listening with your eyes

"Take time to listen to what is said without words."

-- Lao Tzu, The Hua Hu Ching

Indeed, for in today's world, nonverbal communication is probably the single most powerful form of communication. More than voice or even words, nonverbal communication cues us in to what is on another person’s mind. The best communicators have to be sensitive to the power of the emotions and thoughts communicated nonverbally.

During this week's COM101 lectures, we have learnt that nonverbal communication ranges from facial expression to body language. Gestures, signs, and use of space are also important in nonverbal communication as multicultural differences in body language, facial expression, use of space, and especially, gestures, are enormous and enormously open to misinterpretation.

For instance, have you ever seen how a male international student from India attempts at striking a conversation with perhaps one of your female lecturers at school? Once, I witnessed a nonverbal exchange occurring in a classroom back during the time when I was a student at Temasek Polytechnic, School of Engineering. I vaguely recall a foreign Indian pupil trying his best to communicate his problem to a female tutor. However, as he unconsciously narrowed the distance between himself and the female teacher while gesticulating constantly to punctuate his communication (where the work of kinesics - the study of body movement comes into play), she kept backing away to maintain her level of spacial comfort.

The lecturer's body language including the tiniest facial expressions and movement gave her true thoughts and feelings away. As such, one could easily come to the conclusion that she was obviously uncomfortable being in close proximity to the student despite the gesture being unintentional. There was a need for her to create boundaries sort of like a portable territory. Simply put, she felt her personal space was being invaded.

Another thing I would like to point out is that one of the possible reasons why the Indian student moved in to close the space between the female lecturer and himself could be due to the fact that India is so overcrowded with people that the citizens there are very used to living and interacting in such close vicinity to each other. My guess is that they probably couldn't help themselves as it is their nature of interaction.

Let us now look into another simple illustration of non-verbal interaction, shall we?

My my, that was peculiarly intense, wasn't it? The heated exchange of restful gazes, the ferocity of emotions, the heightening and unnerving passion, all of which were simply signals encoded into wordless messages - messages that was understood as clearly as words - travelling through an invisible channel between both communicators and receivers nonverbally. What we have just observed in the short clip shown above is an example of both oculesics and possibly even affect displays in action, which refers to the use of the eyes and impetus for observable expression of emotion in a communication setting respectively. Isn't it amazing how neither Tom Cruise nor Thandie Newton had the need to say anything at all?

So we see here how potently effective and impactful nonverbal communication really is. This is because their messages are likely to be more genuine. Nonverbal behaviors cannot be controlled as easily as spoken words. It is very much like a silent infiltrator, having broad influence over our social environment. We are able to infer emotion without the use of words and influence other's perception of our competence, power and vulnerability. It also plays a role in the perception of the actual message we are trying to convey.

To sum it all up, nonverbal communication affects all of our lives in a myriad of ways from childhood throughout adulthood, as long as we intend to communicate with others.

it is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue

In communications, we ought to not only to hear, but to listen. We ought to listen in the capacity of a person who is an empty vessel (in a good way), unopinionated, and open to the ideas and views given by others. Most of us listen, but we continue to hold onto the rigid and comfortable predispositions we were socialised into. These are the very barriers to listening, and we end up not listening at all, despite believing that we are listening. We need some level of humility, and a large stomach to contain that pride, momentarily.

Some time last year there were many issues and articles written in regards to Homosexuality in Singapore, so much so that it has gotten me to empathise with sexual minorities in our country. This is certainly not because I have gay or lesbian friends (I do and I assure you most of them make great pals), but how I see myself in my social environment.

Ask yourselves this. During circumstances when you happen to see two men/women engaging themselves in intimacy, say one of those lip-locks or bodies molded together, what's the first thought that comes to your mind? "Ew," isn't it? I'm rather sure you would find the idea of two people of the same sex doing it inherently disquieting.

I believe that minorities deserve to be understood better. The only way for minorities to be understood is for those in privileged positions to momentarily leave their positions and attempt to comprehend the realities that minorities confront. Here's another example, our society has done a lot through the Yellow Ribbon project to integrate ex-convicts back into society, but there is still a lingering stereotypification and stigmatism of ex-convicts. Society has structures, no doubt, but structures are not rigid in the long run. Things change, structures remain the same because of people in power having maintained or expanded their power, because of people in privileged positions having maintained or elevated their positions.

To further elaborate on this, do any of you recall one of the Yellow Ribbon commercials which was aired all over Singapore many years ago? Unfortunately, I have attempted searching for the video but alas to no avail.

But if you do remember its content, then you would probably remember well that in it, you would see that the commercial starts off with a young woman cautiously watching a suspicious-looking tattooed man making his way towards an innocent little girl from the inside of her car. As he proceeds to take the child by the hand and walk on down the street with her by his side, the woman begins to express evident anxiousness and worry for the girl's safety. But as she continues looking on with a wary eye, both the man and the little girl eventually greet a waiting lady with warm smiles and hugs, who happens to be her mother. It was then that the young woman in the vehicle had realized she made an error in her judgement for she had mistaken the tattooed man to be someone 'dangerous' when in truth, he was the father.

