Binary Vision

Jump to Comments

It’s been a couple of weeks since the AWARE incidence (I am refusing to call it a saga), and the aftermath has resulted in a discourse which, while I believe was the ultimate goal of Josie and friends, is good and necessary. Interesting to note, that while many have written to the various media sources claiming that parents would want their children to be heterosexual, that majority of Singaporean parents have probably never even considered this issue to begin with, because of our general shelteredness, or perhaps the sort of irresponsibility that marks our nation as a Nanny State.

But that is not my point of discussion today. Today, I wish to talk about the language that has been wrongly wielded about by those involved in discussion. Though, I would openly admit here that most of my observations are about the group who identify themselves as “conservatives”. In this highly non-academic post, I would like to point out several key words that have been bandied about without much thought, and my personal belief of the fallaciousness of their usage.

Asian Values

I shall begin my tirade with a denouncement of the term “Asian Values” for it has been the most widely used weapon against many ideologies, and has been a particular favourite of our wonderful government because apparently Lee Kuan Yew said it first. A quick hop over to the Wiki entry will provide you a general understanding of a perception of Asian Values, but as you will soon realise, Wikipedia is NOT the key authority on all the information in the world, and neither is the article very good, considering it has requests for citations littered throughout its text. Nor will I attempt to reference it at all, for the arguments presented herein have been formulated in my many nights of self-philosophisation.

But I digress.

Asian Values, as commonly (mis)used in this country, often refer to one of the two meanings, depending on context.

• Family is of utmost importance because it is a building block of society
• Society is greater than the self

I am sure, however, that the term can be manipulated to various other contexts, but given my general unfamiliarity with this concept, I am unsure what those are. And yes, I shall begin by admitting my ignorance of this term. Why? Because I really have no idea what it means.

The most blatant failure of this term, is the use of the word “Asian” – a word very much endeared by our non-Asian friends to refer to anything associated with the massive continent of Asia.  Because the Chinese and Indians are so similar. Or perhaps because Tibetan Culture and Singaporean Culture are one and the same. I’m sorry, but to call anything Asian is no different from calling it Oriental, or Exotic, because it is grouping varied peoples together and reducing them to one single term. Some people might even call that racist.

But to question the two meanings mentioned above, let us assume that the above paragraph were moot, and consider that in that case of “values”being modified by “Asian”, that, such a thing exists – what would the alternative be? Western Values? African Values? Oceanic Values? And in such systems, can we claim that family is of little or no importance? Can we also claim that families do not build society? Which, by the way is a stupid idea, because society is formed by people, and a family is simply a smaller group of people. And by that logic there is no other way of forming society except with families, both socially and biologically. And on the same logic, is it safe for us to assume that these other value-systems, because of their lack of focus on society over self, are somehow lesser societies because they do not perceive society first?

To answer these (hopefully rhetorical) questions, I will go ahead and choose one of these value systems, the supposed “Western” one – which, is by the same logic, equally racist, given that many South American nations are not as progressive as the rest of their cartographically left counterparts – as it is most commonly used on comparison with the divine bovine of Asian Values. It is claimed, by those who arm themselves with this Asian Values, that in Western societies, families are considered to be less important, considering the divergence of the family from the traditional understanding of two heterosexual parents and perhaps a kid or two. Maybe a dog too. Because families consisting of same-sex couples are not seen as abnormal, that their children will grow up somehow damaged – gay even.

Assuming I use the United States as a representative of the Western society, because it is one of the most conservative nations among what we know to be the Western World, I can safely say, based on my own experiences and existing policies in the U.S., that children are seen with high regard as the future of the nation and are protected at all costs, and that putting grandparents in homes is equally looked down upon as is in many other countries. As for the gay argument, let’s just say that gay children come from straight parents too.

And now, the moment we’ve all been waiting for, the assertion that Asian people value society above the self, and that the Western ideal of Human Rights promotes individualism, which is such a horrid concept. I argue, that indeed, the United States, as is enshrined in their founding documents, value deeply the idea of individual rights and freedoms, but this is not a promotion of individualism as seen by some as, by extension, a promotion of selfishness. Instead, a quick unscientific study of the U.S. society over, say, the Singaporean one, shows that civil society in the U.S. is much more alive and kicking than that in Singapore, despite our futile attempts at promoting volunteerism through the joy that is CIP. And that, the American culture is perhaps more willing to put in effort into simple niceties such as thanking someone for holding the door, or helping someone when they are lost, than a supposedly more society-centric one as we are.

I believe this argument has stemmed from the misunderstanding that promoting independence is akin to promoting individualism, which even in itself is not a bad concept. As mentioned above, a collective selfishness, as embodied by the capitalist system, is probably more effective at furthering society than a failed attempt at socialism.

On a more macro level, the question is this: what is present in Asian Values that is not in other value systems? I believe, that as human beings, we all share the same basic value system. The issue is, instead, about which particular area of this system we place with higher emphasis than the rest. And just as Western systems emphasize independence and individuality more than Asian systems, we can similarly see that within Asia, different countries emphasize different values differently.

To which I conclude, that there is no such thing as Asian Values.

Suggested Reading: The Audacity of Hope, in which Obama goes deeply into the different value systems within the U.S., and complements my points here with his entire chapter on “Values”.

Liberal & Conservative

To continue the argument, I would like to bring in the concepts of Liberal and Conservative, and first denounce their usage in local arguments as I believe people are simply using these terms based on their understanding that they obtain through the media – one very much constructed through American eyes.

