Archives: Public issues

Imagine Day and Volunteer Opportunities

Imagine Day is the largest on campus orientation day in Canada, welcoming over 8000 new students to the UBC Campus. It is held annually on the Tuesday following Labour Day Weekend; this year it was on September 2nd.  The purpose of Imagine Day is to orient students and get them acquainted on campus through tours lead by current UBC students. What follows is a pep rally that hypes students for the upcoming year to start a new chapter in their life for university. The final portion of Imagine Day is the ‘Main Event,’ which is held on Main Mall Street. where all of the UBC clubs are set up on tables for students to explore their options to get involved on campus.

For Imagine Day, I was not a participant, but a Squad Leader. A Squad Leader manages the Orientation Leaders who have a group of new to UBC students to lead around campus throughout the day. As a Squad Leader, my role was taken up the January before Imagine Day to recruit and train Orientation Leaders for September. On Imagine Day itself, I was a trouble-shooter who ensured transitions of the Imagine Day itinerary ran smoothly, a helper for the logistical aspects of Imagine Day, and I ensured that my group of Orientation Leaders had everything they needed for the day.

Imagine Day, for many students, is a new beginning and a mark of a new chapter of their life. However, for this paper, I will focus on my experience as being a Squad Leader. My experience as a Squad Leader was not great in terms of communication with the Orientation Staff. My group of Orientation Leaders was great and we got along well, but it was my experience in my role that I did not like. I don’t feel as if I learned anything new as my time as Squad Leader. Therefore, it made me wonder why I wanted to join in the first place. It was because I wanted more leadership experience. As mentioned in one of my previous blogs, I plan for the future and jump at opportunities that can help better my chances in getting a job. I thought that applying for the Squad Leader position would help me gain some more leadership opportunities on campus and help me expand my networks. However, I didn’t feel like I learned anything significant. It made me reassess my motives. Did I just apply for the sake of the job title? Am I only doing this because I feel like I’m doing something productive for myself?

To further answer my questions, I draw upon the Forbes article that speaks about paid and unpaid internships and their benefits. It discusses the individual’s choice in getting and benefitting from an internship, whether or not it is paid or unpaid.   The conclusion of the article is that “ultimately, the decision of accepting an internship is an individual’s choice made on its expected benefit” and that there should be no government interference on whether or not internships should be paid. Similarly, the Squad Leader position was like an internship in the sense that I thought I would gain from the experience.

 

To answer my questions above, it would be yes, I am because I’m trying to build my reputation of being an involved UBC student.  I want to show that I am a hard-working individual that is involved in various ways within the UBC community. But it is through the structures placed upon me, such as the current state of the job market, which motivates me to be involved and to take on numerous opportunities on campus. My role as Squad Leader was probably very helpful in the logistical side of Imagine Day, but the job description made it seem like I would be doing and gaining much more. In the end of the day, the reputation of the Squad Leader role as prestigious is what made me apply, rather than the actual duties (which is a little embarrassing).

No commentsAdd a comment

Share: The Spatial Politics of the Occupy Central 佔領區的空間政治

Translated by Marianne. Written by Xueying He 何雪瑩. Saturday, November 11, 2014.

The Occupy Movement in Hong Kong has lasted for a month and a half. The three Occupy Central leaders claimed that they would confess to the police someday. Students organizations like the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the Scholarism believed that they could not retreat without any desirable outcomes. These show that everyone has a rather similar view towards the Occupy Central: the three leaders think that civil disobedience is the core of the movement, so the movement could not reach an end unless they confront the judicial process; the two student unions think that the movement is the means to the negotiation of political reform. However, how is the Occupy Central different from other social movements? Although a tough question, I would like to start my answer with the function of space, through the  perspective of urban geography.

