Panopticon

Today I came across this word twice, during my Nation-building and Sociology tutorials.

Panopticon.


This is essentially talking about the blue prints of a type of prison.


Below is a simple illustration:
Legend:
Red Cube in the middle: Place where the prison warden will be stationed.
Blue Cubes surrounding the circle: The cells where the inmates will be in.

The idea is that, the wardens can see what the inmates are doing but the inmates cannot see the wardens.
This idea has been emphasized alot to the inmates. What actually happens here, is that this so called Panopticon casts a "Panoptic gaze" upon the inmates. What it means by a Panoptic gaze is that, the wardens are not actually present, all that could be present is maybe a helmet or something, but the idea that they are constantly being watched has been so internalized with them, that they believe that they are watched and will tend to behave.

This concept is also applied by the CCTV, in fact most security guards don't really pay attention to the consoles. Potential robbers, thieves are stalled by the fact that they believe these CCTV will catch them in action and thus, will provide evidence for their capture/prosecution, thus they are deterred from possible crimes.

Luke's 3 Faces of Power

I saw this today during my Sociology Lecture on Power, Politics and the State.

Simply put, the 3 faces of power are:

1. Who makes decisions?
2. Who sets agenda?
3. Who benefits?

Not much reason to post this, but since there is Luke in it, so I was trying to analyse if I Lead and Follow me has anything to do with this 3 faces.

1. Who makes the decisions? -> Luke
2. Who sets the agenda? -> Theres no agenda, just follow Luke DOWNNN.
3. Who benefits? -> Erm....

PS. No offence luke. Haha.. I was just bored.

As stated in Wiki:

Lukes's most famous academic theory is that of the 'Three faces
of power'. This theory claims that governments have three ways in which they
control people: decision-making power, non decision-making power and ideological
power. Decision-making power is the most public of the three faces and is the
manner in which governments want to be seen: the power of governments to make
policy decisions after widespread consultation with opposition parties and the
wider public. Non decision-making power is the power that governments have to
control the agenda in debates and make certain issues (such as the possible
merits of Communism in the United States) unacceptable for discussion in
moderate public forums. The third and most important face of power is
ideological power, which is the power to influence people's wishes and thoughts
and make them want things opposed to what would benefit them, such as women
supporting a patriarchical society.

Depressed??

While I was surfing the net for information for my Sociology Paper on the topic :"Job opportunities, pay not the same for women." This is essentially a new article from the Sunday Times 11th March 2007 by Serene Goh.

I came across this interesting quote from Association of Women for Action & Research (AWARE) :

When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. Its a whole different way of thinking.

Tuesday Night.

Lights, camera, ACTION...!

Its been quite awhile since I last watch a movie.
Its one of the main forms of entertainment a Singaporean can get nowadays. But sadly, I don't even have time or the money for it. Ok, I'm not that broke, but I'm just becoming a spendthrift recently. You never know what is going to happen next. There is no longer that form of job security at the rate globalisation is going now. If I strictly spend on just transport and my meals in school. I'll probably spend less than $200 a month. But if you add my phone bills, insuranceS, all the misc stuff. Thats not cheap, considering that I'm not working. (Although I'm procrastinating, I've yet to make a serious effort in looking for a PT job. Serves me right, in my opinion.)

But thats beside the point, the point I want to make today is regarding the movie. Haha.

Watched Pursuit of Happyness with Na at Causeway point. I think it is a fantastic show, I wasn't so particular about the draggy front part. What touched me is spirit Chris (Will Smith) portrayed in the film. Maybe now that I'm studying Sociology, I'm much more attracted to issues faced by society. What this film tells us is basically the American Dream. The dream to be somebody, to be successful. But yet, its never easy. Chris, invested tonnes of money in some high density scanner thing (Advance X-ray machine) but they dont sell well because Docs think they are a luxury good. He lost his wife, couldn't pay the rent of his apartment, got evicted from his 2nd apartment, got his car towed because of illegal parking, and when he sold all his scanner, whatever money he had was almost all taken away from all the fines which he owed. He became homeless. Seeked shelter from religious groups etc. But he never gave up. Fought for an internship in a renown broker firm. And eventually he succeeded amidst all the trouble and hardship he and his son had to go through.

