Category: Society

A Philosophy Analysis of Polygamy in Malaysia: Scandalous or Acceptable?

Post author By Pravin Periasamy
Post date January 4, 2024

PAS Leader’s Polygamy Solution for Late Marriage Among Muslim Women

A recent proposal by Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, a prominent leader of the PAS party, has ignited a heated debate. In a parliamentary session, he pointed to polygamy as a suggested solution to late marriages among Muslim women—a proposition that intertwines deeply with religious, cultural, and gender dynamics. This exploration of this topic through a philosophical lens, particularly focusing on intersectionality and feminism, is not just timely but crucial. It offers a unique opportunity to dissect and understand the multi-layered fabric of Malaysian society, where traditional beliefs often intersect with modern values of gender equality and individual rights.

News on Datum Seri Tuan Ibrahim Man's suggestion on polygamy for late marriage in Malaysia 2023 — Image Source: Minister of Environment and Water, Datuk Seri Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, The Star Malaysia

Polygamy in Malaysia: Divided Sentiment

In Malaysia, the topic of polygamy is marked by a pronounced divide according to research carried out in the country as revealed by survey statistics that demonstrate contrasting viewpoints. The article titled “Islam and Polygamy: A Case Study in Malaysia” by Aurangzaib Alamgir, published in Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences in 2014, focuses on the perceptions of university students regarding polygamy in Malaysia.

The study’s participants were final year female Muslim undergraduates from the University of Malaya, encompassing three faculties: Arts and Social Sciences, Academy of Islamic Studies, and Science. The study employed a quantitative survey method, with a sample size of 218 respondents determined by Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size determination formula. The research aimed to understand the varying perceptions across different academic fields on the issue of polygamy in Malaysia.

On one side of the spectrum, Muslim feminists in Malaysia advocate for restrictions or even a ban on polygamy. They argue that it is a pre-Islamic practice and contend that the conditions for just and fair polygamy, as stipulated by religious texts, cannot be realistically met in contemporary society. This perspective is supported by about 34% of respondents who see polygamy as a form of sexism and the 51% who disagree with engaging in polygamous marriages.

On the other side, a substantial segment of the Malaysian Muslim population upholds polygamy as an unassailable Islamic practice, deeply rooted in the teachings of the Qur’an, and therefore beyond question. This belief is echoed by the 47% of respondents who view polygamy as a social or moral issue and another 47% who believe that as an Islamic practice, it should not be questioned. Additionally, 42% disagree that polygamy is more beneficial to men than women, highlighting the complexity of views within the community. These statistics underscore a societal polarization, reflecting a clash between traditional religious interpretations and evolving perspectives on gender equality and women’s rights.

Furthermore, within Islamic philosophy itself, various interpretations of polygamy prevail. Some scholars argue that polygamy, as permitted in the Islamic tradition, emphasizes that it is a solution for specific social circumstances rather than a general practice. Conversely, other scholars and modern Islamic thinkers may critique polygamy from an ethical standpoint, questioning its alignment with contemporary values of gender equality and individual rights, thus presenting a spectrum and diversity of views within the Islamic philosophical tradition.

Why Is Polygamy in Malaysia Accepted?

To better understand the perspectives of those who accept polygamy in Malaysia, it is helpful to revisit the history of Polygamy. Polygamy, while rooted in ancient Islamic tradition, traces back to the early days of pre-Islamic Arabia. The practice of polygamy predates Islam, and the arrival of Islamic law brought more regulation and limitations to the practice.

Within the context of Islamic teachings and some interpretations of Muslim feminism, there can be perspectives that seek to reconcile or justify polygamy. Polygamy was a practice aimed at protecting the rights and welfare of widows and orphans in a war-torn society. In Surah An-Nisa of the Holy Quran, the following is written: “ If you fear that you will not do justice to the orphans, then, marry the women you like, in twos, in threes and in fours. But, if you fear that you will not maintain equity, then (keep to) one woman, or bond women you own. It will be closer to abstaining from injustice.”

In this view, polygamy was not about gender inequality but about social responsibility and protection.

Muslim polygamy marriage — Image Source: Roy Anditya Kusworo, Vecteezy

Moreover, polygamy was more about regulating an existing practice rather than promoting it, and accounting for the needs of the local communities. It is bound by stringent conditions aimed at ensuring fairness and justice among all parties involved. It was emphasized in the ancient period that the husband must be financially capable of supporting multiple wives and their families. This includes providing for their basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter and romantic attention. And the standard of living should be equal among all households.

In many interpretations of Islamic law, the consent of the existing wife or wives is considered important before marrying additional wives. This principle is based on the importance of mutual agreement and respect in marital relationships. The husband must also be mentally and physically capable of taking on the responsibilities that come with multiple marriages.

Feminist View on Polygamy in Malaysia

However, the global movement towards gender equality has catalyzed a shift in attitudes towards polygamy in Malaysia. This shift is not a mere reaction to international trends but a reflection of an evolving society grappling with traditional values and modern human rights principles. As Malaysian society becomes more exposed to global perspectives on gender equality and individual rights, the traditional views on polygamy are increasingly questioned and reevaluated.

Muslim women — Image Source: PNWProduction, Pixel

Polygamy, through the lens of feminist philosophy, invites a multi-dimensional analysis. Simone de Beauvoir, a pioneering feminist philosopher, might argue that polygamy perpetuates the notion of women as “the Other,” reinforcing their secondary status in society. This view criticizes a gendered worldview where women’s societal roles are narrowly defined by marital status, and where a woman’s individual value, identity and social mobility are intrinsically linked to her relationship with a man.

As a consequence of polygamy, women’s autonomy is diminished, and they are positioned as mere appendages to male-centered narratives. As rightly pointed out by Yeo Bee Yin, a member of the opposition who criticized PAS MP Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man for his remarks on polygamy, she highlighted that women should not be deemed as having a “problem” for being unmarried, underscoring that marriage is a personal choice for women.

Framing polygamy as a solution to the ‘problem’ of unmarried women risks objectifying women, treating them as entities to be paired off in a societal arrangement rather than as individuals with their own rights and desires. Furthermore, this perspective fails to acknowledge the right of women to choose whether and whom to marry, a fundamental aspect of personal freedom and autonomy.

The Complexitites of Intersectionality in Polygamy

Conversely, contemporary intersectional feminists like Kimberlé Crenshaw might offer a more nuanced perspective. Crenshaw’s theory highlights the intersecting identities of women, suggesting that the experience of a Muslim woman in a polygamous relationship in Malaysia could differ significantly from the generalized narratives often depicted in Western feminist discourse. Crenshaw discusses the idea of ‘structural intersectionality,’ which focuses on how the specific social and cultural positioning of women of color (at the intersection of race and gender) creates unique experiences for them. This concept highlights how different structures of oppression (like racism, sexism, classism) intersect and influence individuals’ lives.

Explore multidimensional perspectives on polygamy, from feminists and Islam, as well as how intersectionality com — Image Source: https://researchguides.library.syr.edu/fys101/intersectionality

In the case of Muslim women in polygamous relationships in Malaysia, Crenshaw’s view would argue that their experiences cannot be fully understood through a singular lens of either feminism or cultural relativism. Instead, their lives are shaped by the intersection of their religious, cultural, and gender identities. The distinct experience of Muslim women however in a polygamous relationship in Malaysia can be attributed to the concept that human agency and choice are deeply embedded within and influenced by cultural and religious contexts.