佔領持續接近個半月，佔中三子強調有天他們會主動自首，學聯和學民認為未有任何成果難以撤離。這說明了各人對佔中的想像非不一樣：三子認為公民抗命是佔領運動的核心，必須完成自首和面對司法程序整個運動才告圓滿；雙學大致上認為佔領是政改談判的籌碼。然而佔領跟其他社會形式的社會運動有何分別？ 這個問題不好回答，但從城市研究或地理學而言，起點必然是空間的作用。

We are surprised by the booming study rooms, the colourful comment walls, the concrete flower garden, and the tents everywhere on the highway; we are attracted by the surreal scenes that appear in Hong Kong for the first time. These scenes are possible through the interaction of space and time. The typical organized political involvements such as voting and council meeting occupy very limited time and space, and most of the recent political engagements and social movements occurred in the virtual space. This is not to deny the importance of the time-space-constraint political engagements, in fact these forms are the also the necessary components of this Occupy Movement. But the Occupy Hong Kong reflects the infinite possibility of occupying a physical space for a longer period of time.

我們對瘋狂生長的自修室、五彩斑斕的連儂牆、水泥地上種花、幹道上遍地盛開的帳篷驚喜，為香港首次出現如斯虛幻的畫面着迷，事實上這些景點得以發生，是空間和時間兩者互相交織而成。一般體制式的政治參與如投票、諮詢會議等所佔據的時間和空間都相當有限，近年矚目的網上政治參與和社會運動更是發生在虛擬空間。這不是說時間和空間有限的政治參與不重要，實際上以上的政治參與和社會運動都是這場佔領運動得以發生所不可或缺的條件。然而今天的佔領之所以如此撼動人心，甚至超越其他社會運動，正反映出長持續一段時間佔領物理空間所孕育的無限可能性。這也許是其他形式的社會運動無法比擬的。

Surrealism of Walking across the Flyovers

游走於行車天橋的超現實
數周前我在「流動民主教室」曾經提起，能在幹道上蹓躂是多麼surreal的事，有位中年男子立刻走過來對我這種「佔領幹道」的正面思想表達不滿。今天用雙腳在金鐘的行車天橋上游走，我仍對眼前的景象有多超真實感到不可思議。這的確不是我們使用空間的習慣。試試閉上眼回想佔領或罷課前的金鐘長什麼樣子。那是一座恍如堡壘般，被圍起（fortified）和升高（elevated）的政府機關。人們要過去多從金鐘地鐵站出發，穿過海富中心，上電梯，經天橋到達「門常開」。由地底（地鐵）經天橋到離地升高的政府總部，整個過程完全沒有「腳踏實地」，也沒有停留的理由和時刻，因為它僅僅是一條通道，讓行人行來行往，什麼事都沒有發生。

而分隔中信大廈和立法會出入口的馬路，仔細想想，我們何時開始得知那條叫「添美道」？答案很可能是2012年的反國教運動。後來今年夏天的新界東北，還有今次的佔領運動，添美道再成主角。在非「社運進行中」之時，你會記得添美道嗎？又有多少人會在添美道流連忘返？
添美道、龍和道這些地方，令我想起法國人類學家Marc Auge筆下的non-place。先別管他本來的理論是non-place是超現代性（supermodernity）的產物而超現代性又是什麼，這些non-place的特性是沒有任何人際社會關係、身分和歷史性的地方，他筆下的例子包括機場、公路和超級市場。其他在政總短暫發生過的社會運動都曾暫時將添美道、龍和道、夏慤道這些non-place改變，為其賦予社會關係、身分和歷史意義，而眼下的佔領運動更是「2.0」加強版。

Commercial Center Becomes Living Areas

Before the Occupy, the Admiralty was a political and economic center. Such a non-space was not designed for a long stay, nor for attracting people to stay. Yet this movement is able to continue, with thousands of people staying over nights and millions of people mobilize during off-work periods, not only because the occupiers have strong beliefs in democracy, but also because this emotionless commercial centre has become suitable for long term stay and even living. This process is placemaking.

