|
1991
CRITICISM AND AUTHORITY
Can any meaningful
discussion of an open critical climate of discourse be undertaken without
positioning it in the context of the modern state? What is the modern
state in any case? Are we a modern state? Even Habermas argues that the
"modern project" is not complete in the context of Western Europe
although the theory of modernism is well understood. On our part, we have
to admit that our situation has only the surface trappings of the modern
state.
How much openness can there be in such a situation when the levers of
power are centralised and increasingly interlinked by mutual obligations?
The relationship between the critic and authority has therefore to be
seen within the specific configuration of such an authority structure.
This therefore constitutes the formidable conditions under which the relationship
between the critic and authority is defined and has to contend within
the dynamics of the transition. The fact that it is now possible to begin
to openly discuss the nature of the state as it relates to criticism is
an indication of the present stage in the dynamics of change itself.
If we begin with the proposition that open criticism is valued as a function
of the modern state, then we need to highlight not only the fundamental
ideology of modernism but also examine its basic opera-tions as well.
Here, it is necessary to restate the obvious. The obvious is that an open
objective critical culture is derived from the western intellectual tradition
and it has to be understood in the context of the historical developments
leading to and subsequently from the high Renaissance in Europe of the
17th century.
Singapore is poised at a turning point. Even though criticism runs counter
to power inte-rests, the value of criticism can be argued in terms of
the release of creative potential. Not only for its own sake, but if it
increases competitiveness. If on the other hand, it is argued that critical
minds can always be bought and transplanted to Singapore, then the urgency
to produce our own critical minds for our competitive advantage is obviated.
We are in danger of this argument. What this will do to a nation's identity
and the sense of well-being of its own people is hard to calculate. The
subject belongs in the nebulous realm. It is also difficult to administer.
The dilemma of nation-hood in new states such as Singapore at a point
in time when its basic administrative and national infrastructure is in
place is the choice of how to handle its increasingly educated population.
Because of the economic means available to buy talent from the world,
the need to foster its own talent seems like a choice of second best.
It is a problem of the new rich. The gap between the mass and the ruling
elite must also surely widen too as the levels of ex-posure and involvement
in the process of development are experienced unevenly.
Given that pragmatism and practical utility are key aspects of Chinese-ness
reinforced by Con-fucianism, exhortations by the state are couched in
a particular kind of pragmatic language. This language functions as logos
within the logic of practical utility and rationality.
As such, it becomes impenetrable when, through its sheer dominance and
mass appeal, it displaces all other logic. Terms such as "upgrade,
market-force, nation building, multi-racial policy, development"
all acquire an inexorable logo logic as they are echoed and amplified
by media. It will appear that unless there is a counter-veiling rediscovery
of language, any critical discourse cannot even begin. The domination
of language is, after all, the domi-nation of thought itself. Success
invests the domi-nant language with such powerful success symbols that
any attempt to refresh language must seem peevish and un-worthy - even
disruptive.
Unless intellectuals insist that intellectual space is not equitable to
politics and therefore to power seeking, no widening of the intellectual
space will come about. My view is that the enlargement of intel-lectual
space is both the duty of intellectuals and professionals and there is
a price to pay. Unless, in the case of profes-sionals, they insist that
professional space extends beyond the boundaries of technical concerns
and that professional judgement includes value implications embodied within
professional ethics, professionals accept to be reduced to mere mercenary
operatives and technicians.
I am concerned that there is very little architectural criticism. This
illustrates the problem of centralism and dominance. Government architects
undertake at least 7 times the volume of work compared with the private
sector. This is one reason why there is no expressed critical opinion
on public housing, school designs, sports complexes and other public buildings.
Until there is a diversification of design agencies engaged in such projects,
it is not surprising that the centralised agencies undertaking public
projects are not thrilled by alternative views.
|