This apparently is based on a true story. And it is definately something inspirational to me.

America may be a world superpower. A rich capitalist nation, but its proportion of people living on handouts and those homeless are very high. Income inequality is very prevalent there as well. Is there a way to reduce such problems? Are they homeless because they are lazy? Or it is this American Dream Pie is just a fantasy? Meritocracy is a fraud in the first place? There is no such thing as a level ground? The rich will always have the edge? What about those who fall from grace?

Look at Singapore, are there any homeless people here? Or is it we do not notice them? Or we choose to not notice them? Are we a truly Meritocratic society? Is upward mobility possible? Are we REALLY able to move up the class ladder? Does hardwork even lead to rewards? Or are we just part of a machine that keeps moving and even when we are worn out, we can always be replaced with another spare part? I'm not so sure about anything anymore.

Furthermore, Will Smith's son, who plays his son in the film is damn cute la. Haha. I think he is cut out for the same industry as his dad.

Normality of Disability

Something interesting I read from my Soci Text.

They have taken this from a Sci-Fi writer H.G. Wells's short story - "The Country of the Blind."
It reversed the old saying that "in the country of the blind, the one eye man is king."

A man who survived an avalanche found himself landed on the outskirts of a village whose members are all blind due to a disease that struck them 14 generations ago. To the survivor, he felt that because he could see he is their "Heaven-sent King and Master." Contrary to this, his sight has in actual fact caused him inconvenience. The natives' sense of hearing and touch are much more developed than his and they have designed their community for the benefits of their own people who cannot see. Where the hosts move gracefully, the "Master" stumbles and fall. Where the "Master" rants about seeing, the hosts thinks he is mad and out of touch with the reality.


Doesnt this make blind perfectly normal and being blessed with the ability to see a disability?

Think about it.

Society

I recall something my tutor Mr Gui Kai Chong said during my first Sociology tutorial. A Phd student himself specializing as a Conflict Theorist, he said that the study of sociology has made him a much sadder person.

At this point in time as I am reading my textbooks and readings, I finally understand how he feels. There are so many issues faced by our society, but yet these issues may seem very common and easily understandable. Its sad seeing all the ugly side of this industralisation even though the fruits of this labour would ultimately be a higher standard of living which is actually the root of many of the problems faced by us today.

These problems such as rising inequality, falling infertility etc are very easy to understand, but they are extremely difficult and almost impossible to counter upon.

Will this eventually result in the end of the human race?

Male Promiscuity

Why are men generally more likely to have more sex partners compared to their female counterparts?

According to some evolutionary psychologist, (Not refering to you Buddy). As each time a man ejaculates, he produces hundred of millions of sperms. Whereas a woman only releases one egg per month. So inorder to maximise the chances to reproduce their genes, men will try their best to impregnate AS MANY women as possible while women will want to have a mate who will protect her and help her nurse their offsprings.

Well, what a great excuse for us men to use to defend ourselves!!

But dont get too excited because their theory is not only absurd, its proven to be totally wrong.

According to the figures, men who have more than one sex partner are those who have partners of the same gender. Thus they will never be able to impregnate any men which contradicts the evo. pyschologists theory.

And furthermore, men tend to be egoistic and will exaggerate the number of partners they have to show that they are fit and almighty inorder to save some pride.

So true.

.... By the fact of his living he contributes, however minutely, to the shaping of this society and to the course of its history, even as he is made by society and by its historical push and shove.....

-Taken from my Sociology course pack.

Sociology.

Another lecture with someone I know. This time its Bojun. Haha...

1 more interesting thing was that I saw Frankie doodle doo in school! He claimed he wanted to buy books haha.

But now that i checked the IVLE class roster, Stats and Econs probably dont have anyone I know.

I just bought my Philosophy text, and as I read it I realised that I couldnt stop reading! Its pretty interesting. If anyone here interested in taking the module as a GEM, its avaliable.
Reason and Persuasion GEM1004