商業中心變成生活場所
本來金鐘是個政治和商業中心，non-place空間設計從不宜久留，也不打算吸引人久留，結果這場運動得以一直延續下去，長期有上千人在晚上過夜，放工時間有上萬人在流動，固然因為佔領者對爭取民主的理念非常堅持，同時也因為這個冷冰冰的商業中心變得適合長時間逗留，甚至棲息和生活。這個過程正是地方營造（placemaking）。

In other words, because citizens are most clear about the need of their communities (the best example, again, is the location of the stair handles), they do not need bureaucracy to decide the use of every inch of the land….. During a movement, with enough time and physical space,

換句話說，正因為市民本身才最知道社區的需要（最佳例子再一次是扶手樓梯的位置），他們不需要官僚以上帝視角決定每吋土地的用途。當關心空間使用的團體和個人多年來辦研討會寫文，建議釋放官僚對公共空間的限制之餘，也希望擴闊市民對空間規劃和使用的想像時，原來只要一場佔領發生，有着足夠的時間和物理空間，人的潛能就這樣釋放出來。基本的地方營造原來可以咁簡單。而當沒有了不准踢足球不准玩滑板等為怕發生任何意外等的外來規定，市民自己會學習跟別人從實踐中討論空間使用的法則和規矩。當中難免會有些衝突，例如點解你紮個營阻住我個營出入，但這也是學習的一種，而且外來規定引發的衝突、不快和風險，往往不比自發狀態少。

城市屬於使用者不屬於地主
更基本的是，佔領運動要爭取的不止是真普選、廢除功能組別和市民有免受不合理警察暴力自由這些公民及政治權利，它愈來愈關乎爭取城市權（Right to the city）。法國哲學家拉斐伏爾（Henri Lefebvre）於1960年代提出爭取城市權運動後，這場討論一直延伸至今天方興未艾，地理學者也開始將城市權的意義擴闊到無限大包括公民得以享有公共物品（public goods）如水電房屋的權利，如此使用城市權概念並沒有錯，但我們必須回到拉斐伏爾提出城市權的背景。他看不過眼的是在空間生產和使用的過程中，交易價值 （exchange value）取代了使用價值（used value）成為決定性原則。一塊地用來起樓還是起公園並非視乎能為市民帶來多大用處而是能賺幾多錢。為何今場佔領運動是一場關乎城市權的戰役，其實答案就在我們日常的修辭當中。佔領城市的主要幹道會令每人返工多30分鐘，經濟損失幾多億，商店損失又幾多億；換句話說，夏愨道應該是幹道而不是讓人佔領的建制和警方修辭正是空間的交易價值凌駕一切的明證。當我們每天為可能清場擔驚受怕，不就是因為我們使用道路和政府總部作為抗爭空間的城市權受威脅嗎？
可以幾肯定的是即使我們成功爭取公民和政治權利落實，城市權卻更難落實。一來城市權面對的不止是政治還資本的影響（全球民主國家爭取城市權的運動更是形形色色，可見民主並非萬靈丹），二來爭取城市權不是單單以獲取公共資源為目標，而是一場不曾止息和演化的運動。拉斐伏爾筆下的城市權可分為right to participation 和right to appropriation。前者比較容易理解，簡單可說是當空間改變所有受影響的城市人都該有權參與決定，而非限制於地主、屋主或股東本身；而right to appropriation更是一場阻止空間異化的行動。拉斐伏爾認為當空間的交易價值凌駕於使用價值，空間便會跟城市使用者發生異化，兩者關係割裂起來，只有通過空間的appropriation人們才能重奪空間，而非落入資本累積倫理之中。城市不屬於地主，而屬於使用者。拉斐伏爾同時提出將autogestion這個工人自己營運工廠的概念融入城市權之中，透過appropriate城市空間我們才能自我管理空間下的生活，將城市空間重新跟社會關係網絡重新連結起來，而非受資本累積邏輯決定城市生活。這，不正正是發生在今天的金鐘嗎？

當佔領運動由爭取政治公民權利延伸至城市權，而且因為物理空間和時間許可，以實踐而非一般倡議（advocacy）的形式爭取，這就是一種預兆式政治（prefigurative politics）：佔領華爾街的精神領袖、人類學家David Graeber指出，佔領華爾街的預兆式政治的重點在於，我們要爭取一個理想，在運動間必先將其實踐出來。