In this view, autonomy is not an isolated, individualistic phenomenon but is interwoven with the societal and ideological frameworks in which a person must consider individual obligations and responsibilities to one’s paradigm. This means that choices, even within structures that might appear patriarchal, are shaped by and resonant with the cultural and religious values and norms of Malaysian society. Therefore, understanding these choices requires acknowledging the complex, culturally specific contexts in which they are made and should not be amputated from the broader discussion of the topic.

As such, it is essential to recognize that the challenges faced by Muslim women in polygamous relationships are multifaceted. Gender plays a crucial role, but it’s intertwined with religious identity. Unlike their non-Muslim counterparts, these women must contend with societal expectations deeply rooted in religious beliefs. This intersection of gender and religion creates a unique set of challenges. For instance, while feminist discourse often focuses on gender equality, for Muslim women, there’s an added layer of religious expectations and norms that further complicate their quest for equality.

Moreover, the socio-economic status of these women can’t be overlooked. For those who are financially less secure, the pressure to enter into polygamous relationships might be more pronounced. This economic dimension adds yet another layer to their experience, suggesting that discussions around polygamy and women’s rights need to be more nuanced and considerate of these intersecting factors.

Final Thoughts

The philosophical journey of reconciling these complex identities with contemporary understandings of equality and autonomy is not straightforward. Approaching the debate over polygamy in Malaysia requires a nuanced and respectful understanding that considers cultural, religious, and ethical perspectives.

By using intersectionality as a lens, feminists and scholars can gain a more comprehensive understanding of these experiences. It allows for a more inclusive and empathetic approach to addressing the issues faced by these women, moving beyond generalized narratives to recognize the individuality and agency of each woman within her specific context.

Tags polygamy

Knowledge Society

On Genealogical Anxiety: Where Do Our Values Come From, and Why Does it Matter?

Post author By Faris Rizal
Post date April 23, 2022

Three years ago, I learned that the multi-racial coalition PUTERA-AMCJA, comprising a broad base of left-wing parties, youth and women’s groups, and trade unions, proposed a People’s Constitution of Malaya in 1947. This draft was proposed as a progressive, bottom-up alternative to the British-approved Federation of Malaya Constitution. Among other things, the People’s Constitution proposed that the independent state of Malaya would grant equal rights to all citizens “who made Malaya their home and the object of their undivided loyalty,” with all citizens being granted the equal title of “Melayu”.

My initial reaction to this was “why wasn’t I taught this in school?” But more importantly, I started to think of the alternative paths our history could have taken: in an alternate universe where the PUTERA-AMCJA draft was accepted by the British, I would hold an entirely different view of national identity and race entirely. Given that I could have easily held different beliefs on race had history played out differently, how could I accept that my beliefs are true?

Where Do Our Values Come From?

Karl Marx and Nietzsche’s Takes on Origin of Values

Beliefs that form our worldview are purely ideological–they are not strictly ‘true’ or valid, and they simply come from the dominant ideas of a ruling class that is adopted by the lower classes.
Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology

To answer this question, we have to firstly consider where our values come from and how we came to believe in them. Two notable interpretations from modern Western philosophy come to mind: firstly, Karl Marx argues that the beliefs that form our worldview are purely ideological–they are not strictly ‘true’ or valid, and they simply come from the dominant ideas of a ruling class that is adopted by the lower classes. For Marx, then, the belief x simply comes from an ideological imposition that serves the interests of a ruling class, which I have accepted as valid and true.

Our beliefs have nothing to do with truth, and have their origin in the evolution of inner psychological drives that change over time depending on the state of our culture.
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

On the other hand, Friedrich Nietzsche argues that our beliefs have nothing to do with truth, and have their origin in the evolution of inner psychological drives that change over time depending on the state of our culture. Thus, belief x originates from my natural psychological impulses that have their own contingent development. He would argue further that belief x serves the function of allowing me to express some of these strong psychological drives in the most potent way possible.

Where Does the Belief in “Ketuanan Melayu” Come From?

Let’s apply these interpretations to a concrete example: the belief in ‘ketuanan Melayu’. This belief could have easily emerged from both ideological and psychological devices. Indeed, the belief ticks both these boxes: it is imposed from people in power to protect the status quo that benefits the Malay ruling class, but it could also come from the drives of resentment, envy, and vengefulness that the Malays have to other races that are not part of our in-group.

Regardless of which is true, Marx and Nietzsche’s interpretations highlight the fact that our values have a contingent development and evolution of their own, and cannot be understood independently from these contingencies. Thus, for Marx and Nietzsche, our values originate from a contingent historical process; to some degree, we inherit them from previous generations in a process that is independent from our own free choice.

Contingency, Doubt and Genealogical Anxiety

Realising the contingency of our values in this way can be a disorienting process. After all, our values help situate us within the world by building a story about the world around us and defining our relation to it, giving us a coherent worldview. These values subsequently allow us to build a sense of personal identity – my identity as a straight Malaysian-Muslim male is built on Islamic values, national values, and patriarchal, cisheteronormative gender norms, which I accept and internalise as part of my worldview. This worldview in turn helps me define my relationships and interactions with others, for instance by helping me identify an ‘in-group’ that shares similar parts of my identity.

Subsequently, we tend to feel disoriented when the foundations of this worldview is questioned. According to philosopher Amia Srinivasan (2011, 2015), this process of questioning leads to what she calls ‘genealogical anxiety’.

This anxiety refers to the prevailing sense of doubt and uncertainty towards the validity of our values once we reveal their causal origins. We feel this anxiety because not only do we need to hold on to the beliefs that make up our identity and worldview, but we also need to provide a believable narrative about why holding belief x is justified over belief y.

Pekhabar

Srinivasan’s concept of ‘genealogical anxiety’ is precisely what is invoked in my introductory example. It is empirically true that there was a group of progressive activists from the PUTERA-AMCJA coalition who envisioned a Malaya built on equality amongst the races. Subsequently, this piece of history risks undermining the narrative that justifies my belief in ideas like ‘ketuanan Melayu’, which is in part justified through Article 153 in our Constitution. The fact that an alternative Constitution exists that could have possibly succeeded in forming the basis of our nationality, to some extent, casts the validity of this belief into question.

Thus, genealogical anxiety can be a disorienting but natural consequence of scrutinising where my beliefs come from. By interrogating their history, I am forced to reckon with the possibility that I may have adopted them because of a historical coincidence rather than because they are epistemically valid or true.

Should the Origin of Our Values Matter?

Of course, not everyone is willing or able to cast doubt on the origin of our values in this way.

After all, it’s much easier to just accept that my beliefs are as they are, and have nothing to do with whether they have a ‘good’ or ‘absolute’ point of origin. It’s my right to believe, for example, that white rice is a better carb source than pasta without having to expose the ‘Asian bias’ that comes with this belief.

Similarly, I could simply accept that we ended up with the Constitution as it is today, and ignore the possibility that it could have been different.

Victim of Genetic Fallacy

This line of questioning expresses the idea behind the ‘genetic fallacy’: a logical fallacy we commit when we think that an origin of a belief x has any bearing on whether x is true or false. A common example of this fallacy is the idea that I should not read any of the works of an author because they have problematic political commitments. This is a fallacy because it confuses matters of origin (e.g. in the problematic political views or personality of the author) with the separate matter of the value of the work itself.

The genetic fallacy means we can perhaps still justify holding on to our beliefs in spite of their origins. Even if a reading of Malaysian history reveals that my belief in ‘ketuanan Melayu’ is the product of a coincidence, this does not immediately mean that this belief has no value whatsoever. Since matters of origin are separate from that of value or purpose, it may be enough for me to justify believing in ‘ketuanan Melayu’ because it serves a purpose that is important to me. In our case, we commonly hear this justification being used by people in power: ketuanan Melayu, it is claimed, is important because it maintains social cohesion, or because it preserves peace within and between communities.

