20th and early 21st century. The call for efficiency and effectiveness of management style requires that the modern men and women use plain language and direct answers in business world, effectively abolishing the nuances and subtlety of languages. How much does it say for the future of our civilisation?
A practical guide to business etiquette in different countries can be found here:
Kwintessential
“The French are often impressed with good debating skills that demonstrate an intellectual grasp of the situation and all the ramifications.” - from above website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)