Stevenson's Account of Acceptance and Simmel's Stranger - Assignment Example

Week 2 tutorial questions Q1: Stevenson sees limits in the idea of tolerance in that: it requires parties to endure their differences; it introduces the concept of power relationships in that the powerful party can choose to dominate or be intolerant to the less powerful party; and it increases chances of conflict between parties since it focuses on differences rather than similarities. I find Stevenson’s account of acceptance as useful, although I must also admit that it is also a limited concept in real life. According to Stevenson, acceptance is possible if parties understand each other in a manner that focuses on sameness rather than on differences. Additionally, acceptance focuses on mutuality between parties; hence it is given and received by parties; and its deals with differences between parties upfront. By so doing, the parties are able to acknowledge and share similarities, fostering an understanding of each other’s differences. The limitation of the acceptance concept is founded on its likelihood to create power differences. For example, the dominant party may perceive its acceptance of the minority party as a privilege granted to the latter. In other words, the acceptor will most likely feel and act as the accepted party’s superior. I agree with Stevenson’s views regarding contemporary Australia. It can be seen that refugees, Muslims, and even Aboriginal communities in Australia are being segregated upon by the dominant ‘legitimate’ Australians. Q2: Horne’s claim that religious hate is taking over from race and ethnic hate in Australia is valid especially considering the religious intolerance directed to Muslims in the post 9/11 era. However, it must be noted that the religious hate (especially targeting Muslims) is based on stereotypes that have consistently linked Islam to terrorism. Significant tips by Horne in regard to returning to tolerance include: the importance of political importance to tame xenophobia tendencies among Australians; the need to enjoin religion in Australian institutions in order to foster inclusiveness; and encouraging multi-culturalism/diversity in order to encourage all Australians to embrace all people regardless of their class, gender, culture, ethnicity, or religion. Horne’s recommendations are just part of the solution because much as political intervention is necessary to end xenophobia and other stereotypes, there is no laid down solution to issues of religious intolerance, ethnic and racial problems the world over. However, social cohesion, spearheaded by member of the society, may provide some solutions to the prevailing problems. Week 3 questions Q1: According to Simmel, the Stranger belongs to a unique sociological category in that he is not an ‘insider’ nor is he a ‘wanderer’. In other words, the Stranger comes and stays, but is not perceived as part of the group because of his origins. In essence however, the Stranger is in (but not of) the group most especially because he constantly relates to other group members. The Stranger’s distance from local groups make them more objective while perceiving events that take place in the group. By ‘a trace of strangeness in this sense easily enters the most intimate relations’, Simmel was probably referring to the fact that as parties in an intimate relationship get used to each other, the sense of uniqueness fades, giving way to a sense of strangeness, where parties could start realising that they did not know each other as well as they thought they did. Consequently, they are able to view each other’s actions and behaviours more objectively. Week 4 Questions This week’s readings sheds light on the position of Aboriginal communities in Australia. Honneth addresses the plight of Aboriginal peoples in regard to land rights, something that is corroborated by Gaita. The readings also indicate that Rudd (through his speech) generally agrees to the position by the two authors that Aboriginal Australians were disrespected, and were treated as unequal individuals, and that if Australia is to move forward, there is a need to admit its shame by recognising the past mistakes committed against the Aboriginal people. Week 5 Questions Q1: By ‘by definition, of course, we believe the person with stigma is not quite human’, Goffman was referring to his definition where he termed stigma as ‘the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance’. The explanation is literally quite simple: social acceptance is for humans, and if one has some aspects that attract stigma, then they are treated as ‘not being fully human’. In other words, the person is perceived as being abnormal either physically, character-wise, or according to people’s racial, social, or cultural expectations. Q2: The stigmatised can respond to stigma through correction (though this is limited to where correction is possible), indirect correction, or perceiving the stigma as a blessing (e.g. participating in Paralympics). Either way, the stigmatised can use their social, ego or personal identities to manage stigma. Q3: I believe that physical handicap is slowly losing the stigma that it equated to the quality of life. Many physically challenged people have shown that they can lead quality lives, sometimes, even better than those of people considered ‘normal’. Real life stories of blind men