Proper socialisation is the politically correct way of saying that one has accepted the shared mythos that the rest of the local community that one is geographically closest to. There is nothing objective about the truth of what counts as a social norm---it is very subjective in nature by virtue of the fact that it is the result of a not necessarily falsifiable and independently observable conclusion.
There is nothing inherently wrong with proper socialisation; in fact, it is the very assumption that allows society to function at scales larger than an extended family unit. Because complete strangers [from the blood-connection] can know the ``right'' ways of behaving with others that are loosely associated into the tribal connection via these social norms that the violence often associated with ``others'' is greatly reduced.
The problem comes when the said proper socialisation overplays the othering card, either by overly demonising those who are ``different'' (by whatever measure that was decided [organically] by consensus), or by being sufficiently indifferent to any negative treatment of those who are least like them. These two scenarios play out as overt discrimination and covert discrimination respectively.
Discrimination is a fact of life, and despite the negative aspects associated with that word, it just means the ability to separate/categorise according to some criteria. However, there is a fine line difference between discriminating against what cannot be changed (like skin colour, ethnicity, physical/mental infirmities) and what can be changed [by free will] (like knowledge, skills, trainable abilities). Discriminating according to what is an innate unchangeable aspect of a person is considered bad because of the judgement that it is wrong to blame someone for something that they could not have done anything to change with free will, i.e. they are ``born with it''. For ``obvious'' physical issues (like skin colour, lack of limbs and the like), this judgement can be agreed to by most people without any form of major disagreement. But for mental issues and ``non-obvious'' physical issues, the line is much fuzzier, because mental issues are just that difficult to observe, since they occur ``in the head'' and thus can never be directly observed---they need to be inferred from observable behavious and actions, and there is never a guarantee that the conclusions that are drawn are even remotely correct. More importantly, there isn't a consensus either on whether mental issues are truly unchangable, or if there is some aspect of free will choice involved, since the causative agent in brain versus mind hasn't been fully resolved.
So in the secular context, with all things being equal, discrimination through mental issues may be heavily contested on all fronts, and a more conservative ``benefit of the doubt'' approach is probably the most apt till there is more science to show one way or another.
Aspects/attributes that can be provably changed through free will choice and active decision making are fair game for discriminative practices, solely for the reason that a change may be do-able by the person should he/she choose to do so. Thus, discriminating by education level relevant to a job is considered acceptable, as is discriminating by applicability of a certain skill. Now this does not state whether it is practical for the person to change his/her attribute through free will choice (it may cost an exorbitant amount of time/effort to do so), but I think that a theoretical level of plausibility is sufficient to file this form of discrimination as [begrudgingly] acceptable.
What about the teachings of the Bible? Yes, it describes how to discriminate [between the believers and the non-believers]. Yes it also describes what God has intended for humans to do (to glorify the Lord). Yes it also has stories to illustrate what God considers as sinful behaviour (much of it), and what counts as virtuous ones. Yes, the Old Testament has illustrations that can be considered barbaric in the ages during and after the New Testament, but bear in mind that the Bible is more than just the Old Testament---sticking to just the Old Testament without considering the context and lenses from the New Testament isn't really the following of Jesus's teachings; it's closer to being old school Judaism instead. No, the Bible does not prescribe us to go on a rampage to whack non-believers; if anything, the New Testament points us towards leading a life of non-judgement (since none of us are worthy to go round judging other people since we are all sinners as well), spreading the gospel of Jesus's sacrifice as the saviour who was an appeasement of God's wrath against the sinning nature of humankind, and leaving judgement to the second coming of Christ himself. It states that we are all sinners, and that we should help the unfortunate and the sinners to seek repentance through faith in Jesus Christ as our saviour against God's wrath.
It is also a form of socialisation as well, except that it is of a much larger scale compared to other forms of socialisation. It practises discrimination too, though not in the way that any vocal group might say. The teachings has always been about personal development and control, and not about forcing one's ideals onto others. But zealotry is always a problem with anything that has universal truth and appeal in it, and sometimes, zealotry ends up with the wrongful (but forceful) interpretation of what the scripture has said. I'm not angry with them though... just disappointed. Disappointed that they thought it would be best to spread the gospel through such perverted means. But whether what they did was good or not, is ultimately between them and God Himself, just as anyone who is still a non-believer even after hearing the gospel.
I used to say that I did not like organised religion. I also used to say that I don't have any beef with God, just with some of His followers. Now that I'm a believer, I'm still saying the same thing. Because ``organised religion'' assumes a type of groupthink that, from my experience as a believer in church, seems to come from the inherent laziness of people in applying critical thought to studying God's word to understand His will on their own. Preachers/pastors are humans as well, and as such, are also sinners. They are not inherently more holy than us---it is the case that through their more extensive and intensive study of the scripture that they learn and understand God's will better. But that is based on their rather human understanding of things; it is still up to the church body to do their own study of scripture to act as in the internal check and balance to what the preacher has said in the message for the week. I suppose that my old beef with organised religion is with the seemingly sheeple reaction with the preacher being placed on a pedestal that I never thought was justifiable. Knowing that that kind of behaviour wasn't what was prescribed in scripture is heartening, and made me more understanding of the intended nature of things.
------
In other news, I've finished the remaining XO that I have lying around. With that, I have consumed all the high-proof spirits that I have bought over the past fourteen years or so. I am not becoming a teetotaler, but I feel like I have ``outgrown'' my high-proof alcohol drinking phase. Don't get me wrong, I still like me a good whiskey every now and then, but I don't want to keep them in stock at home any more. I've tried all the high-proof alcohol that I wanted, from bourbon to whiskeys, to rum and vodkas, to VSOPs and XOs---I think that's enough experience for a lifetime. Maybe I might permit myself to get a nice big bottle of whiskey for the special occasions, but that really isn't likely to be happening any time soon. It's not that I don't like alcohol anymore, but that there is really little reason to keep a stash of it in my cabinet. Alcohol isn't exactly cheap in SIN city, and this isn't like my college days where programming was sufficiently complex enough that a good shot of whiskey or two would work wonders.
So, it's time to let it go.
I still have three small bottles of [bourbon] whiskey lying around, as well as two small samplers of whiskeys. I'll probably keep them around and enjoy them ever so sparingly. There really isn't much reason to be drinking at home these days---the weather is stupidly hot that it really isn't conducive to imbibing in alcohol [responsibly].
That's about it for now. Till the next update.
No comments:
Post a Comment