香港佔領主幹道的獨特性
這場佔領運動將會在香港和世界近代史上佔上一席，理順空間在佔領運動的獨特角色將對我們理解其本地和國際重要性非常有幫助。國際上近年佔領運動如雨後春筍，由2010年英國學生佔領大學校園抗議瘋狂加學費、阿拉伯之春、佔領華爾街在全球遍地開花、2011至12年西班牙的Indignants Movement、去年土耳其伊斯坦堡，關於佔領的專著和研究從不缺少。當中雖然不少研究偏重互聯網的動員能力，但空間作為佔領運動最獨特的條件卻不容忽視，而且當人家大多數都是佔領廣場或公園，香港卻因沒有如此具公共價值的廣場加上誤打敵撞下佔領主要幹道和一堆附近零碎的non-place，這種香港的獨特性注定是要被仔細研究和記上一筆的。而我們在香港，當一些前輩都說運動陷入膠着狀態而要盡快退場，或者我們是要「佔領人心而非佔領馬路」，他們說的在社運的策點上都非常有道理。但如果將空間在佔領運動的獨特性包含在內，我欣賞到的倒是另一面：時間愈長，佔領區物理空間和在其之間發生的人際和社會活動和關係也在不停演變中，如此看來這個空間實驗每天都在經歷或大或小的改變，從來不曾陷入膠着狀態。「佔領人心，而非佔領馬路」，我非常明白爭取全港市民也很大程度上同意這樣的說法，但同時我也感到，只有透過佔領馬路，人心才會發生改變。

相片、文字來自：
http://news.mingpao.com/…/art…/20141109/s00005/1415471606437

No commentsAdd a comment

The Interconnection between the Self and Society: My Experience at an Orientation Event

In September, I attended an orientation/ ice breaker event hosted by one of the largest social clubs in UBC. Prior to entrance, I had a stereotypical notion of the club as being composed mainly of a certain ethnic group with a certain outgoing behaviour. I could tell I was anxious and hesitant of my interaction with the group as I found myself constantly delaying my entrance, despite the friendly welcome from the executives. Hiding in the washroom for a few minutes, I convinced myself to enjoy the event and stepped outside. Thankfully, I encountered some of my classmates at the door who encouraged me to go in and participate in the activity. As we entered the lecture room, we immediately gathered together and talked about how awkward we felt at the event and how we did not seem to belong. It was not until we were separated by group leaders to our stationed groups that our conversation ended.

The event preceded with the hosts’ introduction of the club and some ice breaker activities. In the middle of an ice breaker activity, my classmate and I decided to leave the event as we felt uneasy in the group. Once we exited the event and walked toward the bus loop, we asked eachother the reasons to our anxiety within the group. For me, ethnicity was an issue because I did not classify myself as a member of the ethnic group representing the club. For my classmate, dress code was an issue as she felt she had not dressed appropriately to the standard of the group. For both of us, age was an issue because we felt too old to be involved in orientations, mainly held to recruit freshmen and newcomers to the club. This was a surprising investigation as both of us were completely unaware of eachother’s concerns of feeling different, nor were we discriminated by the members of the club. It was our own evaluation of ourselves, based on our presumptions of who or what is appropriate for the group, that placed a judgment on our belonging in the group. It was a personal trouble, according to C. Wright Mills, a trouble “occur[ing] within the character of the individual and within the range of his or her immediate relations with others,” a private matter. After realizing this, we decided to go back to the club and enjoy the rest of the event.  However, it was clear that our personal troubles had a connection with how we were socialized by society. From micro socializations such as forming lunch groups in school and intaking values taught by our parents to macro socializations such as historical values imposed by our culture and new values imposed by the media, we are socialized to identify ourselves in a certain way and expected to interact within a certain group. Therefore, we feel comfortable in partaking certain identities and groups, while it is difficult for us to interact with other groups, especially structured organizations such as clubs, without preconceived notions. The confined boundaries of relationships and identities held by individuals thus becomes a public issue; as Mills states that it occurs when “some values cherished by publics is felt to be threatened.. form[ed by a] larger structure of social and historical life.” On a broader level, this confinement leads to racism, classism, sexism, etc.