However, the genetic fallacy does not mean that it is unimportant or unproductive to scrutinise my values. While I might not have the responsibility to justify why I believe that white rice is better than pasta, it is a different matter entirely when it comes to beliefs and values that concern the wellbeing of an entire community such as ‘ketuanan Melayu’. Even if their contingent origin does not affect their validity, they still serve a particular interest and could also potentially harm minority groups. Thus, interrogating the source of the beliefs could simply be a way of accepting responsibility over our biases and the way it affects the wellbeing of communities around us.

Conclusion

This article shows how our values may originate in an entirely contingent historical process that is independent from our own agency. As each of us finds ourselves born into a particular world, and within a particular time in history, the fact that we hold the values that we do is highly dependent on processes that took place generations prior to our coming into the world. While we need a stable and coherent narrative to justify our beliefs, we are also equipped with the rational capacities to question their validity and their origin. Ultimately, we are free to decide how much we want to exercise this capacity and to interrogate the biases that inform our understanding of the world.

Economics Society

The Shocking Truth Behind Fast Fashion Exposed: On Surveillance Capitalism

Post author By Nor Ainaa Abdul Rahim
Post date January 30, 2022

One-dimensional Man, Surveillance Capitalism and Fast Fashion

The mass production of clothes, following the highly profitable and exploitative business model of fast fashion, is not merely a dominant concept in commerce, but also in society. In particular, it has heightened the negative effects of the “one-dimensional man” that Herbert Marcuse, a German-American political philosopher, critiques. Marcuse introduces the central concept of the “one-dimensional man” as someone who is subjected to a new kind of totalitarianism in the form of consumerist and technological capitalism. Nowadays, we see this form of social control, all thanks to fast fashion.

Fast fashion replicates catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, now ever so quickly through the tool of social media, merging both fast fashion with surveillance capitalism. On one hand, we have social media influencers who provide instant material for fast fashion companies to copy and replicate the designs of the trendiest, highly sought after high-end designers.

Combining this with surveillance capitalism—an economic system whereby data companies use the commodification of personal data in order to boost profits—we find ourselves the one-dimensional man. Later in this article, we can also see how Marcuse’s concept of alienation, which is a continuation of Marx’s alienation theory, has become even more alarmingly present in the fast fashion industry as well as in this age of surveillance capitalism.

The Tragedy of Fast Fashion – Alienation of Labour

To keep up with the ever-changing and time-sensitive pace of fast fashion trends, fashion brands result in inhumane and unacceptable modes of production – sweatshops.

On the production side, increasing demands for cheap, trendy articles of clothing have seen the prevalence of garment sweatshops, operated by millions of workers who are forced to work (child labor is especially common) under brutal and unfair working conditions. Wages are unacceptably low, working hours are long and working conditions are terrible.

2013 Rana Plaza Garment Factory Collapse, The New York Times

In 2013, the collapse of a factory building due to the manufacturers pushing the boundaries of the engineering limit of the Rana Plaza Factory Building in Bangladesh caused the death of more than 1,100 workers, with 2,500 others injured.

As Marcuse argues, we see how capital (capitalism through the fast fashion industry) dominates social and political life, as workers are subjugated to poor living standards and submitted into subservience due to their economic position in society. Inspired by Marx’s theory of alienation, Marcuse points out that the workers are indeed devoid of any meaning in production; what they produce doesn’t mean anything to them, and hence, we have the alienation of labor.

Social Media Fuels Fast Fashion

Sprout Social

On the consumption side, social media fuels fast fashion. The very nature of social media has shifted from a platform of reconnecting (MySpace in the earlier days) to a materialistic platform where people promote their material wealth and lifestyles.

This very nature of social media has allowed for the rapidity of trends coming and going – through massive clothing hauls on YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Surveillance capitalism only worsens this. Through data mining, social media has become a massively important tool for corporations to make financial gains by using it as a marketplace whereby users’ data are collected, allowing tech companies to personalize marketing strategies.

Corporations have been tailoring ads and content according to user engagement, making it easy for fashion brands to use social media as fuel to promote massive sales of the garments they force workers to produce in sweatshops.

Drawing in on a Marcusian analysis of the one-dimensional man, consumers too are fed into this feedback loop whereby their reliance on screen time encapsulates them into this culture of finding euphoria in unhappiness – that is, in buying unnecessary material clothes.

These trendy fashion pieces don’t offer any real satisfaction, and this is all a result of corporations imposing false needs onto consumers through the powerful tool that is social media. The age of surveillance capitalism, through the use of social media, in the fast fashion industry consistently exemplifies the alienation of man in the Marcusian context.

Declutter and Prioritise Basic Fashion

KonMari Method, konmari.com

If you find yourself being trapped in this never-ending consumer culture, a general point of advice is to first, take a breather.

Realising how this cycle perpetuates materialist tendencies is a good first step. Marie Kondo-esque methods of decluttering and prioritising basic fashion pieces is not only beneficial to the environment, but helps declutter the mind as well.

There are a bunch of ways to live sustainably, either through secondhand clothing platforms (Carousell, Depop, Vinted, or thrifting) if you need, or simply by learning how to style the items already sitting in our closets! That being said, any small step helps, and we all start somewhere!

Politics Society

The Uncomfortable Truth: The Roots of Racism in Malaysia

Post author By Zhun Yee Chew
Post date September 14, 2021

The Star, Malaysia

Malaysia is a mixing pot of multiple races and ethnicities, but whether the components mix well has always been questionable. The seeming racial unity in our country has been publicized in textbooks and media, but in reality, racism still runs rampant in every layer and corner of Malaysia, from education system and politics, to employment, housing and economics.

There are two types of racism – institutional racism and daily racism. (Carrett, 2020) Institutional racism is racism happening at a more macro-level, embedded and enshrined in laws and regulations of a society. This type of racism can lead to discrimination based on race in education, employment, criminal justice, healthcare and politics.

For instance, as we shall see discussed later, race-based policies are ingrained in Malaysian politics, used to advance the interests of specific racial and ethnic groups. Vernacular education system in Malaysia divides students according to race, and employment and housing systems in Malaysia are often observed to use race-based selection criteria. Racism also happens at a more micro, interpersonal level between individuals, from the interaction between a cashier and a customer, to casual racial, derogatory remarks towards other races. In this context, racism is known as daily racism.

In this article, I propose that racism exists and persists in Malaysia because people believe that race is real. And they believe it is real from one or a combination of three levels – biological, social and political. (James and Burgos, 2020)

Race as a Biological Construct

Firstly, I argue that racism is the result of the belief that race is biologically real.

Racial Essentialism

According to the view of Racial Essentialism or Naturalism, race reflects a biological foundation or “essence”, which is characterized by a set of shared genetic and biological traits or phenotypes that all and only the members of a race have.

People who hold this view also believe that these biological traits that form the building blocks of a race are heritable and passed on from generation to generation, and they identify each race with specific geographic origin, typically in Africa, Europe, Asia, or North and South America. (James, 2012)

A cursory inspection of the social dynamic in Malaysia reveals that this conception of race is still prevalent.

Examples of Racial Essentialism in Malaysia

For instance, you can find it especially in conversations among the elders, “We are Chinese. China is our homeland.” Racist comments used by politicians also revealed their biological conception about race. For instance, politicians in Malaysia can be seen as holding a biological conception of race where race is tied to one’s geographic origins. A politician in Malaysia was observed to offer racist remark “Where are you from? China? No wonder…” to a journalist, associating people originating from China as unable to differentiate facts from assumptions. And another politician was observed to use the word “keling”, a derogatory racial term that is used to denote a person or immigrant originating from the Indian subcontinent.

