My Sociological Point of View -epilogue!

Today marks the end of the sociological chapter of my life! Three hours of the sociology exam from 1.00pm to 4.00pm was like a flashback of what i have learned from day one i set foot in sociology class. It was basically the longest period of 3hours and the most amout of sociological knowledge i had ever need to pen down! Everything from the begining of our first sociology lecturer to our last one. Answering three topics of questions consecutively meant that every aspect of sociological knowledge and corner of the notes of sociology are being tested! So mentally exhausting as i feel sociologically-drained! Haha...but physically tiring though as it was a 3hour straight paper.

Sociologically speaking for the last time, (I miss sociology! hahaha XD) the reason this blog was created was because of this subject in the first place. So now it can be "deconstructed" (i'm still trying to sound sociological at this stage) into i don't know what..

I would see what the future holds for me. That would depend on what interest me again, at least, to this extent, i guess!

27/05/2008

Happy Reading

I still have three weeks to go before my alvels final examination. Then, it is the end of what seem to be a very long pre-u programme.

2007 and 2008 so far had been exciting, challenging and important to me. I remembered starting college on the 19Mac 2007 when i first took the now-very-familiar ktm to kl central. I went in to my first class of law, which now, come to think of it, is pretty amazing! It was on The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent which i have absolutely no idea about! It was a huge thing for me because i was initially taken aback by the level of language demand in alevels. Also, it was in this very class that i first met a friend by the name of Amirul Rashid. Subsequently, i met a few others who to me, were interesting and incredible people. Little did i know that they would be of a significant impact in my life as they had changed me alot from who i used to be and the way i look at things.

I was also surprised to come across a few people whom i used to know from Klang in college. We were known as the "Klangites" by our friends. However, it did not draw a line between us and the Kl folks because we all get along together pretty well. But it is nice to see familiar faces around.

Eventually, there were numerous memorable outings and "adventures" that i would definitely remember. Two of which is the "walk" to Taylors College to watch debate and the very first sunway outing where we skate and played bowling. Then, there were low moments as well as conflicts arise between our interactions and i personally felt moody as things weren't going so well. Nevertheless, we managed to go through our first semester exams and i would think that it turned out pretty well.

The second semester took off in December 2007 itself where there were, what i would consider, "huge changes" or "reshuffling of events". And until now, the end is finally visible. To me, it feels like a really long time as there were just so many things that happened in just a year and a half. Two major events were my selection for national service and the start of college life.

Overall, last year was a turning point in my life that i would consider significant. And although i was the odd one out when i had decided to study in brickfields, i had managed my best so far and am grateful to have met great friends and buddies, both in Sarawak NS and in college.

The controversy: Is Suicide Deterministic?

Anomie is a state of normlessness where there is no clear guidelines to behave. People experiencing anomie would undergo a series of aimlessness, purposelessness, anxiety and disorientation of feelings. This is not a stage that can be prolonged because the "natural" workings of society would self-adjust itself towards a new social equilibrium. However, if this state persists over a long period of time, suicide may be a consequence. An anomic suicide, due to lack of social regulation.

It is saddening and critical to think that an anomic state is actually in existent in some individuals. More interesting is the question of how this state can even be prolonged to extreme ends, leading to suicide. It is a complex sociological stand to even attempt to categorise suicide into a positivist or a phenemenological school. The difficulty lies in the fact that suicide appears to be both an "individual" decision as well as a result of external pressures.

While suicide appears to be a very personal, fundamentally psychological phenomena which revolves around the individual and his state of mind, Durkheim's suicidal analysis seems to indicate an identifiable pattern of such a phenomenon. The identification of clusters of incidents seems to suggest that suicide rates do peak at particular periods of time. For example, during the incident of 09/11 or during periods of economic downturn. That being said, it appears equally reasonable to derive a plausible rationalisation that suicide is a result of the wider social system and its workings; external pressures. It may be, after all, that it is people's reactions towards the greater workings of society as a whole.

Even so, before Durkheim's analysis on suicide, this phenomenon is viewed from a biological standpoint. Explanations of suicide that derives from an individual's inherent biological conditions were valid reasonings. Suicide was a "disease". A form of "mental illness" to begin with. Anti-structural views such as this were not able to adequately explain the very existence of the intention to commit suicide in the first place. It seems a rather boiled down theory which dismisses the "triggering" factor. At the end of the day, genetic theorists would lay on the argument that certain individuals are genetically predisposed towards suicide, giving rise to a radical assumption of crude biological determinism. Does that mean then, that there is a "medical" cure to it? That we are innately predisposed to a "recognised form" of suicide? This is a controversial stand as it derives its ideas from a scientific point of view, yet positivism seems more inclined in explaining social events in structural terms.

To conclusively make the distinction that suicide is either an individual phenomenon or a result of external forces would be rather simplistic. While suicide may be more inclined towards a reaction to external stimuli, the fact that people do enjoy a certain extent of relative autonomy should not be negated. Suicide should not be looked upon totally as a voluntary act. Nor should it be considered a "natural" event.

Then what it is?

The conception of truth and ideology.

"Ideology is the process which happens behind people's backs" Louis Althusser

At times i do wish i can return to those days where i would characterise it as the "holiday period" where i would enjoy the ambience of happiness sprouting in me. But those were the days. I have lost contact with many people who made those days the day of all days. Obviously now, those days were not meant to be repeated, but can they ever be replaced? It questions me that sometimes, is happiness ought to be grabbed, or does it present itself at certain times of our lives? Is there ever anything true or is truth merely relative? Somehow, i have a strong conception that truth is constructed. Based on this premise then, should i conclude that truth is relative? Well, if truth is constructed to be such, then in essence, it is true in itself since it is reified from how it is defined in the first place. And if it is reified, then all of us would accept the truth to be "the truth". And if all of us accept that, then it is true because the truth has come true like a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, how can one not accept and argue instead that certain things are not true because we can choose to see them as false? Is it sociologically right to think that way? That truth is relative and we should not be bogged down by the "truth" society had made it out to be? Or is this perception a classic sense of denial?

Either way, looking at the realities of live and society, the truth, be it "the truth" or the socially constructed truth, is still existent in our minds and frankly speaking, we all consciously or unconscioulsy accept such truths because it has been so ingrained in us mainly due to our socialisation process. Then, the question should involve asking who is in power to define truth to begin with. Because whatever conceptions of truth we do have in our current state are already a result of continuous and constant perpetuation of the conception of "truth" by the person in power. So, no matter how true the truth seem to be, we should not dismiss the reality that it is made so upon us and is a result of many life cycles that has taken place. To question the whole objectivity of truth will require a radical challenge of the roots of how "the truth" came into being in the begining. Would that now mean that it is a relative concept after all, since its objectivity could be challenged? It may be. Though it would seem irrelevant after a period of unchallenged rivalry.

Should we just accept the truth that society had constructed for us then? Because we are too tired to question its origins? Or that it is riddiculous to do so? Because riddiculousity might be part of the inbuilt package of reproductive perpetuation of truth after all to not question the validity of such a construction.

At the end of the day, the perfectly socialised individual would seem to be the "right one" in society. Or is he fooled?