The social club I attended attempted to tackle this public issue by opening the club to a diversity of people to break preconceived notions of the club and to provide an inclusive space for all students in UBC. This was evident through their announcements in introducing their club, representation of executives (including one of the hosts and our team leader) of a different ethnic group than the majority makeup of the club. Everyone spoke in English, providing an inclusive space for people who did not speak the language of the group but spoke English. Dress code was not imposed and stationed groups were organized according to a random selection of alphabets. Individual choices for engaging/disengaging in activities were respected and everyone was encouraged to be themselves while still being accepted. However, despite the club’s efforts and claims to provide an inclusive space for all students, the type of clothing worn by executives and the series of sexually provocative cheers and games visualized an identity of the group in a certain way which portrayed an imagined community of who belongs and composes the group, affecting the ratio of students who ultimately decide to join the club.

Furthermore, by the dress code and attitude of the executives in leading activities during the orientation, social standards of executive behaviour are set and place limits on individuals when applying for executive positions, as they would have to prove themselves to be outgoing, to posess leadership qualities, to be able to laugh at and promote activities underlying stereotypical sexual and masculine/feminine orientations, and to be, or at least embrace, the culture of the dominant ethnic group. This is similar to how new fraternity boys had to prove themselves according to certain standards placed by senior fraternity boys, which emphasized the group’s definition of masculinity, during a rush event in Kimmel’s “Guyland.”

While at a broader surface level, the club seems very welcoming and inclusive to diversity, at a higher level of executive positions, there are more exclusive standards on behaviour and ideals; it is expected that a successful candidate would be able to conform to the group’s ideas and definitions in order to be accepted.

References:

Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.

No commentsAdd a comment

Sociological Imagination and Analyzing the Struggles of a UBC Student.

Life of a university student, more specifically a UBC student, surely comes with a number of difficulties that would get us thinking: What did we do to end up here? As students, we get so caught up by our own troubles, that we don’t consider their historical and biographical context. In other words,  we don’t really understand how our problems can have an effect on the society that surrounds us. We usually think that our personal problems only affect us individually, yet there is actually a connection between our issues and the framework of society.

In his article “The Promise of Sociology”, C. Wright Mills introduces the concept know as the Sociological Imagination,  a non-individualistic way to look at our personal problems in a much larger scale. Sociological Imagination shows us the distinction between a “personal trouble” and a “public issue” and helps us identify the relationship between our own individual troubles and problems that are on a larger scale.

Imagine a  UBC student who is under a financial struggle to pay for his education. Let’s call him Bart. Bart is pursuing his university education in UBC as a business student in Sauder and, due to not being financially able to afford schooling himself, is being funded with student loans. He then eventually faces student debt after completing his degree, and is stressed with having to earn the money he needs to repay his student loans. This would be known as a personal trouble, because the issue he is facing exists within himself.

Now, how can we view Bart’s problem on a larger scale? He surely wouldn’t be the only person facing financial troubles in university, let alone facing student debt. As a public social issue, having a large amount of students facing debt would affect the student community within the university and could possibly lead to changes in tuition costs or a change in the number of students attending UBC. Student loans and student debt can be seen as public issues because of how they extend beyond an individual’s personal problem, helping us understand the structure of society and how it can be amended.

The recent protest that occurred outside the Koerner library regarding fairness in tuition and housing process is an example of how public issues can change the structure of society. Because of proposed increases in tuition costs and residence contracts, students demanded lower costs in order to make their university experience much more fair and affordable for them. By protesting and expressing their outrage for the increase in housing and tuition costs, students are using their voices to promote change in the current social order. It is also worth thinking about how each student has their own personal troubles that are financial, which contributes to the amount of students financially struggling because of the high tuition and housing costs. Each student would have their own personal reasons to be involved in the protest, and with the amount of students who appeared outside the library to oppose the status quo, it is clear that the increase in tuition and housing costs is a public social issue that calls for change within the university system at UBC.