While perhaps a select few people are using these terms correctly, I would like to ask, if the usage of these terms are caused by a common understanding of their meanings, or if these terms are merely used as a tool to rally people to one side or the other.

Unlike in the United States, Liberal and Conservative simply do not exist here, for we are not a bi-partisan electorate, in which where party lines are drawn inaccurately, but well. Again, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama discusses this, accurately pointing out that many Americans are similarly misaligning themselves to one side or the  other simply because they identify as Liberal or Conservative, as opposed to seeing the issues as they are.

Issues, that unfortunately do not exist here. Our law is clear on issues such as Abortion and Gun Control, and while we are still have yet to decriminalise homosexuality, we cannot claim to be Liberal or Conservative because we simply do not have these issues to divide us down the centre. Some of those who identify as Conservative, claim to do so on the vein that they are like their American brethren in their view that homosexuality is wrong, forgetting that the topic of controversy in the US is no longer of the legality of homosexuality, but that of gay marriage, an issue, by virtue of being even present, supports my point above that Western Values are not polar from Asian Values because the U.S., poster child of “The West” is not always as progressive as we think it is.

Simultaneously, Conservative Singaporeans often claim that Singapore, being a conservative nation, an assertion that has NEVER been backed by any research or evidence, should not have to pander to the Liberal ideals of The West, forgetting that the label of Conservatism also comes from The West – as does their ideals.

And there’s even usage of the term Liberalist, which, to my knowledge, holds no difference in meaning from the noun “Liberal”. While again Wiki is no source for accurate information, the Wiktionary entry for the ‘ist’ suffix, seems to be corroborated by many other dictionaries, and hence I reprint it here:

1. One who follows a principle or system of belief.

   Marxist, deist

   Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism

2. A member of a profession or one interested in something.

   botanist

   psychiatrist, one who studies psychiatry

3. A person who uses something.

   violinist, one who plays a violin

4. A person who holds biased views.

   sexist, racist

The noun “Liberal”, in the sense of being “A Liberal”, is neither a principle or belief system (that being Liberalism), nor a profession, nor something that is an instrument which can be used. And, in fact, is already a noun fulfilling the first usage. I hence conclude that those who use the term Liberalist are simply trying to discount their opponents by somehow linking the idea of being liberal to something disdainful, much like the terms Sexist and Racist.

Homosexualism

Similar to the genius that is Liberalist, I denounce the idea of Homosexualism, as opposed to that of Homosexuality. From the Wiktionary entry for the ‘ism’ suffix:

1. the action or result of a verb

   baptism (from baptise)

2. a principle, belief or movement

   chauvinism (coined after Nicolas Chauvin)

   conservatism (from conservative)

   externalism

   feminism (from femina, Latin for woman)

   liberalism

   Marxism (coined after Karl Marx)

   masculism (from masculus, Latin for male)

3. a form of prejudice or discrimination, either for or against a group

   alphabetism (from alphabet)

   nationism (from nation)

   racism (from race)

   religionism (from religion)

   sexism (from sex)

   sexualism (from sexuality)

   ableism (from able)

   heterosexism (from heterosexual)

4. the defining attribute of a person or thing

   heroism (from hero)

   Shakespeareanism (coined after William Shakespeare)

5. a disorder

   autism (from autós, Greek for “self”)

Homosexuality is clearly a noun, and thus does not fit into the first usage. I posit, then, that it was created in line with the other usages of the ‘ism’ suffix. While the possible reasons for the creation of this conjugate is clear based on usages 3 and 5, those of 2 and 4 are not as clear.

2, because perhaps the idea that homosexuality is a belief or principle, something by choice, as opposed to something innate and incapable of being decided upon. And usage 4, as if to reduce gay people to being purely about homosexuality and exist only to “push for the homosexual(ism) agenda”.

When the ice is really thin, anything in sight that you can grab, you go for it.

Gays, Lesbians, Queers, Transexuals etc.

My main beef with the usage of these terms is the fact that they are used as nouns, which, while is not wrong in it self, is, to me, highly reductionist, much like the usage of Blacks and Women during their respective civil rights battles. Until upon a time when heteronormativism does not exist do I believe usage of these terms as nouns reduces every argument into an Us or Them one, which results in petty squabbles based on exclusion and elitism.

Lifestyle

Too many people have already gone on about this. Basically my point is this. I’m a gay man. I spent years dealing with my sexuality and finally accepting myself and coming out to myself. I told my mom, who has yet to completely accept it, and I have to make efforts to try to help her see that I am still her good son who loves her. I have to come out to new people I meet. There’s only a small group of gay guys out there that I can potentially couple with. I’m not promiscuous and I believe in working hard for a monogamous, loving relationship. I enjoy being with friends, and on occasion I like to dance in clubs. In most respects, I don’t see how my lifestyle is any different from anyone else’s. In others, I bring up the fact that being gay has brought me more pain than anything (so far). I am a rational being. No rational being would choose more pain than happiness if he/she had a choice. It’s not my choice. It’s not a lifestyle.

Social/Moral Fabric

This term I kept for last because, honestly, it’s a joke. I don’t know what fabric is being sewn here, but I believe the term as per its meanings of being “a framework” or “underlying structure” is more descriptive than prescriptive. Plus, it doesn’t actually say anything regarding the actual structure, except that it IS in fact, a structure.

——–

There. Many nights of rational and irrational thoughts and feelings about the words of the past couple of weeks have culminated in this. So please, stop abusing the language because it’s already such a sad bastard, and I actually like it a lot.

5 Comments

Filed under Gay, Linguistics, Politics