Sign in or 
Location: Anthropology and Singapore
Discussion: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Socect |
"We don't need Anthropology..."
Jul 17 2008, 2:32 AM EDT
"We don't need anthropology, because there are no primitive people in Singapore." - Anon.Sometime after joining the Department of Sociology, I was told that this was at one time given as the reason that anthropology has little or no institutional recognition at the National University of Singapore. Although there are about 12 to 15 lecturers with PhD's in anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (a good size department in most places) the only institutional recognition of anthropology that can be found is in the name of some courses (such SC2218: Anthropology and the Human Condition) within the department of Sociology. So, why is this? Is anthropology irrelevant in Singapore? I would like to develop this thread as a discussion of this question and develop the Wiki page as a collaborative essay on Anthropology and Singapore. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
anatania |
1. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 16 2008, 1:22 AM EDT
given that anthropology is the study of other societies, singapore is in fact very good at learning from case studies. in secondary school, for example, we learned about the importance of racial harmony from the social unrest in sri lanka.narrowing the scope of anthropology to the social and cultural, i find that it is not irrelevant to singapore. singapore developed out of a migrant society, thus many of its local cultures came from abroad, before they adapted to the local conditions. local spin-offs of taiwanese variety shows, 'cosplay's (dressing up as japanese anime characters), and the W word (westernisation) are more recent examples of cultural imports. so how can we say that the study of culture and human behaviour in other societies irrelevant to singapore? the local culture is very much influenced by cultures abroad. perhaps there is not enough institutional recognition because university courses are very much based on economic pragmatism. what is the economic value of anthropology, especially when compared to other courses such as engineering and business studies? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
angChaiYunRachel |
2. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 16 2008, 9:02 AM EDT
Is anthropology irrelevant in Singapore? The answer I think, is a definite NO! I am a social work major who has just done my internship at a psychiatric medical setting and I would like to share my two-cents worth of how relevant anthropology really is, even in this era. I've observed in my internship that psychiatric illness is 1 illness whose very diagnosis is dependent on cultural as a determinant. Thomas S. Szasz in his book " The Second Sin" once said " If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic'. Hence, it does seems like people are not "crazy" because they do certain things but rather they are defined as "crazy" WHEN they do certain things THAT ARE DEFINED BY cultural guidlines to be "abnormal" and what society DEFINES as "craziness". So, does it mean that as long as the majority subscribe to a certain behavior even if it is totally berserk, it will be deemed as "normal"? How then do we explain for this RELATIVITY in defining mental illness? While it is indeed true that there are no primitive people in Singapore, is it not also true that many of these cultural beliefs i.e. spirit posession dates back to many eons ego when people still held primitive notions that cannot be explained by science? And why is it that even with scientific advancement now, humankind is still grappling with seemingly primitive beliefs of the past when determining if a person is mentally unwell or not? And how else to explain why an individual who suddenly talks to himself should be locked up for everyone's good; while another who may be talking to spirits all his life is honored for being in close contact with the spiritual world? Maybe,anthropology can offer us some insight to these questions as it helps us make meaning of the happenings around us. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
AdelineSetiawan |
3. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..." (part 1)
Aug 16 2008, 2:59 PM EDT
there may (seemingly) be no primitive people in singapore, but that does not mean that we do not need anthropology to understand other people elsewhere. it seems rather self centred to think singapore only needs, and wants only to study her own society, instead of others too. in addition, the anonymous person has failed to see that it is through understanding and comparison with other societies and culture that we come to better understand our own, and even perhaps appreciate the expressions of human life and nature even more. Afterall, if 2 societies were seemingly that different in terms of their language, art, history, then how is it that both societies have a similar set of core values? are we then, more similar than we think we are, and what does this entail? what with all the genocides and the wars and whatnots. Also, to get back on the comment made. who and what is to define ‘primitive’. ‘primitive’ implies a hierarchy of cultures (and society),which does not necessarily be the case, because there can be pluralism. That’s to say, different but on the same level; unique but equal in standing; neither paling in comparison to the other. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
AdelineSetiawan |
4. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..." (part 2)
Aug 16 2008, 3:01 PM EDT