painting, or singing (Stevie Wonder is a good example) , and ‘limbless men’ such as Nick Vujicic and Philippe Croizon attaining what some arguably normal people have not achieved are just cases in point. Such examples illustrate that the social stigmas are not always justified and are hence invalid, all the reason why physical disabilities are losing their stigma as equating to one’s quality of life. Q4: ‘Own’ is used by Goffman in reference to people experiencing the same stigma as the stigmatised. Such people are more likely to feel how the stigmatised person feels. The ‘wise’ on the other hand is used to refer to people who possess some kind of knowledge and understanding that enables them to accept the stigmatised, and accord them sympathy and acceptance. By so doing, the wise are able to help the stigmatised eliminate feelings of shame and/or embarrassment. Week 6 Questions Q1: If Pahl’s (2002) views regarding friendship are anything to go by, then one can argue that contemporary models of intimacy and friendship can indeed generate greater solidarity across differences in the larger community and this is why Pahl (2002, p. 22) argues that friends ‘enlarge and extend each other’s moral experience...are bound together, as they recognise each other’s moral experience. Each can be said to provide a mirror in which the other may see himself’. Interpreted, this statement by Pahl could mean that contemporary friendship involves communication among ‘friends’ for purposes of finding out the wellbeing of each other and helping each other live a good life. Additionally, Pahl (2002, p. 5) has argued that friendship is acting as the ‘social glue’, since it forms the bonds that hold people from different social classes together. In the past, civic responsibilities, kinship obligations, and ‘mutual care of reciprocities’ held communities together (Pahl, 2002, p. 5). If Pahl is to be believed however, those social bonds have weakened over time. Pahl, R. (2002), 'Towards a more significant sociology of friendship', European Journal of Sociology 43(3): 410-423. Q2: Mutual liking is a central element in friendship because it beats logic to imagine that two people, who do not like each other, could form a friendship. Liking here is used in reference to the quality of being pleased, enjoying the company of a person, or having preference for them. Notably however, friends can go through periods when they are angry, irritated or even disliking towards each other; however, their friendship remains as long as they are fond of each other or attached to each other. In other words, periodical dislike can occur in friendship, but constant and consistent dislike is contrary to friendship. Q3: In my opinion, friendship cannot serve as an adequate model for citizenship because the two (i.e. friendship and citizenship) are completely different social constructs. For starters, friendship is more of a personal/private thing, while citizenship is a public-social concept. As such, while emotions are often always present in friendship, the same cannot be said about citizenship. Additionally, and has been indicated by Scorza (2004), friends cannot place demands on each other; however, citizens can demand specific services from the government. Specifically, Scorza (2004) argues that ‘Fellow citizens may reasonably demand from each other basic respect and toleration, as well as some assurance of social welfare commensurate with the requirements of human dignity. But they may not demand that others love them, treat them as friends, or abandon self-determined projects for their sake.’ (p. 85). The merits of using friendship as a citizenship model though impractical in reality, would have merits in that it would foster greater cohesion among people since every citizen would want what is best for his/her fellow citizen. However, such an approach would limit concepts such as competition where the best survive. Scorza, J.A 2004, ‘Liberal citizenship and civic friendship’, Political Theory, vol. 32, no.1, pp. 85-108. Q4: The respect of individual differences among friends seems to be the overriding theme in most friendship theories. Specifically, it has been argued that dyadic relationships among friends succeed if the ‘friends’ accept, respect and support each other’s individuality. Week 7 questions Q1: Butler is simply rearticulating the importance of interpreting gender based on its historical, social, political and cultural contexts. In other words, Butler is arguing that if women (or men for that matter) cannot be defined simply as women, then their history must be related to their cultures and societies. Intersections that come to mind in relation to Butler’s argument include the fact that women in Australia encounter various challenges based on the historical social and cultural histories. For example, the challenges of Aboriginal women, illiterate white women, refugee women, and/or physically disabled women cannot be defined in a blanket manner as ‘challenges of the Australian woman’. Rather, they would have to be defined within the social and cultural context of where the specific women come from. Q2: In my understanding, Butler defines post-feminism as the successful mixing of different contexts (i.e. social, cultural and political) in order to shift the feminism debate from equality and how to attain the same, to debates about the different ways of attaining equality for different women. Politically, Butler’s definition could lead to a rethinking of the accepted constructs of gender, and could even revive feminism on other grounds such as considerations of whether all women (i.e. from different social, economic, political and cultural backgrounds) have been considered. Q3: The long-held assumption that men are better than women in science subjects best illustrates Butler’s statement that ‘there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender...’ Arguably, most school-going women live up to this long-held assumption, because deep in their conscience, they know the society does not expect them to outperform their male counterparts in specific subjects. This is in spite of the overwhelming evidence documented in an OECD (2011) report indicating that girls are indeed capable of outperforming, or performing at par with boys in science subjects OECD (2011), ‘How do girls compare to boys in science?’ in PISA2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing, viewed 11 August 2012, < http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095250-11-en> Week 8 Questions Why is middle Australia angry? According to Pusey (2003), middle Australia is angry because jobs are scarce and precarious. In other words, the middle classes feel that there is no guarantee of job security in the country despite the economic boom. The low wages, the rising cost of living, the double (or at times thrice) effort for same pay, the degradation of professionalism, and the perception that the booming economy is benefiting a few well-off Australians are all reasons cited for the anger. In other words, the middle Australia is angry because they are dissatisfied in their jobs, and the incomes thereof. The government’s inability to ensure that the benefits from the economic boom are spread throughout the social divide is also one more reason why middle Australia is angry. Resources I need to be happy. As the cliché goes, happiness is a personal choice; however, I’d be much happier, and more content with my basic needs covered (i.e. food, decent shelter, and clothing), and with a sustainable, and sufficient source of income to cater for all my needs. A satisfying job, (i.e. one that I look forward to going to each morning) would be an added advantage). More or less than parent? Why? I guess I am equal with my parents resource-wise, especially in terms of basic needs. However, I think my working schedule is more flexible, and this means I have more time to concentrate on my hobbies. Pusey, M 2003, The experience of Middle Australia: The dark side of economic reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Week 9 Questions Q1: By failing to recognise Indigenous people as citizens (or people for that matter). Essentially, this meant that they were not considered as being worthy of becoming part of the Federation. Additionally, it is noted that the Indigenous communities were considered as being unworthy of fitting into the society, and were hence excluded from voting, and were subject to other discriminatory practices. The Constitution (section 51, part 26) specifically excluded the Aboriginal peoples from being included in the census, and gave the state power over them. Q5: As students of the contemporary thought, our understanding of Indigenous peoples’ disadvantage is shaped by the Anglo-Australian descriptions of the same. Specifically, we tend to use the Anglo-Australian understanding of the term ‘disadvantage’ to measure just how worse off the Indigenous communities are compared to other communities in Australia. By so doing, we ignore their values, beliefs and culture, which if respected by the rest of the society, would probably contribute a great deal to giving the Indigenous communities their preferred positions in the society. Week 10 questions Q1: The multicultural man has been defined as a person who can work across cultures because he possesses the self-consciousness that enables him to do so. Multiculturalism on the other hand is the tolerance, acceptance, or diversity of cultures in a society. However, given that multiculturalism does not just happen, it takes deliberate actions by opinion or political leaders to get the dominant culture to be tolerant of other cultures. For the dominant culture to create room for multiculturalism, they must perceive the multicultural concept as legitimate and hence the need for ideologies. For example, it would be thought that the multicultural man would think like the ‘others’ as he tries to understand their position in the society. Arguably, Albrechtesen’s claim is factual considering that the multicultural man is considerate of others, regardless of their cultural differentials. Q2: Yes there are racial undertones in Albrechetsen’s articles as can be seen in her use of ‘we’ and ‘them’. Q3: Yes, Albrechetsen is undoubtedly adopting a fundamentalist approach as evident in her rather strong views. She independently claims that ‘[we] have tolerated the intolerant for too long’. According to Hage, fundamentalism is illogical, and to some extent authoritarian. Although not illogical to a great extent, Albrechetsen’s views are authoritarian and intolerant. Additionally, her views fit well into Hage’s description of fundamentalism principles’ failure to be associated with bureaucratic, democratic or rational politics. Read More