The Problems of Racism Essentialism

The problem with Racial Essentialism is twofold.

Firstly, this view is misleading and has been debunked by scientists and thinkers alike. Racial skeptics, such as Anthony Appiah (1995, 1996) and Naomi Zack (1993, 2002) contend that the term “race” cannot denote anything real in the world, if race is taken to mean a set of criteria that belongs all and only to a specific group of people.

To further this line of thinking, the geographic origins of populations do not correlate perfectly with the physical traits associated with specific racial groups. Variations in biological traits and phenotypes that are usually used to define race like skin colour and hair texture are also gradual rather than discrete, so the lines drawn between “racial groups” are arbitrary at best. (Zack, 2002) These variations come not from “race” but from geographical and climate conditions like exposure to sunlight.

For instance, it was found that dark skin is an evolutionary response to prevent skin cancer from more sunlight. In short, there is no scientific basis for “race”.

Secondly, this view has often been weaponized to dehumanize others of another race by grounding racism on putative biological inferiority, as shown in the examples above. (Blum, 2002) And this is unacceptable.

At this point, you might say, the fact that there lacks scientific evidence for the existence of race does not entail that races do not exist. So you may argue that we ascribe someone with a specific race through their shared culture, experiences, history or even status or power. Or you may ascribe someone a specific race through their skin colour, but you deny that skin colour is the necessary determinant of someone’s race.

If that is the case, you are a racial constructivist. Race Constructivism can be understood in two ways – race as a social or political construct. I will first explore the view of race as a social construct.

Race as a Social Construct

Race as social construct — *Scientific American*

Racial Constructivism

People who hold this view perceive race as real from a social level – race is socially constructed from shared experience, history and culture. They are open to accept that race is biologically insignificant, and the purported shared biological traits and phenotypes that are used to “define” biological race are merely “intersubjectively agreed” criteria that are used to categorize people into sub-groups. (Mills, 1998; Mallon, 2004)

Race still exists, but its reality is provided by the local experiences a group of people share, not by biological facts (Mallon, 2006; Piper, 1992). That being said, racial constructivists would consider a Chinese who has lived long enough in an Indian community an “Indian”, or at least “Indian-Chinese” due to the shared common experiences they have.

The Problems of Racial Constructivism

Racial constructivism can lead to the desirable effect of racial unity but more often than not, it fuels racism.

To explain why, people who view race as a social construct would more likely focus on the shared culture and experience of a population rather than the often racialized features like skin colour. These people would be more open to embrace a “pan-race” view of ascribing all Malaysians who share similar cultures, history and experiences as making up a single race.

On the other hand, racial constructivism can be combined with racial essentialism to discriminate against other races, grounding acts of racism on shared biological and social features and experiences.

For instance, ethnic nationalism, an ideology emphasising on devotion to a nation with objectives to advance and protect what constitutes the culture, language and rights of a single race emerged during the British colonization era. The Malay nationalists (a group of Malays who are motivated by the nationalist ideal of creating a Bangsa Melayu (“Malay nation”)) preferred a definition of Malay that included Muslims from the Indonesian archipelago but excluded Muslims of mixed Arab and Indian descent. (Kahn, 2005)

These nationalists also fought for the idea of a nation that excludes Non-Malays including Chinese and Indians who are thought to be immigrants or latecomers than “Tuan Rumah” (host or original inhabitants) of the Malaysian land even though most have stayed there for their entire lives. (Kahn 2005; Ooi, 2018)

This shows how the cultural differences have been used to justify acts of social racism against others.

Race as a Political Construct

Race as political construct — *The Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy*

Variation of Racial Constructivism

In this section, I explore the third conception of race realism – a variant of racial constructivism – the view that race is a real, political construct. And how the view that race is politically real underlies racism in Malaysia.

In this view, race is no longer only biological or social, it is also political and is “chosen”. In the biological and social understanding of race discussed earlier, race is “unchosen” in the sense that one does not get to choose the biological and social features or experiences one is born into.

Rather, one is “assigned” one’s race based on the unconscious, institutionalized behaviours of individuals labelling people in society according to biological features and cultures. The political ontology of race, on the other hand, suggests that racial identity can also reflect differential and hierarchical relations of power as a result of “consciously granting political significance to a racial identity that is biologically or socially imposed”.

In other words, racial difference is defined by the cultural and purported biological differences between groups of people, and is further amplified by the differential power relations in politics. (Jeffers, 2019; James and Burgos, 2020)

History of Malaysia and Political Racism

*Malayan Union Protest, New Straits Times*

To further illuminate this view, let’s revisit the history of Malaysia.

From the colonial to postcolonial periods, Malaysian politics has been characterized by ethnic nationalism and supremacy of a single race. In 1952, before Malaysian Independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman said “Malaya is for the Malays and it should not be governed by a mixture of races.” Malays, he argued, would have to safeguard their rights over Malaya, “which is ours, for the benefit of our future generation.” (Joset, 1980)

Origin of Racism in Malaysia

This was when racism in Malaysia grew, as the differential power relation between different groups amplified. Mono-ethnic racial groups were formed, as a reaction to ethnic nationalism, to demand for equal political rights as the Malays. (Ye, 2003) Racial tensions intensified, eventually leading up to the infamous racial riot on May 13, 1969.

And as a “solution” to the ongoing racial tension in Malaysia, after the 1969 riot, the supremacy of a single race in Malaysia became “entrenched”, as depicted by Ghazali Shafie, the former Minister of Home Affairs of Malaysia, “the politics of this country has been, and must remain for the foreseeable future, native [i.e. Malay] based: that was the secret of our stability and our prosperity and that is a fact of political life which no one can simply wish away.” (Lee, 2002)

As we can see, because of ethnic nationalism, differential and hierarchical political power existed and persisted, the politics in Malaysia became racialized, and mono-ethnic political parties continue to impose racial division, and operate as champions of their race while paying lip service to national unity.

This is perhaps also the reason why the then-multiracial Pakatan Harapan coalition under former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed was brought down so quickly. It is said that “No Malaysian prime minister has been able to govern effectively and freely without commanding the confidence of the majority race in Malaysia”.

This illustrates how the residues of ethnic nationalism continue to affect us even until today.

My point is, on top of the purported biological and cultural facts that define race, Malaysian politics is highly intertwined with race — differential power relations underlie our racial identities and differences, to the extent that when they become separated, many Malaysians may not be able to accept it.

What’s Next for Malaysians?

New Mandala

I believe racism presupposes the existence of race, and I have presented a few ways in which race has come into existence – through shared biological facts, cultural experiences and differential power relations in politics. Whether it is institutional racism or daily racism, they can be said to be rooted in the beliefs that race is biologically, socially or politically real.

Ending Racism by Removing The Idea of Race?

We have come to establish that biological race does not exist, but would it be sufficient to end racism by merely educating the public about the non-existence of biological race?

My answer is no.

This is because as discussed earlier, race is also constructed socially and politically.

For instance, in country like America, many white Americans reject biologically grounded racial differences but retain discrimination against Blacks (Entman and Rojecki, 2000; Kinder and Sanders, 1996) They called it the “new racism”, where biology has become irrelevant to racists, who would nonetheless attribute a common “dysfunctional culture” to groups they discriminate against. (Kahn, 2005)

Joint Effort of Education, Politicians and the People

To counteract cultural or social racism, educators could expose students to multicultural readings, and examine historical events and works of literature from diverse cultural perspectives to encourage open-mindedness and anti-racism. (Powell, 2000)

To eradicate racism completely, there is also a need to put an end to race-based politics in Malaysia and of course, racialized laws and legislations.

