The postmodern free-floating individualism is a kind of infantilism.
Blogs are very diverse and individualistic globally, is there a higher level of individually focused blogs in Singapore? More than other countries?
Edward Said would have argued that the use of the term infantilism as an image of the reified Singaporean implicitly characterised as a 'hot' yet passive female, see [picture of Xiaxue]. However the image of Xiaxue is hot-passive, but her blog and her style is contrary to this. Do other bloggers see it as so?
All cultures tend to make representations of foreign cultures in order to master them. The use of the term infantilism is one of many possible representations of Singaporean culture. But representations are also made within Singapore. Is the representation within Singapore mirroring the western assertion of 'infantilism'?
Do Singaporean bloggers get annoyed, upset or deny the 'infantile' representation?
14 comments:
Looking at the number of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments and at least one spelling nazi, I'd say yes. A fair portion of those who left comments across the blogs are annoyed, upset or deny the 'infantile' representation?
some also agree that being infantile is ok. nothing wrong with that representation. so when the government refer to a patriarchal system, do they get upset? PAP knows best.
we're not annoyed, upset and neither are we outrightly denying. :) all we ask is that one qualifies his assertion or presumptions. Basing judgment of the entire Singaporean blogosphere on two popular blogs is like say all Americans are like Britney Spears and George W. Bush because they are popular. It is neither conclusive nor logical nor academically sound. What I am perhaps saying is that instead of focusing on what our blogs say about us, infantilism manifest in the form of post-modern free floating individualism or not, how about looking at a possible dualism, a covert dialectic that tells of individual negotiations between society and self-conception expressed in narratives on our seemingly self-indulgent blogs?
:) I don't dispute that this might be an interesting research, but as I commented earlier on the previous post, methodology is going to be a real problem here. How do you accurately measure what you are attempting to measure? If what you're measuring is even there in the first place. Something as subjective and potentially superficial as blogging is hard to fathom, much less attempting to derive true attitudes and personalities from blogs. How does one dichotomize neatly what is repressed or expressed, that which is true of oneself or that which is state rhetoric that is internalized and then regurgitated in some politically correct or non-offensive way? Or how sometimes we might overcompensate in a bid to show that we're not conformists in a new political age, and proudly proclaim ourselves as treehuggers, extreme bigots and embracers of the rainbow culture? Do we honestly accept or do we pretend to? Are we apathetic because we are or because the situation demands and relegates us to be so? Do we have no opinions or is it the Internal Security Act that keeps our holes shut lest we be hauled away for two years without them needing to have a reason to do so? :)
We can take jokes alright.Juz like the way u shld take our joke and change ur name to angbloodymoh.
the main idea is that the research will only be representative of a very small number of bloggers, namely those who post comments or email to me.
I intend to build a large corpus of the comments as well as government/offical speeches and then use latent semantic analysis to look for trends in the use of language around certain topics.
What are the recurrent themes so to speak. Trying to have an ongoing debate and allowing the group as awhole to contribute to the interpretations of specific current events in Singapore. One particular focus might be the level of compliance in the use of language, or the lack of it, between offical non-offical talk.
the blogging community in Singapore is small and so claims of being representative to the entire population cannot be made.
every method has various limitations as well as benefits, and other methods like covert participant observation in an organisation in Singapore, or structured interviews, questionnaires might be able to overcome the shortcomings of using the 'blog community' approach. But that is for future research.
you have a very interesting question...which might sum up what i hope to get at...
Do we honestly accept or do we pretend to? By allowing for 'infantile''humourous', 'sarcastic remarks' to be viewed as subversive yet appearing to comply is an area that I need to work on in terms of background reading. Do the bloggers themselves argue that that is what they are doing?
Some do. how prevelant this is, I don't currently know.
Maybe one of the reasons why the Singaporeans are so annoyed with the term 'infantile' is because they unconsciously agree that they are being infantile but there is nothing they can do to move away from it.
Being angy, annoyed, etc with the term 'infantile' is so minute. This term can be interpreted in different ways by different people yet, most of the comments posted here seem to concentrate on the negative aspect of this term. Probably because this is posted by a non-Singaporean. If this were to be posted by Mr Brown for example, would the comments be different? Would the article be considered as funny and cute?
Probably the ‘infantilism’ that persist in majority of Singaporean is because the education system is designed in such a way to mould the Singaporean to not think beyond their basic needs.
I intend to build a large corpus of the comments as well as government/offical speeches and then use latent semantic analysis to look for trends in the use of language around certain topics.
In short, you stirred shit, just to see shit stir. :D
Specifics: You're using your unique positions as (a) a foreigner (b) a gwai-lo (c) an academic to see if we fall into preconceptions, and let our preconceptions govern our behaviours. Did I guess right?
Oh - incidentally, being legally trained I have absolutely no problems holding two mutually exclusive arguments as being absolute truth. I agree we're infantile and it's okay. I also agree that we're not infantile. :D
'infantile' is perhaps a good word to use, as most bloggers in Singapore, especially of the blogs that you have pointed out, are young. Not many has reached the age of 30 yet.