Like Dr Thompson, I was surprised at the number of Singaporeans who are not aware of what sociology/ anthropology is. Having grown up in Singapore myself, I too, admittedly was not aware that there was such a course. It then stuck me by surprise when I interned in Indonesia this summer, and most people there don’t give me a blank look after I tell them that I’m majoring in sociology. Over there, sociologists are interviewed frequently by the media as reliable sources to comment on social problems or events such as teenagers making out in cars etc. Perhaps the key reason why Singapore thinks that anthropology/sociology is not needed, is that it does not acknowledge (openly) that it has social problems. Compared to its neighbours, Singapore does indeed have relatively fewer social problems---no children begging on the street, not much cases of rape, murders, only a smattering of the occasional drink-driving offence. But does it? With the media controlled by the authoritarian government, events that do happen are rarely reported. And with the illusion that Singapore is a utopic society, what problems, could there be, to possibly learn? To be fair, perhaps Singapore does have a lower crime rate. But even so, shouldn’t we learn sociology/anthropology to understand what other problems Singapore should solve or avoid; to better understand our culture and its practices, their meanings and ultimately, what our society itself holds dear? But wait, do we even have a true Singaporean culture,that is from bottom up, and not defined by the authorities? I guess that’s another discussion by itself. As far as there is civilisation, anthropology cannot be irrelevant. Rudyard Kipling once said, ‘what’s life if you’ve no time to stand and stare’. Anthropology is perhaps, the result of all this standing and staring, reflecting upon the cultural and societal activities. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
AdelineSetiawan |
5. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..." (part 3)
Aug 16 2008, 3:02 PM EDT
Anatania pointed out the fact that because anthropology has a relatively low economic value, and that “there is not enough institutional recognition because university courses are very much based on economic pragmatism, anthropology in the institution is hardly recognised. If that were the reason why anthropology is not as recognised, then shouldn’t the next question to ask would be, why are the university courses so heavily based on economic pragmatism, and why does the university seem to focus more on courses or modules which essentially teach students how better to boost the GDP? Who, then chooses and decrees that these are the courses the university should focus on, and why would they do that? Is it then, solely by chance and good governance that Singapore got to where she is today, just by within 43 years? Can there be other forms of pragmatism, besides economic, that the university should consider factoring in? can anthropology ever be considered pragmatic? A country with the hardware and mechanisms for the money to roll in, but no software and no spirit to boot, can that still be considered a functional country? Why then speak of pragmatism as though the only form of pragmatism be that of the economic form? Cultural pragmatism perhaps? This argument stands true for the other side—that is, cultural pragmatism and economic pragmatism must both be factored in, the decision inclining neither to either side. I apologise for ranting. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Socect |
6. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 16 2008, 3:03 PM EDT
Good points. Medical anthropology - a major subfield of anthropology - focuses largely on different cultural beliefs about health and illness. A lot of practical med anth work is done in trying to eliminate cross-cultural miscommunication between doctors and patients. Also in trying to understand various 'culture bound' conditions (esp. ones that are considered 'mental illnesses')... Malay 'latah' is a classic example for instance.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
anatania |
7. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 16 2008, 5:01 PM EDT
mm. now looking at how anthropology cuts across different fields of studies outside the social sciences - medical, architecture, ecological/biocultural (recently a lecturer pointed out that the presence of biodiversity may be essential for the human well-being), etc - it's impossible to think that "we don't need anthropology" given its numerous practicalities. besides it shows that anthropology IS of considerable economic value..
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
angChaiYunRachel |
8. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 16 2008, 11:54 PM EDT
The claim that anthropology is irrelevant in Spore seems plausible given that the TRADITIONAL focus of anthropology has been on tribal people. Since there are no tribal people in Spore, of what relevance is anthropology?Perhaps, we may all be tempted to think this way. But let's not ignore some significant issues. With only a number of tribal grps in the world, how many "undiscovered" grps are there left to be discovered? And suppose there comes a day when all tribal grps are discovered & thorougly studied by anthropologists, does this mean that anthropologists will then have nothing to do? How realistic then is it to conclude that since there are no primitive people in Spore, anthropology is therefore not relevant? Or will it be more realistic to say that if there are no primitive people LEFT to study (as in the case worldwide) or even to begin studying (as in Spore), this traditional focus of anthropology will just have to give way to the study of grps in industralized setting? Even in industralized setting, there are many ways that anthropology can be applied to help us MAKE MEANING of our lives- our speech, gesture, beliefs, customs. These are the important elements which have shaped Spore to be what she is today. A nation can be understood by studying its people and their behaviours and Spore is no exception. And anthropology offers us a systematic approach to understanding this nation. Perhaps, as aptly put forth by anthropologist Ralph Linton, " the last thing a fish will ever notice is water." There are many things we have taken for granted and our awareness to what's happening around us has become dulled. Maybe, the absence of tribal people in Spore DOES NOT render anthropology less relevant but it is our very own COMPLACENT MENTALITY. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
devlinmohyong |
9. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 21 2008, 4:10 AM EDT
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that we don't need Anthropology in Singapore right now at the current level of development we're in, namely economically, culturally and in the field of education.Firstly, we are a young nation. In this regard Singapore is like a machine built to expand and upgrade with the highest efficiency in relation to economic prosperity. Therefore, this is what Singapore and its citizens have grown to be, putting greater emphasis on industralisation, engineering and the usual pragmatic country building elements. We simply do not have the luxury and resource to delve into a field of work such as Anthropology as that would be an inefficient use of resources. Not to discredit the contribution and potential relevance of Anthropology, but in the strict sense of the industralising growing Singapore we have just grown out of, Anthropology would not have had the time to mature and gain recognition. Maybe next time. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Socect |
10. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 21 2008, 5:46 AM EDT
Devlin: Good points. That is definitely part of the issue. Question: Is Singapore (still) a 'young' struggling developing nation lacking resources needed to indulge in 'luxuries' like anthropology? (Singapore is older than I am, and as much as I hate to admit it, I'm squarely in 'middle age')
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
devlinmohyong |
11. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 21 2008, 6:44 AM EDT
Singapore though still very young, has definitely come of age. It has matured exponentially and has made a mark in definite areas of the global economy; though the uninformed sometimes still ask if we're a part of Indonesia.However, the main difficulty is in its really small population. Anthropology is a niche area of specialty. A certain niche market in American might be the equivalent of Singapore's population. Therefore a romantic subject like anthropology in Singapore could almost be described as a "niche in a niche". In conclusion, Anthropology would always be struggling for recognition among mainstream fields like engineering and business. In my opinion, it would never receive the establishment it deserves. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Socect |
12. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 21 2008, 1:41 PM EDT
"Singapore though still very young, has definitely come of age... though the uninformed sometimes still ask if we're a part of Indonesia."I probably shouldn't digress... or encourage digression... but you remind me of one of my all time favorite 'sad but true' tales... In 2001, as I was preparing to move here, I visited some friends in Minnesota. When I mentioned that I would soon be moving to Singapore, one friend (of a friend) asked in the course of polite conversation "Oh really? How are things there now that it's been handed back to China?" Oh my, what to say! Quite a hilarious example of the average American's knowledge of geography. But I suppose confusing Singapore and Hong Kong is the least of our worries when the vast majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map. http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/index.html 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
RoxanaWaterson |
13. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 21 2008, 10:54 PM EDT
I just have to add my word to this debate, because it seems to me that people in Singapore have apparently been stuck for ever with this notion that we only do "tribes". Our efforts to understand how humans organise their social and cultural lives, using comparative and historical perspectives, means that ANY location can become a site for ethnographic research and inquiry. There are lots of anthropologists currently working in urban contexts, or doing multi-sited ethnographies, or trying to figure out how to do research on the internet. Nokia employs anthropologists to figure out what people in developing countries actually do, or wish they could do, with their handphones, so that they can keep on designing them better. And since the most important underlying purpose of anthropology is that we should all learn to understand each other better and celebrate our cultural differences, it's easy to see that there has never been a greater need for that. Since 9/11, there is absolutely no way that SIngapore can call this trivial or an unnecessary luxury, because everybody at that moment became painfully aware that ethnic and intercultural harmony is something very precious but fragile, and that many people here still in fact don't know very much about their neighbours. Ignorance is a dangerous thing!The problem seems to be that anthropologists have not been very good at improving our pubic image to correct these misconceptions....that's where we have work to do! 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
tsenre |
14. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..." Part 1
Aug 22 2008, 1:35 AM EDT
Virgin Post! Haha.. Just got the account set up yesterday and I think this thread is really interesting. With so many people agreeing with the fact that Anthropology is still relevant, I guess a devil's advocate is required to push the thinking on this topic further. As I am pretty new to anthropology, do feedback if there is anything that is incorrect. The question focuses on 'need'. Do we need anthropology? Is it required in the 1st place? What can it bring us? W.I.I.F.M. (What's in it for me?) Do we have the resources to do so? What is more important in the society? No, we do not NEED anthropology in Singapore at all because in our society where money talks, there is no need for anthropology at all. Does anthropology makes one rich? if it doesn't, it will be perceived that it will not make much difference to one's life and one should not be bothered about it. It is not about the knowledge that anthropology can bring and what anthropology can study into but is it NEEDED in Singapore. To substantiate this, we should ask ourselves the question that, with MOE target of having 30% of each cohort being at least a degree holder, how many students are in NUS, NTU and SMU with the purpose of really learning and not just to get a paper qualification? Why is it that the third university, which is SMU, being business focused? Why is the 4th university which is meant to be a liberal art university still having Business and engineering as part of their courses? An interesting post on the issue is available at http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/12/clarifying_the_liberal_arts_ed.html where the author talks about how a liberal arts university is not required. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
tsenre |
15. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..." Part 2
Aug 22 2008, 1:55 AM EDT
