Following a most enlightening presentation at the National University of
Singapore, I found myself in the company of several people from various academic
disciplines who, over the customary platefuls of food which characterise any
group activity in Singapore, were eagerly
discussing a point made in the presentation about multiculturalism over
multiracialism. An idea had been mooted
that while the different races and ethnic groups which constitute the
population of Singapore were polarised by preconceived stereotypes, it was
easier to create a harmonious society through sharing cultural ties. The principal speaker in the presentation, a
former government minister, illustrated the point with a brilliant drumming
analogy which, sadly, only works when seen and heard and makes no sense in
print. Our post-presentation, over-food
discussion drew from me the conviction that, at 50 years of age, it was unrealistic
to expect Singapore to have established any real sense of cultural identity
which would be a cohesive element in a multi-racial society. However, several around me pointed out that
already there were signs at a more superficial level of characteristics which
differentiated Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians, from those in other
countries. Agreeing to this (after all
we were all sharing the same food, which is not the case with some of Singapore’s
neighbours) I pushed the point that it was at a deeper, cultural level that
true national identities were forged, and that despite a growing independent
musical culture here, it was still a long way off being sufficiently distinct
to be seen as truly Singaporean, as opposed to Chinese, Malay or anything
else. Composers such as Robert Casteels
and Ho Chee Kong have certainly begun to add a genuinely Singaporean dimension
to their work, but still one is seen as primarily European and the other
primarily Chinese (indeed, as a shocking indictment of the lack of true
multi-racialism in Singapore, Casteels is not even listed on the database of
Singaporean composers held by the NUS library, despite the fact that he has
been a Singaporean for the past 20 years.
Having got that all off my chest, one of our group posed the question, “Is
culture necessary?” If the population can
forge a national identity through its food, its approach to littering and
obeying the law, through its assimilation of a little red dot as a symbol of nationhood
and through its positive celebration of racial harmony, is a shared culture not
more the icing on the cake than the bedrock?
And if this is so, is not culture unnecessary at both the national and
individual level?
Culture itself is such a complex issue that few people would probably wholly
agree to a single definition, but for me two of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of English seem
superficially acceptable; “the ideas, customs and social behaviour of a
particular people or society” and “the arts and other manifestations of human
intellectual achievement regarded collectively”. For me, culture implies those elements which
define humankind; that mixture of intellectual, natural and physical behaviours
which not only differentiate human beings from the rest of the animal world,
but which help define our roots in a
particular society. For many, the more
intricate and laden with assumptions of knowledge and experience a cultural
landscape is, the more indicative is it of an “advanced” society. Early Aboriginal paintings, for example, have
none of the intellectual layers which went into early Byzantine art, so we are
inclined to categorise the former as more “primitive” than the latter. Whether these assumptions and labels are appropriate
or even justified is one issue, but I have never questioned whether culture
itself is an essential element in any society.
In that societies seem to be largely (wholly?) defined by their shared culture,
clearly seems to imply that there is a need for it; and where cultures clash
(one thinks most immediately of Northern Ireland or Sri Lanka where cultural
issues sparked major conflicts through much of the 20th century)
society becomes dangerously fragmented.
Countries owe their very existence to cultural differences, not merely ethnic
nor linguistic ones, with their former cohabitees (South Sudan/Sudan, East
Timor/Indonesia and, most obviously, Singapore/Malaysia), and where people have
built up a shared cultural heritage over centuries, a measure of stability
tends to inform their lives.
So it seems that culture is vitally important to the creation and sustaining
of a society. But is it the very
foundation of that society, or is it merely the decoration and fabric of an
edifice which, structurally, would not suffer by its loss? Without culture, would society disintegrate or
would it carry on albeit considerably poorer; akin to the man losing both arms
and both legs yet still alive. Quality
of life is one thing, life itself is another, and I find it difficult to see
culture as affecting just the quality of our lives; I really believe it to be
fundamental to the creation and establishment of society.
It follows that, while a country can comprise numerous racial groups,
society itself, with all that entails in terms of social cohesion and
stability, really does need culture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the bounds of this paper, I will concentrate on the contrasts amongst Chinese and American cultures that as I would like to think exhibit great cases for this examination.incense benefits
ReplyDelete