The age structure of the blogosphere in Singapore is very heavy in the ages between 16-24 and you probably wouldn't people without a BA from QUB, an MA from Warwick and who had the privilege of being a senior lecturer in NUS, to speak or write as well as you. There are many more well-educated people like you, or than you, who simply do not have the time to write 'intelligent' blogs as they are pursuing other interests in life.
Which is to say that it becomes a matter of preferences. From the study of economics you know that some derive greater utility from entertainment and others, from political discourse. The laws of demand and supply mean that since entertainment blogs are higher in demand (considering the demographics of the market of a predominantly young audience), the supply of such blogs would be greater. This may also explain why Britney Spears or Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, generates more hits on the web than say F.A Hayek or political forums. Thus this may explain, or prove, why the blogosphere is 'infantile' to you.
Probably Nietzsche, if he were still alive today, would say that even in blogs, there is an element of the will to power. Perhaps you get a slight feeling of superiority over others, knowing that you are indeed above the rest, in terms of intellectual thought and ability, or even in terms of a basic consciousness of world affairs.
If a research be done, be sure to consider the demographics of the blogo-market and determine which market you are catering to, which segment you want to target in future, and how much you really expect a different market segment/population group to seek goods and services which cater to another. My humble opinion is that, in the end, you'll realize that you might have been overly critical of a problem which is just an objective, non-judgmental question of dd & ss of a form of society.
Well, Mr. McDermott, I was certainly a little upset over your comment; I think it seemed a little overly harsh - I went into great detail as to why I thought this in my blog entry, and I suppose the main thing is that you have to recognize that your choice of words was ridiculously loaded.
While I'm not exactly opposing your use of strong statements (believe you me, I make strong statements in my blog all the time), I think that, given the tone of your blog, a statement such as the one you made really could come across as arrogant, judgemental and, above all, unfair to singaporean bloggers, who might not all be politically minded, but are definitely not necessarily as immature as you make them out to be.
I've actually been reading your blog sporadically, and I have to say that, aside from this series of posts which has upset me, I've been pretty impressed with some of the other stuff that you've written; I voted for your site in the freedom blog awards, and definitely think you've said a lot of things that need to be said.
However, I figure that, on this one issue, you've gone a little too far, and perhaps been a little quick to judge.
As for blogs you haven't been reading, perhaps you might want to check out Adri's site, I think that, so far, she's been fairly level-headed and relatively mature. Don't check out mine, though - other than the reply to your last post, it's definitely a little infantile for your tastes.
Regards,
J
Here is absolute proof that the singapore blogosphere is not infantile:
Dick's Adventures
Steven,
reading the comments (and posting mine own tuppence worth here and there) amongst the furore that you have created in Singapore has been even more enlightening for me, a Westerner living - I mean existing - in Singapore, than many of your other political eye-opening posts and discussion points..
I think you should consider "racist" and "insular" as additional descriptions of the local Singaporean (blogger) mindest.
Me, I pride myself on just being infantile.
You, keep stirring.
E@L
I actually stumbled across some intellectuals in the so called blogosphere at last. Ha.
Infantilism. You couldn't have put it better. I second that. However, as mentioned, the mean age of bloggers might be a mitigating factor. Who is to say that infants can't act like infantiles?
And yes, regarding the issue of demand and supply. Our demand is perhaps quite voyueristic and lacking in intellect, thus that explains the mushrooming of infantile blogs all over not unlike so and so. One can see that there is a certain copycat trend going on, and even the styles of certain people are being imitated to increase their number of hits. People copying the style of an infant generally result in more of such blogs. Agree? It's more of a reverse causation, high performance or rather high hits, result in this "culture" being replicated all over the place.
Pardon me for being so long-winded, but one last thing that I note. Perhaps the furor you have created may not be so vicious if you were a Singaporean. Tis all about not parading one's dirty linen in the streets.
Au revoir.
The word "infantile" denotes young and growing. so, why get so worked up!
We, including myself - a Singaporean, all learn to crawl, to walk, to sit, to eat, to drink, etc since we are born. Day by day, we slowly learn from many experiences of failure until we are fully capable of doing all the actions independently and confidently until maturity, don't we? It is a true fact that we must learn we all learn from scratch, from the basics!
Even those businessmen or organisations succeed only thru failures, receiving criticisms and feeback and thru organisation learning from others all the time.
The most important thing is the driving force behind all actions - MOTIVIATION, from the originator as well as from the recipient.
For eg, when a drug addict wants to lure someone to join him in the drug addiction, he will always approach with big smile, sing praises and being nice and helpful to the innocent party. The originator's action appears to be positive but his motivation is obviously negative.
In contrast, when a mother sees her child does something wrong, for eg playing with fire. She scolds her child. The mother's action is negative but she is doing out of love for her child - a good motivation.
So, in this context we are discussing now, criticism is not a bad thing. Be open and see the good side of it. Criticism, in a way, is trying to point out the flaws so that improvement can be made. So, can we Singaporeans be more receptive to learn from our infantry stage? Yes, only if we, Singaporeans can be more open-minded, humble and less egoistic, we can take the path to success. One of the Chinese idiom says “whor tau lau xue tau lau”
"infantile Singaporeans!!, Be happy and have a nice weekend!
Infantile Singaporean
Post a Comment