Ch 8: Just one excerpt will suffice...

 

Ch 8

Coherence is issue and point

 “some writers plump up their prose, hoping that complicated sentences indicate deep thought. And when we want to hide the fact we don’t know what we’re talking about, we typically throw up a tangle of abstract words in long complex sentences.”  Michael Crichton¹

 8.1

1. But authoritarian Singapore’s economic success has been impressive, celebrated in the myth of the ‘four Asian tigers’ and in the city-state’s own national narrative of developing rapidly from third world to first. Singapore’s success has been explained, and its authoritarian methods justified, by constructing an ideology first of Confucian values and later of Asian values. These have been held up as a shield against an occidentalized image of western insensitivity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and arrogance. Singapore’s material success, and ideological expressions of this success, have had the effect of weakening the legitimacy and force of liberal criticisms.

 Ok. To the average reader, this probably sounds very impressive. (it’s from an IPS public lecture) But is it really impressive? Or is it pretentiousness? Let’s take it sentence by sentence, look at clarity and concision, and then at cohesion and coherence. 

 1.a. But authoritarian Singapore’s economic success has been impressive, celebrated in the myth of the ‘four Asian tigers’ and in the city-state’s own national narrative of developing rapidly from third world to first world.

 What does the word ‘myth’ stand for? Myth is legend, like the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Square, sorry, Round, Table. But in this case, the 4 Asian tigers are NOT A MYTH – when that description was first applied some 30 years ago the ‘tigers’ were classed as NIC’s – newly industrializing economies. And they were Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. A ‘celebrated myth’?  Aieeee….but let’s go on…

 1.b. Singapore’s success has been explained, and its authoritarian methods justified, by constructing an ideology first of Confucian values and later of Asian values.

 Alright……

 1.      Watch the error in tense, as the writer switches from past to present, never mind the perfect: from ‘explained’ and ‘justified’ to ‘constructing’….Nope. Needs verb tense revision. And more….

2.      You cannot construct an ideology now to justify an event from the past, as with a history of authoritarianism! You would have to identify the original ideology and show how it led into a political philosophy that was implemented per public policy in authoritarian form! So what kind of sociology or political theory taught such a move?

3.      ‘Confucian values’ is generalized terminology. There are many forms of Confucianism.  Which one are we talking about? What is significant is that in such an ideology, democracy does not fit in.

 1.c. These have been held up as a shield against an Occidentalized image of western insensitivity, ignorance, hypocrisy and arrogance.

 And it goes on..

 1.      A shield against an image? Like a stone against an umbrella?  Strange analogy. Shields against swords, yes. But images?

2.      ‘occident’ refers to the West. So what is the point of saying ‘ a Westernized image of Western insensitivity?’ Is this more of a penchant for ‘if it sounds good then it will be seen as good’ though it may not make much sense? (again, the possibility of a ‘wayang’ tendency in our writing surfaces…) 

3.      The starting pronoun –‘ these’…refers to Asian values? Confucian values? Both?  A trifle confusing, to say the least…

4.      To speak of Western hypocrisy when we have totally adopted Western notions of material success - is not hypocrisy? Or are we differentiating Eastern hypocrisy as being distinctively different?

 1.d. Singapore’s material success, and ideological experience of this success, have had the effect of weakening the legitimacy and force of liberal criticism.

 And we continue..

 1.      An ideology cannot be an experience; it is a concept; and a concept is not teleological; but it can result in an experience; you cannot meld the terms.

2.      Stating a cause is not proving said cause; you have merely stated what you think is a cause; You must then make the case to prove your claim. Otherwise, it is no more than a facetious argument.

So, don’t believe what I say. check it out for yourself. What’s an ideology? How does it work to influence us? Next – what’s the difference between an ideology and a philosophy? And then, go for Confucianist Paternalism and see what you come up with. This is a three-part exercise in itself. And while you’re doing all this, check out ‘authoritarianism’ as well. Confucianism= secular humanism = agnostic ideology. Group loyalty by obedience. Decision making by leadership. Direct confrontation is always to be avoided.

A political system might support such an ideology, but it will not be able to channel, regulate nor deal effectively with the reasons for conflict that arise. And this will become increasingly complicated in any system that has an inherent factor of ethnic plurality. In such situations, such governments will extend and broaden their paternal role with time, so that non-government associations and organizations will be seen as legitimate only within the strict confines of state sanctioned activity.

When power relationships become regularized in the social order as being infinite, their dynamic processes are seen as structures, and these structures are accepted as historically given realities. Think a little on that. It will explain much. In the end, paternalism is always an action that interferes with the freedom of others in the name of promoting their welfare. And the stated good serves as justification for the intervention. It doesn’t.

The question becomes, if a son does not know what is good for him, how is it that he does not know? Such is the danger of paternalism. In its desire to control the other, for the sake of the alleged good of the other, it fails to allow the other to grow to maturity and does not provide tools essential to growth.

 Let’s look at the original again:

 But authoritarian Singapore’s economic success has been impressive, celebrated in the myth of the ‘Four Asian Tigers’ and in the city states own national narrative of developing rapidly from third world to first. Singapore’s success has been explained, and its authoritarian methods justified, by constructing an ideology first of Confucian values and later of Asian values. These have been held up as a shield against an occidentalized image of western insensitivity, ignorance, hypocrisy and arrogance. Singapore’s material success, and ideological expressions of this success, have had the effect of weakening the legitimacy and force of liberal criticisms.

 And the final step: Revise it! Your turn……