Concentric model of obligations / the social versus the political

Confucius has this cute little concentric model of obligations, which goes like this: xiu shen (first cultivate the self), qi jia (then start a good family), zhi guo (then help with national affairs), ping tian xia (and finally think of more universal problems). However, Confucius spoke about this in an era that is very different from the current one, so would this concentric model still apply?

I suspect that Singaporeans are roughly split into two groups: the first group focuses on the first two tasks, namely, the cultivation of self and management of the nuclear family. The second group focuses on the third and fourth tasks, which concern national politics and ‘global’ issues such as poverty in developing countries, ‘human rights’ issues, and so on… The problem in Singapore is that there is a fundamental incommensurability between the world views of these two groups. The ‘self/family-focused’ Singaporeans feel that their priorities should be to take care of themselves and their immediate family members. They are more concerned with day-to-day problems in their work and family lives, with ‘the bills’, and their free moments are usually spent on things which do not require much thought, such as watching TV, shopping, and basically indulging in the pleasures of consumer culture. Life for them is best expressed with the help of a Singlish term as the following sentence will show - ‘Singapore ok wat, see, the shopping is so good, food is sooo nice...’ (Xenoboy once wrote an essay focusing on the ‘Singapore ok lah/Singapore ok lor’ mentality). This group is viewed by the ‘politics/society/global-issues-focused’ group as being too ‘apathetic’. The latter group thinks that everybody should be concerned about and interested in politics and society. The failure to see what’s the big deal is common in Singapore, unfortunately.

In a sense, it’s true that if one is ‘ni pusa guo jiang, zi shen nan bao’ (Buddha made of mud crossing river, can't even help himself), one should not even think of other things. This idea is expressed as a piece of advice which says that unless one is truly well-established and pretty successful in his or her career and have a blemish-free record, one should not even think about entering politics. Other views supporting the supposed ‘apathy’ of this camp would include: (a) the view that we can safely ‘leave everything to the experts’, (b) the related view that being able to wash one’s hands off national affairs is a luxury indeed, thanks to party X which has ‘done such a gooood job’ (sounds familiar?) :), (c) the view that one can be concerned about ‘society’ without being ‘political’, for example, by being a social worker, a grassroots volunteer, or just by excelling in one’s profession….

The first view is premised upon the saying that ‘too many cooks will spoil the broth’. If one simply does not have the expertise in a certain policy area, participation in it might make things worse, so the argument goes. In fact there is a ‘law’ called the Gresham’s Law, which, when applied to what we're dealing with here, would suggest that ‘the average’ will always have more influence that ‘the best’, and that the preferences of the majority may not translate into an optimal decision. The second view reflects the ‘sit back and relax’ mentality of many Singaporeans. It assumes that a ‘good job’, once done, is there to stay. But this line of thinking is flawed because even if a good job has indeed been done, there is always much more to do. There are always little things that can be done to improve policies, living environments, strategies, culture, and so on… And finally, the third view is that one should not conflate the social with the political, and that although politics includes societal affairs, being concerned about societal affairs does not mean that one needs to be political (for example, by joining a political party or being a ‘die-hard’ supporter of certain parties). And blogger Gayle at I-Speak says that blogging is itself a meaningful form of participation in society, which I do agree, but only to a certain extent…

Blogging is limited in its power to influence society because of the inherent nature of this technology, which shapes the way users (bloggers, blog readers) respond or do not respond to it. Blogging is temporal in nature too: readers will only keep a blogger on their ‘blogrolls’ if he or she blogs constantly and with at least a fortnightly frequency (who still remembers or reads ‘Rebrab Moor’ these days?). Articles written by various bloggers only have a fleeting, momentary influence. The newer articles will be the foci of the day, while the older articles slowly disappear into a cyberspace blackhole and forgotten by everybody. So it’s a bit like ‘fashion’, which comes and goes quickly. Analytical essays (including those covering the elections) are read only by a minority of Singaporeans. You could almost say that bloggers at most form a ‘subculture’ in Singapore. In fact, bloggers who write about social and political issues may very well be viewed as ‘a handful of trouble-makers'. Most people still read blogs of a small circle of people whom they personally know; many others read but do not comment. On the whole, I think that blogging as a form of social participation doesn’t involve a sufficiently large portion of society to make a difference yet. Even if an online essay does get readers’ attention, the virtual crossfire in the comments section usually reinforces their preconceived beliefs, leaving those who are in favour of a position and those who are against it more divided than ever, for this ‘divide’ now consists of not merely differences in viewpoints, but also a memory of quarrel which will be remembered bitterly and carried over to future interactions. So unless Singaporeans really try to be civilized and gentlemanly to one another, and try to have a real dialogue despite their political differences, cyberspace 'discussions’ will always turn out to be divisive, which is quite a bad thing if you ask me….

Anyway, to reiterate my earlier point which is the central theme of this essay, I think that there is a fundamental incommensurability between the worldviews of people, who could be roughly grouped into two camps. The purpose of this essay is merely to map out their positions and to show that both sides do have valid reasons for thinking and behaving as they do. (a) The self/family focused Singaporeans are not necessarily unconcerned about national affairs; they might be, but they may (i) want to focus on improving their individual or family lives first before moving on to larger things (based on the concentric model of obligations), or they may (ii) prefer to focus on social rather than political issues, for to them the ‘political’ may well be too political for their liking. Some of these people who do not actually step forward to join political parties may prefer to contribute anonymously and independently as bloggers. However, their influence shall by default be fleeting and negligible. (b) The politics/society/globally focused group has lofty ideals, and they should not be discouraged, viewed as idealistic, or dismissed. This incommensurability is not something that any person can resolve, because the problem resides in the very nature of any society that is not made up of clones, and no amount of eloquence by any blogger or politician can reason away this contradiction with the power of words alone…