"Question: Is Singapore (still) a 'young' struggling developing nation lacking resources needed to indulge in 'luxuries' like anthropology?" - Prof Eric In my own opinion, it is not about whether you are young or not. It is really about the issue of resources and the way we are brought up. Resources that are intended for anthropology can be put into better use for Science based research or to help those who need social assistance. I must admit that anthropology is a good study but it is about, what is the 'opportunity cost'? Our education system is very science focused and it is very biased towards science so much so that arts and commerce are often neglected ones. We were always being graded and assessed through our performance in Science and Maths and the only contact we have with arts modules are those like geography, history, econs etc. Where on earth is sociology? Even worse, what is anthropology? When we are choosing courses for University Education, who and what influences our choice and decision? It is often than not about job prospects, our parents wish, what kind of work do I want to do in future etc. So with that, will we need anthropology? Singapore is a pretty small state which is sustained by pillars of economic values such as engineering, business etc. We do not have a hinterland unlike America or European Countries. We need to do what we need to survive. Resources should be allocated to where it matters such as R&D. That is perhaps the reason why there isn't a department of anthropology. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Socect |
16. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 22 2008, 2:32 AM EDT
Hi tsenre. Provocative posts (devil's advocate, or deep seated beliefs?... doesn't matter; worth laying it out there). This is common not just in Singapore but in America, Europe and elsewhere, with the argument that only things that clearly benefit short-term, bottom line profitability are of any worth (deserve funding, etc.). There are vast amounts to say about this, but just two points:1. One thing I will propose in this class is that anthropology (and other disciplines) have played a major role in shaping very big concepts though which we understand the world - race and culture, to name just two. In the absence of the promotion of indigenous (i.e. Singapore-based) thinking, writing, research, etc. about these topics, one will always be subject to feeding second-hand off ideas produced elsewhere. 2. Singapore does not have a hinterland? That is an interesting myth. It is repeated incessently here; but think about it seriously - as many researchers in FASS are doing - and it is obviously not the case. A hinterland is those regions that any city draws on to supply the labor and trade necessary for vigorous commercial urban life. Singapore's hinterland just happens to lie beyond the boundary of the "nation" (as defined by Singapore-as-territorial-nation-state). It is still a hinterland just as vital to Singapore as Kelantan, Kedah, Perak, etc. are to KL. Anthropolgists happen to have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge that would help us understand that hinterland better. For a bit more on this for those interested, I'm attaching an "in press" book chapter addressing the second issue in particular. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
michelewei |
17. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 22 2008, 5:09 AM EDT
Perhaps another way to look at the issue would be to ask what the consequences of Anthropology in Singapore would be. The “so what?” question of where things would lead to from the findings of anthropological work. It is easy to set one’s sights on economic prosperity as they directly increase one’s chances of survival. That explains the push for economic growth in many industrialized countries. Unfortunately, we run the risk of being over-zealous in this chase and end up with a overly narrowly focused end .On the other hand, anthropology has intangibly set its sight on humans themselves as the objects of study and their behavior. Such knowledge does not seem to be directly linked to our survival, being a kind of knowledge that is taken for granted and not noticed, and as such is easily overlooked. Assuming that there are basic universal human values (at least within a society, but it probably transcends boundaries as well), anthropological studies of the Singapore society may yield patterns that are incongruent with this set of core values. While the path of economic growth seems like a good path to take, a formal and official set of findings focusing on the people themselves can potentially shake this notion and raise uncertainty, resulting in a lost of a seemingly steady focus. The thought that Singapore may one day in the future announce “Ok we have had enough of economic progress and shall now turn to cultivating of cultural ideals” seems almost implausible to even entertain. Striking a balance is easier said than done, for a gain in one area almost inevitably gives rise to a trade-off in another. The potential unpleasant consequences of advocating anthropology in Singapore may be one possible issue. Seems kind of far stretched, but a possibility entailed by our subconscious worries. Do you find this valuable? |
hafiizar |
18. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 25 2008, 4:41 AM EDT
Something interesting that popped into my head (but might not make that much sense):In viewing Singapore not only as a young nation but one that is essentially is a society comprising of migrants, wouldn't anthropology be an ideal tool in studying how societies work? I think that we are essentially a big conglomerates of "others" forced to co-habitate due to extenuating circumstance. Perhaps that's why the line between anthropology and sociology seems so blurred in Singapore. Every single day, we encounter and try to understand a group of other people who have different beliefs and social structure than ours. Basically, most Singaporeans are amateur anthropologists. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Rani0387 |
19. RE: "We don't need Anthropology..."
Aug 28 2008, 8:02 AM EDT
I agree. Considering that all of us are essentially only second and third generation immigrants and more and more immigrants are coming into Singapore everyday. The study of Anthropology would help us learn and understand where not only we but also our neighbors and even classmates come from. After all, we first have to understand where we came from to look forward and see where we are heading. Also, Singapore tends to be too focused inwards on itself. Using Anthropology to study other cultures and other people would help us as a nation be more of a global village. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