The use of Sociological Imagination is a helpful tool that we can use to analyze aspects of our lives and of those around us. In addition, it can help us understand why events such as the protest against increased costs take place and the issues that are to be addressed. By thinking about the relationship between personal troubles and public issues, we will be able to realize how the things that happen to us can affect the structure of the society we live in.

 

References:

Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No commentsAdd a comment

This, I know, I am Not… But what am I? – Goffman’s explanation of how individuals define themselves

As a sociology major, I find myself constantly asking questions about myself, and the things I do. What do I identify with as an individual, and how do I fit in with others? Why do I fit in with certain individuals better than others? How do we figure out who we are amongst all of the other individuals around us? Are we all different? What qualities do we share? What social situations do I feel comfortable in, and which are out of my comfort zone?

Recently I came across a quote, which has inspired even more questions to flow through my mind. The quote can be found in “Asylums,” by Erving Goffman, and it highlights yet another way of thinking about individuals in society. His definition of individuals is as follows…

“A stance-taking entity, a something that takes a position somewhere between identification with an organization and opposition to it, and is ready at the slightest pressure to regain its balance by shifting its involvement in either direction. It is thus against something that the self can emerge…” (502)

One idea that I find myself constantly returning to is an exercise that my SOCI100 Prof used, which was meant to promote us to think sociologically about our environment. He asked us to think about a line up for something, like a Starbucks, and the different social cues that surround it. This prompted me to realize that I have always been fascinated with observing people following (or breaking) social cues and interacting with their environment. I have often found myself ‘people watching’ at Starbucks, and elsewhere. This exercise really got me thinking about all the sociological thoughts that I have, but had never identified them as such prior to taking my first sociology course.

Returning back to the Goffman quote, I had previously never contemplated the idea of defining myself against something I am not. After considering this idea, however, I realized that I am able to apply it to my Starbucks adventures. The Goffman quote prompted me to rethink some of the questions I have previously asked myself about line-ups. Why do I choose to be polite and follow the social cues that tell me I should wait my turn? I feel confident in saying that I am a fairly polite individual, but how did I come to identify myself as such?

This leads me to the main purpose of this post, which is to discuss how individuals in society approach situations, and how the decisions we make in these situations can define how we are seen in society, and how we identify ourselves. How each individual’s socialization guides them through their daily decisions.

More specifically I want to talk about UBC Clubs Days, and how individuals decide which clubs they are interested in, and which to avoid. Some of the behaviour students exhibited highlights the relevance of Goffman’s definition of individuals to the daily life of a UBC student.

This year I had the opportunity to “table” for two clubs on Clubs Days, one academically inclined, and one socially inclined. It was interesting to see how some individuals would scoff at the thought of joining an academic club, whilst others were uninterested with the idea of joining a club that wouldn’t benefit them on their resumes. I heard many statements beginning with “I am not”… “I’m not really interested in a social club,” “I’m not really looking for extra work outside class.” Which, in my head, translated into “I am not whatever your club is,” which leads us back go Goffman. These individuals defined themselves against what my clubs had to offer, but this is only one clue into the complexity that is each individual I interacted with during Clubs Days. All I know about those who passed off my clubs is one thing that they are NOT, but I have no idea what they ARE. Why are they not interested in my clubs? Is it because they truly do not want to have a social life? Or is it because they have been socialized to see social clubs a certain way?

…And do they budge in Starbucks line-ups?

I AM interested in my  academic club, but at the same time, I AM NOT interested in focusing solely on my studies when I am faced with so many amazing social opportunities. I line up at Starbucks for fear of being known as that one rude chick that budges because this, I know, I am not. But what AM I? I am polite because I don’t budge… I am a sociology major because I clicked the SSC button… but what else?

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

No commentsAdd a comment