Intelligent when most loosely defined is just being smart. However one might ask 'what' smart? Is it book-smart, street-smart or something else? I am raising this topic about intelligence partly in defence of my fellow coursemates during class. When prompted to define emotional intelligence, they were momentarily stumped. I can't blame them. Firstly intelligence is something that is widely taken for granted. A lot of people tend to think of intelligence as just one thing. A second reason that makes intelligence even harder to define is the countless variations of its definitions. In our class, intelligence is split into EQ and IQ. However, some psychologists find this insufficient. If I did not recall wrongly, I think there was one model with 9 different intelligence. In short, it is really not easy to define intelligence. We can only try our best and use what is most convenient for our purposes at the moment.
About culture, I read several definitions about culture in the websites as well. I think it might be useful if we use a term from sociology called solidarity. If I did not remember wrong again, I think solidarity means sharing a certain bond and other experiences between people in a society. Maybe someone could check out a sociology text, haha.
Oh yeah, I suddenly thought about race and ethnicity. I think the textbook the arts students use for sc1101e has quite a comprehensive part on that. A simple argument could be this: Sometimes you look at a person and you think he looks like, say, Korean but in fact the person is from China. The use of physical markers with using race makes it ambiguous when differentiating between two groups of people since Koreans can look Chinese and vice versa. Race is unclear and can also lead to racism and stereotyping. Ethnicity, which is based on shared values and culture, is probably a much better term to use.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Soon Yee,
ReplyDeleteThe word "solidarity" is definitely a better to replace " culture".The definition of "culture" is too broad and people tend to use this word callously to describe almost about everything.
" Race is unclear and can also lead to racism and stereotyping. Ethnicity, which is based on shared values and culture, is probably a much better term to use."
ReplyDeleteI agree with that completely. I think it is about time that Singapore uses the correct term and to stop categorising us according to race. I don't see a point of these categorizations. It makes me feel like an object. I feel that it also makes it harder for Singaporeans to see themselves as Singaporeans first rather than race.
Race vs Ethnicity is a complex topic. The concept of race, as you said, is a group of people who are PERCIEVED to share PHYSICAL traits. In Ireland, "Black" is used to refer to EVERYONE who isn't white. In South Africa they have Coloured and Indian to refer to bi-racials and Indians. You can see their boundaries and markers isn't universal. When I say I'm Sri Lankan, that is my nationality. My ETHNICITY, however, is Sinhalese. As Brad said, race is an archaic concept - only important because of the social meanings people have attached to it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, interesting that you brought up solidarity. Social solidarity actually refers to the DEGREE to which a society or a group's members share beliefs, and the intensity and frequency to which interactions between these members take place. A society can possess high levels of social solidarity -- meaning the people are more close-knit and more socially responsible-- or it can have a low level of social solidarity where there are weak social ties between people.
Therefore, I think it would be wrong to say that culture should be replaced with "solidarity" or that culture refers to the solidarity of the people, because culture encompasses much more than that. In the sociological sense, culture is a product of human creation. It's something we made for ourselves so we can adapt to and thrive in our environments - establishing symbols, language, practices, norms, values, tools - all components of culture, that we socially transmit to the generations to come.
Perhaps it would be more apt if we said that the level of social solidarity would simply be just another aspect of culture. Perhaps certain cultures specifically encourage higher or lower levels of social solidarity in their societies. But it's a leap from saying culture IS solidarity.
I remember Brad saying he was interested in Social Sciences, so if you read this, maybe you can correct me if I'm completely and embarassingly wrong :D
I do apologize for this long-winded post, I go get carried away!
I do get carried away*
ReplyDeleteI must work on my editing skills oops...
You are right Ranmali, solidarity does refer to the degree of integration of beliefs and ideas. In this case, it does not constitute a good substitute for culture. Sorry for the confusion everyone haha. However, solidarity is still very useful as an analysing tool to look at different societies.
ReplyDeleteGeraldine: It can be quite a difficult issue. Probably the main reason is that it is hard to replace the word "race". It is widely used in the media. Ethnicity on the other hand is rarely used and it might be a problem explaining the subtle differences of the two words to people who have not read about the differences between the two. Somethings are perhaps to hard to change.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of Singaporeans, I think we must first understand our nationality and find an identity for ourselves as a nation before it even factors down to ethnic groups. Culture barely exists here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very useful and intelligent discussion. Thanks for initiating it, Soon Yee.
ReplyDeleteAs I probably mentioned in class, that whole idea of "race" is quite contentious. Perceptions, as Ranmali mentions, are often at the heart of any such discussion, and stereotyping and ill feelings can and often do follow.
While it is clear that people who share values and beliefs, interests, traditions and customs, knowledge of languages and history, etc., have a certain common ground, a solidarity, if you will, when those same people are "divided" along physical characteristics, what is the purpose, and what is the end result?
I'm not even sure of a valid purpose.
However, often the result is the thought (and often utterance) that such and such a characteristic is of higher quality than another. Here's what can follow: Tall is better than short. Dark is not as good as light. Thck is less appropriate than thin. These notions can and do then become divisive, and bad feelings often follow.
In America, whether a person is of African-American heritage, Asian-American, Native-American or European-American, we are still bonded by our common values and interests. We watch the same films and TV, have the same music and sports heroes, like many of the same foods, celebrate the same holidays, go to the same schools where we read about the same national heroes and are inculcated wit the same sense of success, the same sense of values and the same dreams.
Why should it matter an iota what color our skin is or how thick our lips are? Why is that still an issue?
And yet, some people still talk about Barack Obama as if he does not have a legitimate claim on the presidency just because of his physical nature. I find that absurd.
What race am I? Human.
Enough said.