__________________________________________________________
Face it.
In a imperfect world we live in, and specifically here in the Philippines, we and we will always encounter beggars along the way. In fastfood stores, in the streets, in churches, in malls, and many more. They would ask for money, food, or any basic needs they would need to fulfill their daily needs from us. For our part, we may give them some spare change, some scraps, and the like. At times, we would refuse to give them anything. And in those times, we would like to tell them that "they should blame themselves for being lazy, irresponsible, and all". Even I have the temptation of telling it to the street children, blaming their parents for doing nothing but having many children even if they cannot support all of their children (Imagine a family with 12 children, and the wife still pregnant with a 13th child . . . the horror! And they, in fact, live underneath a bridge, and they barely are able to support all their children). It's so tempting to tell them that, but that would make things worse, as they could possibly launch an attack against you, or they could retaliate at you in a different form. It's scary, indeed.
Yet, Amartya Sen, an Indian sociologist (but his thinkings can be applied with Philosophical thoughts of the likes of Kant and Hume, as evident with my Philosophy classes), explains this though the principle he calls "capability deprivation". It may seem some simplistic term he has made out of his thinkings, but beneath those two words lie a deep meaning, that targets both the Philosophical and Sociological aspects of learning. So, what's capability deprivation anyway?
Amartya Sen defines it as the human's inability to make the most out of his potential in his being due to external factors that affect him. Simply put, it is the inability of man to be what he wants or oughts to be due to circumstances, both external and internal. Essentially speaking, what Amartya Sen points out here is that it is not necessary that the poor are irresponsible and lazy that's why their living conditions are such. Instead, what Sen wants to point out is that the poor are a part of the minority of society, as their reason for living is set aside by the dominating form of reasoning that is implied by the dominant society.
So how can we clearly see Amartya Sen's idea of this?
At a monthly salary of 30,000 pesos, you may be placed at the middle class if you live in Manila or Quezon City, lower middle class if you live in Makati or Parañaque, upper middle class if you live in Cainta or Marikina, and upper class if you live in Pampanga or Pangsinan. The point? The way a person lives really depends on where they reside in. So meaning, these poor people may be really poor as they reside in the Metro Manila, but they may be living in the lower middle class when they reside in the province. But if that's the case, how come these people would desire to live in Metro Manila even if their status is greatly affected, and that they are treated as the minority in society?
Simple.
They want to find that hole to climb up to the societal ladder. They do various things, such as being kargadors, car watchers, and the like, until they find that certain spot that they can bring them way up to the societal ladder. Case in point: Manny Pacquiao. Manny is a poor person living in Davao, who found boxing as that hole that helped him climbed up the societal ladder into the famous boxer he is now today, owning many cars and houses in both the Philippines and in the United States. And these are the supposed success stories that we all like hearing.
Yet, despite Manny Pacquiao's present status today, Amartya Sen would still say that Manny Pacquiao, to a certain extent, is still capability deprived, despite of his riches. Look at this: haven't you observed on how come most professional athletes around the world are either Black, Asian, or Mexican (or any other non-western race)? Well the point of this is that these minorities of this global society would excel at their best possible way through this, and by saying that, it is very evident to see Manny Pacquiao's capability deprivation: sure he may be the best in boxing, but he is of inferior quality in terms of the English language and politics (which brings us to another point on why to a certain extent showbiz personalities are capability deprived when the topic showbiz politics is placed into the picture). In short, all of us have a certain degree of capability deprivation, especially since we do not live in a perfect world.
So the point? Despite of our capability deprive-ness in society, what really matters is that we find that hole that can help us live a better life, of which the poor are very challenged to do so, being the most neglected people of society.
___________________________________________________
In personal thoughts:
1) I'm happy that I'm being comfortable being with Cy again. I see her playful side once again, and I once again get to see the Cy that I know since I first got to know her last year.
2) About being touchy-feely, i do confess that of all my CADS crushes, I am touchy feely the most with Tetel (of which will be celebrating her birthday soon).
3) About bouncing feelings, I am once again confused on which of the three of them I would love the most (if it would be Cy, Betsy, or Tetel). I've seen in them their respective flaws, and I guess it's up to me to make up my mind on who I will like the most.
4) It's the Christmas break! (Well after my LAST class for the year - Philo under Doc Guss - tomorrow). I have some readings to accomplish during the break, so I expect this break to be not boring.
5) I am once again coming up with new photographic ideas, and that's a good sign of my talent progressing (oh how I wish my writing would progress as well)
No comments:
Post a Comment