So we see here how our perceptions are easily influenced by physical elements - what information our eyes or ears can actually take in, how our brains process it. According to Brian J. Reyolds, he reckons that one of the most telling indicators that we act according to perception, which is malleable, rather than on facts and incontrovertible evidence is how often we make mistakes. A problem lies in our perceptions of people, in this case ex-convicts and homosexuals, most of which are fed by misinformation, dated information and irrational fears harboured by things that surround us.

We are all minorities in some way or another and it is not our choosing most of the time. Who wants to be a minority anyway? To be criticised, ostracised, stigmatised, technicised, discriminated, and so on? But on the other hand, since one is a minority, should one equally deserve the right and space to be proud of one’s identity?

Many a time I have wondered, how far does mass media go in influencing our perceptions of society today and how concerned should we be at the discrimination and misrepresentation of minority groups within the media?

voices of the public

Where have the voices gone?

Increasingly I find myself wondering this question. Where are the voices?

Is the world really so blind?

In response to the taxi fare hike in the 1980s, there had been a boycott of taxis. Many people refused to take taxi, and soon the taxi companies gave in, reducing the taxi fare. There was still a voice then. The public still assumed accountability; they knew that the voice of the people will triumph.

Fast forward to the present, and I cannot help but wonder, “Just where had the voices gone to?”

Are we too blind to see? Too oblivious to the things this government had done?

From the absurd pay-check, to Mas Selamat escape, to the police force arresting people who were simply exercising their human rights by a peaceful protest, to the unjustified GST hike, to the lack of accountability to the public.

Are we really so blind to see? Are we really too nonchalant to speak?

As I sit here now wondering, I can’t help but wonder one thing:

Will my opinions change a single thing?

I do not think the PAP should be overthrown or anything. To me, I think they are capable of running the country (in fact, the most capable out of all the political parties so far), but they must be accountable to the people. Oppression of the individual rights need to stop. Self-serving policies must stop.

But will what I say change anything?

I am sure that is what many people out there, who had not spoken, think. Yes as an individual your voice may not change things. But remember, freedom and democracy are not simply paper-talk; they are ideas and perspectives, and they are given power by words.

One may not be good enough, but speak out and let your voice be heard. The like-hearted will come.

And the voices will return slowly.

The people should not be afraid of their government- the government should be afraid of its people.

"In a world that told them how to think, she showed them how to live."

You are in for a good time if you have not seen "Mona Lisa Smile," particularly if you enjoy films about cold, catty women who lie constantly. In other words, the movie's a feminist lesson for post-feminist moviegoers who never understood the big whoop about keeping one's name after marriage.

The setting is Wellesley College, Eisenhower era, when the goal of any normal girl was none other than marriage. Period. For Betty (Kirsten Dunst), the traditionalist alpha girl, marriage to a suitable society catch is all she and her mother dream of.

Julia Roberts comes in as Katherine Watson, a freethinking art history professor. In her prime, she's a cookie-cutter original, one of those colorful teachers disliked by the rest of the faculty because she's different. She arrives, bringing little more than a box of slides that include modern art.

Now in my opinion, I find that the film illustrates quite a good deal on how the four "idols" or distortions get in the way of clear thinking. As such, we shall now take a closer look at how the idols are illuminated in the film to give you, dear reader, an idea of their definitions.

Idols of the Tribe refers to fallacies in thinking due to human nature. As it was depicted during the movie, the female students of Wellesley College were both born and bred up to be women who have been taught to believe that marriage and housewifery was the only meaningful option for women of their class and that it was guaranteed to provide fulfillment.

When Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) decided to apply for law school at Harvard after her graduation, her best friend, Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) was anything but uncritical towards the notion of not keeping a strict adherence to tradition. She accused Joan of not pursuing her initial 'dreams' of having a family and criticizes their teacher, Katherine, for even possessing the nerve to encourage her friend in submitting her law application.

Idols of the Cave are the individual prejudices we bring with us because of our own backgrounds and personalities. For instance, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts), an art history graduate, came to the prestigious and conservative school not only to teach the brightest girls in the country, but to challenge the conservative administration. She had hope to inspire her students to look the image of what is and consider the possibilities of what could be. Naturally this puts her in direct opposition to the school authorities, as well as parents of some of her students. Therefore, because the college isn't accustomed to her 'different' methods of teaching, they turned against her hoping to uphold the old-fashioned and narrow-minded way of the school's legacy.

Idols of the Marketplace are social in nature and centres on imprecise use of language. If you have seen the film, you would probably remember that Betty Warren was not just a mere student at Wellesley College. She was also the editor of the school's newspaper, and during her time when Miss Watson was still an art history teacher, she wrote two articles. One was about a teacher who distributed condoms to one of her students to promote 'safe sex' and the other was on Katherine's poor disregard for their traditions just because she was subversive, which in turn led to retrenchment and a heed of warning from the school's authorities respectively. Betty's impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies that the two instructors were both disruptive to the system.

Idols of the Theatre are fallacies that occur when we accept fashionable ideas uncritically. Betty is a perfect example of this. As the daughter of the alumni association president, she stridently fights to maintain Wellesley's traditionalistic policies for she has been groomed from an early age to follow into her mother's footsteps - a thorough education, a perfect marriage to a prominent family, and for all appearances, a happy life. She did not question, but simply follow like the obedient child she was. So we see here that false superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.

And that's my take on the four idols. What's yours?