But this is practically challenging.

There are, at current, too many personal agendas and disagreements going on between the different mono-ethnic political groups, and too few are willing to see eye-to-eye with one another.

Even if we are able to get our politicians to agree on working towards a racially harmonious country, we could argue that race is too ingrained in society that even if mistaken biological beliefs about race and differential political power are removed, the truth that appearance and ancestry do not correlate to something real is hard to swallow for many.

Practical Difficulty Does Not Mean Impossibility!

Nonetheless, practical difficulty does not mean impossibility. Given that our country leaders and the rakyat are willing to kickstart intellectual discussions on race and racism, and are determined to remove the biological, social or political veil they have used to view others for the past many decades, there is still hope to achieve racial unity in Malaysia. With reference to the racial riot incident in 1969, I have a point to make:

While it is true that “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, I say, “Those who learn from history but choose to let history dictate their lives are doomed to never progress.”

Society

Malaysian Taboos: Breaking Away from Deference to Authority as the Key to Enlightenment?

Post author By Nicholas Khaw
Post date August 19, 2021

On the 10th of October 2021, the Malaysian Philosophy Society (“MyPhilSoc”) held its International Big Think Summit (“ITBS”). The theme for the summit was, “Breaking the Silence: Of Taboos and Pantang Larangs”.

‘Taboos’ are informal prohibitions, typically on speech but also on actions, that, for whatever reason, are practiced by a given society.

Some Malaysian taboos may serve a certain purpose – such as preserving a person’s right to privacy – but some taboos, or indeed those very same taboos, may be overall detrimental. For instance, asking someone about their salary. You might get responses ranging from, “None of your business” to “Actually, improving transparency might improve the bargaining position of employees” with everyone still generally acknowledging that questions on a person’s income is taboo.

Taboos Can Hinder Progress

Taboos exist for a reason. We should not outright dismiss any long-held belief but rather ask the context in which they formed and persisted. But it is also not controversial to believe that taboos can be a problem for a given society, especially if they prevent critical issues from being discussed, or important attitudes from surfacing.

In this article, I want to describe one potential consequence of a given taboo – a deference to authority – and how its removal and preservation impacted a crucial event in global history, namely, the Industrial Revolution.

How the Industrial Revolution Came About

To be sure, any form of extended economic growth, let alone an event such as the Industrial Revolution is the result of a very complex web of factors, many of which are interlinked and have feedback loops with one another. Rick Scoztak, an economic historian, draws up a flowchart (see chart below) that attempts to systematically describe this necessarily complex process.

Economic Growth flowchart — *Rick Scoztak, A Growth Agenda for Economic History*

Within this web of factors, the role of cultural beliefs or cultural attitudes play a significant part. Consider what it would take for someone to believe, in, say, the 1400s, that an Industrial Revolution can actually occur. Everyday life was essentially the same; there was barely any form of economic growth, and the numbers bear this out. So, if life was ever-unchanging, why would you assume that the future would be any different? Would we ever imagine the sun ever rising in the west?

Changes in Cultural Attitudes as the Motivator of Industrial Revolution

Britannica

Joel Mokyr, a leading economic historian, argues that one of the chief contributors to the Industrial Revolution was through changes in cultural attitudes. In particular, he highlights that there was a shift towards “…the belief in progress itself and the capability of science and technology of bringing it about.” We may, in the present day, take progress as a given, but it may not have been true in history. And if we do not believe that tomorrow might be better than today, why would we even bother doing things differently?

Taboo Hinders Industrial Revolution in China

Mokyr contends that because of the Enlightenment, there was a shift in cultural attitudes towards a belief in progress and that progress itself was desirable. In other words, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution. This is precisely the question posed by Joseph Needham, a prominent historian of science and technology in China, which goes, “Why did Chinese science and technology, after first pulling ahead of Europe, fail to keep pace with Europe’s?” In other words, why did the Industrial Revolution happen first in Europe and not in China?

This is not to say that China was not ‘enlightened’ or did not possess exceptional inventors or intellectuals. They certainly did. But what was different about European Enlightenment? The answer, Mokyr posits (or at least my interpretation of Mokyr’s position), is taboo, or rather, the willingness to break it.

The Birth of “Cultural Entrepreneurs”

In “A Culture of Growth”, Mokyr describes the achievements of two “cultural entrepreneurs” – Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton. Bacon is widely known now as the father of empiricism, calling for a science or natural philosophy as it was called then, that was based on observation and experiment rather than authority. Newton’s role was to show how nature can be understood in mechanical terms, most notably via his Principia publication.

Bacon’s role is crucial as it shifted natural philosophy away from the beliefs of Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle who believed in the five elements of nature – Earth, Water, Air, Fire and the mysterious and divine Aether. But think about what that meant. Aristotle was a towering figurehead in philosophical and intellectual history, amongst other Greek philosophers; going against their teachings and beliefs was effectively going against centuries of entrenched conventional wisdom.

Thinkers in the Enlightenment had to be willing to overcome the taboo of questioning the authority of the Greeks and, indeed, the Bible. Of course, not all Enlightenment thinkers of the period were as progressive; some attempted to marry Aristotle’s principles with modern thinking on natural philosophy. But, as Mokyr puts it, thinkers in Europe showed

“…disrespectful skepticism towards the formerly sacrosanct knowledge of earlier generations that awoke in Europe when more and more beliefs of ancient authorities were questioned, tested and found wanting by European scientists and physicians…”
Joel Mokyr

Breaking Away from Deference to Authority as the Key to Enlightenment

This was not true in China. Confucian philosophy and teaching, spread and institutionalised via civil service examinations, remained unassailable. There were thinkers such as Li Zhi, Dai Zhen, and Wang Yangming, who attempted some form of progressiveness in China’s intellectual landscape, but ultimately ended up unable to break away from the shackles of ancient classical learning, be it due to political and societal pressures of even their own methods of intellectual inquiry. In short, as Mokyr, so eloquently puts it, “What Europe did to Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Galen, Chinese intellectuals could not do onto Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi.”

As such, innocuous as it may seem, it was the breaking of taboos in questioning authorities of the past – entrenched conventional wisdom – that was key in initiating and sustaining the Enlightenment. From the Enlightenment, modern attitudes on progress and useful knowledge became key ingredients into the Industrial Revolution.

Had taboos not been broken so comprehensively at the societal level, who knows where the world may be today.

How Should We Deal with Malaysian taboos?

As we think of Malaysia, we should think about our Malaysian cultural taboos on questioning elders and questioning authority.

We are the world number one in power distance – a cultural indicator by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede – which measures the extent to which less powerful members in a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. If we continue to expect and accept appeals to authority, or authority as a source of unquestioned power, then any arguments or statements against those of the folks in authority will remain taboo.

And from what we know of the role of taboo in the Enlightenment, what does that mean for us? Well, while I think tradition survives for a reason, we need to regularly question these traditions and the authorities that propagate those traditions accordingly.

We need to break Malaysian taboos and have a “disrespectful skepticism towards the formerly sacrosanct.” So the next time you perceive a form of authority or tradition, go ahead and question its usefulness – who knows, you might be a crucial part of a Malaysian Enlightenment.

Politics Society

Malaysia Democracy: A Game of Thrones? Macbeth Revisited

Post author By Sahilah Ain Sathakathulla
Post date August 15, 2021

Nothing is true, everything is permitted is an oath stated by Ezio Auditore da Firenze in a world renowned game, Assassins Creed. It reflects the realism imposed by Niccolo Machavelli in his book, The Prince on the Art of Power.

In a world where all latency of underhanded means reigns, democracy has long been threatened. In Malaysia, not only journalists and news media alone, even politicians have become sacrificial pawns for others to reach their primary objective: to be a Prime Minister. But the question to ponder is, by putting the society on the lifeline, is the battle to the apex throne of democracy worth it? Perhaps, the tragedy of Macbeth by Shakespeare is worth revisiting.

Malaysia Democracy and Power

Democracy has long been established and discoursed during the era of Plato and Socrates. Moving along the time of Greek, it has long flourished in the era of colonization until the Atlantic Charter was signed in 1941. The quote “by the people, for the people to the people” is synonymous to the democracy process around the globe, including Malaysia. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the opposite happened in Malaysia where some Ministers took the opportunity for granted through parading their selfish attitudes by posting their charades of tour at social media under work affairs when the people in Malaysia were suffering.

Malaysia Politics Compared with William Shakespeare’s Macbeth

To quote “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” by Lord Acton, our Malaysian society is not a Shakespheare’s tragedy of Macbeth. To become powerful, is to become corrupt and The tragedy of Macbeth is a prime example. In William Shakespeare’s tragic tale, a young nobleman soon becomes corrupt when he is given the opportunity to become king. His need for power and safety drives him to corruption, ultimately killing off anyone who stands in his path: innocent or not.

But, our country will be facing a farce of tragedy just like Macbeth if the bureaucracy of the country’s administration is greedy in holding power and misappropriating national funds that should be used for national development. It is better for those ministers or even business moguls to control their temptation during this COVID-19. They did not only make the people of the country triggered with their selfish act, they were simply mocking the poor that have to pay hefty compounds for breaking the rule of law.

In my absolute best opinion, it is advisable to separate commitment and pleasure. By examining the effect that power can have on relationships. Example in The Tragedy of Macbeth, it is clear that Banquo and Macbeth’s relationship represent best what the impact of power on friendship can be like. This ultimately illustrates that the need for power can drive people to take extreme measures in capturing that power. Work is about dedication and commitment upon the task given be it from your boss or other ex-officios. And it cannot be used as an act of leniency to violate existing SOPs at the time the COVID-19 pandemic struck.

Backdoor Government: Power is Not Earned, but Taken

Human Rights Watch

The Perikatan Nasional government (PN) established after the Sheraton move on February 21, 2020 shows that the voice of the people is increasingly buried due to the establishment of the back door government. To be honest, this backdoor government is not democratic, in fact it is more of a dictatorship similar to Macbeth in the tragedy of Macbeth and Julius Caesar than the Roman empire. This shows that power is not earned, but taken.

Politicians and the Elites in Malaysia: Above the Law

This is because the nature of democracy is increasingly eroded among the country’s leaders. After the Sheraton on 21 February 2020, Malaysia is facing various political, socio-economic and law enforcement crises which are biased to one side and not the other. For example, Malaysian actress, television presenter, commercial model and entrepreneur, Neelofa goes against the SOP for a honeymoon at Langkawi Isle and is fined only RM 50, 000 whereas a man who just opened his mask to eat lunch was fined RM 5 000.

So the question is, why is there a double standard for the fine? The Malaysia democracy has a leeway that to the extent power was abused inappropriately. Like before, Prof Jomo Kwame Sundram said, every proclamation of emergency has its own agenda. It is possible that the current Malaysian government no longer upholds democracy because their minds are captivated by the influence of power and worldly affairs compared to the preparation of the hereafter.

Malaysia Democracy Needs Serious Work

To conclude, democracy should be a pillar of reflection not only in policy making but also shown by the people’s leaders elected by the people to represent the people on the domestic and international stage. But now, the voice of the people themselves seems to be buried simply because Parliament is closed and the role of check and balance is gone. Heck people are suffering when the Member Parliaments of their constituency are jollying leisurely around the globe. We do not wish Malaysia democracy to be toyed around as it is not a game of thrones since the people’s life should not be jousted as a Shakesphearean play. Let alone, the parliament member shall pay the price on the next General election, in which the date of voting and campaigning is yet unknown.

*Disclaimer: This article has been edited for clarity. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Malaysian Philosophy Society.

Philosophy Resources Society

Value of Philosophy in Malaysia: A Neglected Asset or Worthless Pursuit?

Post author By Zhun Yee Chew
Post date August 10, 2021
1 Comment on Value of Philosophy in Malaysia: A Neglected Asset or Worthless Pursuit?

As a Malaysian, you will probably agree with me that Philosophy conjures up images of dead white males in the minds of many, and specifically “an elite class pursuit with zero practical and marketable value”.

Ever wondered why? And how true is this interpretation of the philosophy profession?

Reasons Why Philosophy Is So Poorly Received by Malaysians

I argue there are 3 reasons that contribute to the view of philosophy as an elite pursuit with little to no practical and marketable value, especially to the eyes of a Malaysian.

#1 The History of Philosophy as an Elite Subject

I will first explore the perception of philosophy as an elite class pursuit. The reason why philosophy is viewed in this light in Malaysia is because traditionally, a liberal arts college education was a privilege of the economic elite, or at least of the upper middle class. Due to how philosophy is usually practiced among the elite whites in other countries, philosophy in Malaysia has also gained the infamous name as an “armchair” discipline relying for the most part, on reason, intuition and reflection, involving thought experiments, which are often perceived as detached from reality.

You will probably agree with me that Philosophy conjures up images of dead white males in the minds of many, and specifically “an elite class pursuit with zero practical and marketable value” in the eyes of everyday Malaysians.

#2 Non-existence of Philosophy in Malaysia Has to do with the Malaysian Development Policy

Next, let’s talk about the reasons behind the portrayal of philosophy as lacking in practical and marketable value. The first reason has to do with our country’s development policy. Even until the current stage, there is no standalone philosophy department here in Malaysia – no pure philosophy faculty or department in existence in any of the Malaysian institutions of higher learning.

Nikkei Asia

According to A. Murad Merican, Malaysia as a relatively young nation needs to develop at a fast pace, and hence fields that tend to produce tangible results in a short amount of time like Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) are prioritized; more emphasis and funds are being channelled to these fields of studies.

Philosophy and other humanities subjects that are being perceived as not necessary nor essential to the development of the country are therefore neglected. Consequently, over the years, this unequal focus and preference on STEM subjects over humanities has ingrained in us the seemingly unerasable impression that philosophy is one and the same as something that does not contribute to progress.

#3 Philosophy – A Subject with More Questions than Answers

The Writer

The second reason behind the representation of philosophy as having minimal to no practical and marketable value has to do with the nature and method of inquiry of philosophy. Philosophy does not provide instant answers to questions; the usual engagement in philosophy generates more questions than one begins with.

Hence it is easily dismissed as “impractical” and “unintuitive” because this is not the way human brains are programmed to function. We prefer quick fixes to things and mental shortcuts because they save time and energy. Philosophy, on the other hand, challenges us to suspend our judgement and cognitive biases. It encourages the use of rational argumentation to achieve greater truth and clarity in our thoughts. These approaches of learning and inquiry are time and energy-consuming.

I will address all these in turn.

Philosophy is Made More Accessible Over the Years

Regarding the view of philosophy as a pursuit reserved for the elites, it is worth noting that humanities and liberal arts subjects have been made more accessible to people from diverse backgrounds and social classes. Philosophy has also been made more accessible to non-Western countries like Singapore and Taiwan (despite being a small country but with 160 universities and 13 departments of philosophy) among many others throughout the years.

MyPhilSoc

Likewise, the labelling of philosophy as an “armchair discipline” has also diminished. Over the decades, a growing number of philosophers are conducting experiments to test their arguments. The movement called “x-phi” or experimental philosophy, pioneered by philosophers Jonathan Weinberg, Shaun Nichols and Stephen Stich in the late 1990s prompted philosophers to conduct researches and experiments to accommodate the cross-cultural or demographic variations in “intuitions” people have. Hence we can observe philosophy growing out of the Elite and “armchair” veils and evolving into an inclusive and relevant discipline.

The Values of Philosophy

Philosophy is at the Core of All Knowledge – Yes, Even “Egg” is Related to Philosophy

In the following section, I will address the view that philosophy lacks practicality and marketability.

Firstly, the education development blueprint in Malaysia may have perpetuated the view that philosophy is mutually exclusive from development, this does not mean that it is true. I argue that philosophy plays an essential and inevitable role in change and progress, but this perspective is not available to most Malaysians because precisely there is minimal opportunity to be exposed to philosophy.

Philosophy Foundation

If anything at all, we wouldn’t have been where we are today if not for philosophy. This is because arguably, philosophy is the fundamental of every idea or concept in existence. As philosopher Tim Maudlin put it, “For all X, there is a philosophy of X, which involves the theoretical investigation into the nature of X.”

To see why, if you imagine all concepts as nodes forming a web of knowledge, philosophy would be the central node where all other concepts branch out from. For instance, at the core of the study of politics lies fundamental questions like “What is justice?” and “What is an ideal government?”. At the core of the study of neuroscience, we encounter questions like “What are mental states?”, “Do human brains operate in a pictorial or syntactic format?” and “Can human consciousness be fully explained by materials and physical causes?”. And at the core of the study of sciences, questions like “What is free will?”, “What are the best methods of inquiring into the nature of the universe?” emerge. It is through philosophy, which is the pursuit of answering these big fundamental questions and analysing these fundamental concepts that we roll the wheel of progress forward. This shows that every field of studies falls back to philosophy at the end of the day.

BBC

Need further convincing? Mathematician Hannah Fry showed how if you hit the first link in the main text of any Wikipedia page and do the same for the next page, a pattern emerges. You will eventually reach the page on “Philosophy” no matter where your starting point is.

This shows that Philosophy is not just important, but also inevitable in everything. Everything begins with philosophy including even “egg” and “marmalade”, as Hannah Fry showed. It may be more challenging for us to “see” the values of philosophy because the changes that philosophy creates are changes that happen at a more fundamental level – the level of neurons and thinking, and these changes do not happen instantly or over a short period of time. But this does not mean that philosophy hasn’t propelled any change.

Philosophical Skills are the Skills of Tomorrow

Next, even though philosophical pursuit is time and energy-consuming due to the method of inquiry, it is worth your time and energy. At the very least, philosophy teaches us to be better critical thinkers, decision makers and problem solvers, and philosophical skills are highly employable.

Philosophy majors are found to be ranked in the top 25% of salaries, and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has also shown that philosophy is at least as good of an investment as fields like engineering and healthcare.

An article from thebalancecareers.com also showed that the skills that philosophy teach, including critical thinking, communication and ethics are among the top employability skills sought after by employers.

Philosophy is Necessary for Change and Progress

Pexels

Furthermore, Philosophy can offer us new lens to look at current world affairs and issues, and even solutions to these problems. Philosophers have created history-changing social and political impacts. For instance, Karl Marx has inspired renewal of perspectives towards capitalism and social classes and the birth of Communism through 3 different revolutions, Peter Singer ideas on altruism and animal welfare have contributed to the rise of Effective Altruism movement and aided the relief of poverty and animal liberation across the globe, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s work contributed to the use of human capabilities as a measure of quality of life, and Camus’ Absurdism has helped individuals cope with fear of death and loss of meaning in life during the pandemics, to name a few. The real-world impacts that philosophy is capable of creating also further illuminates my previous point that philosophy is necessary for change and progress in society.

We at the Malaysian Philosophy Society have been committed to continue the spirit of these philosophers, creating real-world impacts using philosophy, through the content, events and projects we do. What you would like to associate philosophy with after this, we leave it up to you. But we encourage you to come experience it for yourself before making any hasty conclusions.

Relationships Society

Pandemic Social Responsibility: Why Bother Caring About Others During the Pandemic?

Post author By Soo May Wee
Post date August 8, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic brings out many issues that have been swept under the rug or have been assumed to be settled once and for all. In particular, we see the extraordinary extent of individual liberty that people claim they have.

Pew Research Centre

“I am free to do whatever I want; I am free not to wear a mask and not to get the vaccine” is the form of argument that we often see.

I was (and still am) appalled by some people’s stubbornness to not wear a mask but my initial reason for having this response mainly came from my upbringing and not necessarily for more philosophical reasons. My family and the society that I grew up in have always taught me to think about others or to think about the benefits of society as a whole. Even though I align myself with this value, the pandemic made me realize that I did not think more critically about why I should think about others.

No Pandemic Social Responsibility: Anti-Maskers and Anti-Vaxxers

It is when I observed anti-maskers’ and anti-vaxxers’ arguments that forced my brain to do some thinking about it.

The presence of these people shows that not everybody feels the same duty to think about others and I think it is understandable to a certain degree. Nobody is expected to be good but it would be nice if you are good. Nobody is expected to be altruistic but it would be nice if you are altruistic.

Even though some people might pull in religious commandments or objective moral values (that there are things that are intrinsically good and wrong) to justify altruism, not everybody subscribes to religions or moral objectivism.

For example, if we say that thinking about others is good because God loves or demands it or because it is simply good, I do not think this will move the seculars or moral subjectivists (the opposite of moral objectivists) that much.

They could ask us back: “But why–without using God or objective moral values–is it good to think about others? And even if you show me that it’s good, that does not mean that I should do it.” Therefore, it is arguably quite difficult to convince everybody why they should–if not must–care about other people. Conversely, it can be quite difficult to explain to somebody why we should think about others.

Thomas Hobbes’ State of Nature and Social Contract

Discourses on Minerva

As I think of an answer (if I ever have to confront an anti-masker or an anti-vaxxer), two people came to my mind: Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill, both classic philosophers and political theorists from England. Hobbes argues that, before any form of civilization or society was formed, humans were in a state of nature that was akin to a state of war. In this state, there are no laws and everybody is free to do anything to preserve her own well-being and life.

This freedom includes killing others and exhausting resources as much as possible for one’s own benefit. While the infinite amount of freedom that one has seems heaven-like, Hobbes claims that the opposite is true, which is why he calls it the state of war. During this state, people cannot live in peace and they always have to be on the edge because anyone can kill them and take their food and shelter. It is an ugly fight for survival all the time and Hobbes famously describes this life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (This is perhaps Hobbes’s most quoted phrase) Therefore, in order to get out of this miserable state and still preserve one’s own life and resources, society is formed.

A society consists of people who agree to obey a set of rules or values for the mutual benefits of every member of the society. In other words, every member of the society agrees to forgo some amount of her infinite freedom in exchange for the security of her life and resources.

This agreement is commonly known as the social contract. One now has the right to life and the right to property possession. Killing and stealing then become terms that we use and assign negative connotations such as ‘wrongness’ or ‘badness’ to. This is different from pre-society or state of nature, where it is simply either ‘taking someone’s life’ or ‘taking unguarded resources,’ and it is neither right nor wrong.

Before we move on to John Stuart Mill, we have to first know the general stances of the political philosophers at the time. Hobbes’s ultimate goal is to show that living in a society, especially one that is under an absolute ruler (a monarch, for example), is much better than living a nasty, brutish, and short life in the state of nature a.k.a the state of war. Other philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau agree with Hobbes about the brutality of the state of nature but argue that a democratic government should be preferred instead.

John Struat Mill on the Limits of Governmental Control and Harm Principle

Compared to the others, Mill has a different point to say.

He believes that no matter which government we are under, monarchy or democracy (or other forms of governments), our freedom can still be threatened by either the tyranny of the monarch or the tyranny of the majority (i.e., when the decision of the majority oppresses the minority, which can be very bad if the minority is actually right).

He proposes that there must be limits to the control that the government has over the citizens because they have their individual freedom to live their lives however they want.

Mill Harm Principle — *Thinking Prismatically*

But here’s the catch. This freedom should always be granted to the individual as long as the individual does not harm other people, which is known as the “harm principle.”

Mill writes, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” An individual’s act (and freedom) can be rightfully restricted if her act is harming other people. I believe many of us live by this principle that it does not seem that strange. We usually let one be if she does not harm other people, despite how unusual her acts may be. We practise this principle all the time.

Why Pandemic Social Responsibility Is So Important: Combining Hobbes and Mill’s Views

Despite the universality of Mill’s harm principle, we see that some people fought for the right to not wear a mask (excluding people who have breathing difficulties) without thinking that their interest not only harms their lives but also that it harms the right for other people to live, which is a bigger deal than the right to not breathe under a mask.

They cannot then complain that their individual freedom is not respected. Moreover, they fail to see that the more fundamental reason why they could even live to fight for their rights in the first place–their existence–should be attributed to the fact that other people limited their infinite freedom such that we all do not live in the state of war anymore as described by Hobbes.

It is through others’ willingness to sacrifice some part of their freedom that we exist and it is through our sacrifice that they too can exist.

If we do not consider the good of society as a whole and we harm others, then we should not expect ourselves to remain in the society and have our freedom to be equally respected.

Thus, if you have to deal with somebody (who does not believe in objective moral values, in particular) that claims that they have no responsibility to think about others and that they have the individual freedom to do anything, including harming others, remind them if they really do and how they can exist in the first place to argue with you. It may sound like a threat but all it really is is a short overview of the social contract and the limits of individual freedom. *peace out*

Self-help Society

The Dark Truth of Human Nature: Comparative Self-Love Is Corrupting Us On Social Media

Post author By Nor Ainaa Abdul Rahim
Post date December 26, 2020

The widespread use of social media in this digital age has undeniably brought about new advantages as well as new challenges as social norms have been redefined to account for this new, integral part of human society. The ease of connectivity helped people who were isolated during the pandemic to stay connected with people they couldn’t physically meet.

“Social media has played a vital role in combating loneliness and anxiety, which we know have crept up during the outbreak.”
Katie Gilsenan

We have also seen social platforms serve as a virtual learning tool to help carry out non-physical classes and lectures. Digital solidarity across the globe has also helped spread awareness on the #BlackLivesMatter movement during trying times. However, despite its benefits, we can draw parallels with Rousseau’s conception of the corruption of man in civil society and social media’s corruption of man.

Rousseau on Human Nature and Social Media

To briefly explain Rousseau’s argument, Rousseau argues that man in the natural state is solitary. Man is devoid of interaction, independent and only possesses what Rousseau calls Amour de Soi Meme. Amour de Soi Meme in its simplicity, is self-preservation, and so, in our natural state there is no need for interaction.

As we enter society, Rousseau argues that a new unnatural property, Amour Propre which is self-love, comes into play. Man begins to interact with others and starts forming dependencies, disrupting the independence of man in the natural state.

The comparative aspect of Amour Propre entices men to make comparisons amongst themselves, and leads to their desire to be valued in the eyes of others. This dependency creates inequalities to Rousseau, as the weak become the subordinate, and the strong become the superior.

Our Self-Love Nature Causes Us Harm on Social Media

On an individual level, social media serves as an easily accessible platform for users to compare and contrasts themselves with others.

With information and data being so readily available within a few clicks, man is now more able than ever to be engrossed in comparisons and we can see how this heightens their desire to be valued highly in the eyes of others. In order to do so, users use social media as a platform to promote material wealth and lifestyles in the name of improving their social standings.

At the end of the day, the projection and construction of this online avatarism becomes a misrepresentation of the self, and whilst this may seem harmless at first glance, the effects of this stretch out to others as well.

Other users viewing the profile of someone seemingly perfect may end up doubting their self-worth and this has serious implications on mental health. This desire to be perceived not only in a positive manner, but in a superior manner relative to others exacerbates existing non-digital inequalities.

The nature of social media in itself has transformed vastly throughout the decade, starting off as a platform to connect and interact with others, MySpace being one of the pioneers.

Surveillance Capitalism and Data Mining Further Amplifies the Problem

Pexels

Although on surface level, the platforms that exist now still focus on connecting people, a lot of what we see is focused on the exploitation and manipulation of its users, in the name of corporations making financial gains through surveillance capitalism and data mining.

Social media has transformed into a marketplace whereby users’ data has become the product, and corporations buy such data to personalise marketing strategies in order to boost profits.

“Its success depends upon one-way-mirror operations engineered for our ignorance and wrapped in a fog of misdirection, euphemism and mendacity.”
Shoshana Zuboff, The New York Times

Surveillance capitalism and data mining only amplifies the problems discussed earlier, as already glory-seeking individuals are fed with ads and profiles of people like them, causing them to want to be more like someone else.

Users are fed with ads of products that aim to tackle the biggest insecurities through the platform’s algorithm based on recent searches, engagements and shares. Such only promotes man to want to further deviate away from their true self and for Rousseau, the desire to be someone you are not ultimately leads to man’s corruption.

Different Aspects of Amour Propre or Self-Love

Pexels

It is important to distinguish the different aspects of Amour Propre, and although Rousseau himself doesn’t clearly do so, readings of his other works, Emile (On Education) and The Social Contract, suggest so. Amour Propre, like many other properties, isn’t necessarily bad. Amour Propre (self-love) is relatively harmless when it isn’t relative to others, making it egalitarian.

The problem arises when it is relative and comparative, and this is often called inegalitarian Amour Propre.

Similarly, social media isn’t necessarily bad. As we have seen above, there are both positive and negative aspects to it.

However, consistent with Rousseau’s argument that Amour Propre is the main cause of man’s corruption, we see that the negative aspects of social media are due to inegalitarian Amour Propre as the problems discussed earlier were all attributed to comparisons and relativity with others.

Practical Steps to Protect Yourself from the Psychological Harms of Social Media

Ultimately, our next practical step would be to address the problems that stem from inegalitarian Amour Propre.

In summary, we see that Rousseau’s account of the corruption of man entering civil society is almost perfectly exemplified by the emergence of social media, and as users ourselves, we must be aware of the psychological harms it can cause. We have seen that social media can be utilised in a positive and empowering way and we must strive towards this exact use. Educating users on what exactly they are getting into when using social media is extremely important, even more so for the younger users of social media as well as education on online etiquette and ways to ensure personal security and protection.

To end this, below are some precautionary steps and countermeasures to protect oneself from the harms of social media set forth in the drama-documentary “The Social Dilemma” (2020):

Turn off notifications or reduce the number of notifications you receive
Uninstall social media and news apps that are wasting time
Use a search engine that doesn’t store search history, like Qwant
Use browser extensions to block recommendations
Fact-check before sharing, liking, or commenting when the information looks surprising
Obtain sources of information with different perspectives, including sources one might disagree with
Never accept recommended videos on YouTube, Facebook or anywhere
Try to avoid any clickbait material
Keep devices out of the bedroom after a certain time
Do not allow social media use until children reach high school