Classical Music—huh?

Had an interesting chat with my student the other day. He found it difficult to appreciate classical music. I pointed out that actually we all naturally respond to classical music intuitively, even if we don't realise it.

"Huh?"

Just observe yourself the next time you watch a movie like Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars. In fact, any movie which uses an orchestra for the soundtrack. Then try watching it with the sound switched off. You will get what I mean.

Movie soundtracks are written in pretty much the same medium, or language, as any standard classical music. The only difference is, for a soundtrack, the emotional context is provided for you visually in the movie. The music reinforces the thoughts and emotions going through your mind and heart as you watch the movie. When the cognition and affection match the music, magic happens.

Appreciation of classical music requires the same process, except for a catch: you have to provide your own cognitive and emotional context. In short, your own "movie". This is where an active participation is demanded of the listener. The listener must assimilate the music which is being played, and then match it to the experiences and the emotional bank of a person. When a match occurs, the listener is 'moved'. When the two 'click' together, it becomes beautiful

The problem is most people cannot perform this matching, which is why classical music is foreign and inaccessible to them. Appreciation of classical music demands quite a bit from the listener as he has to first, "learn up" the music, and then find and match it to his prior knowledge, or schemata. Of course, a regular listener would already have a shortcut to this schemata and can quickly match music with schemata.

And this also accounts for why some people are so quickly turned off by music which does not "appeal" to them. Essentially, what is happening is the new music does not match the existing schemata and will be rejected, unless the listener is willing to reconstruct a new link surrounding the new music. This is the process of what we frequently refer to as "acquiring the taste" for something new.

Social Norm or Market Norm?

I used a recent "letter to the editor" in a lesson last week as I believe in using authentic materials. I thought it a was pretty straightforward issue and did not expect much controversy. However, my eyes were opened when my student skilfully argued against the writer's position, which was initially mine.

The writer had written to complain about a group of students from a well known school who had gone into a MacDonald's restaurant, made a mess, and left without cleaning up after themselves. It appeared obvious to me, initially, that this was bad form, unacceptable and inconsiderate behaviour. But when I showed it to my Korean student from Australia International School, he said he disagreed with the writer because he felt that there are people paid to do the job. He also argued that the bins are not conveniently located and not meant for patrons. He continued to argue that it was unreasonable to expect patrons of MacD to clear up when they are already paying a premium which had factored in the cost of workers clearing up. Underpinning his line of argument was: Would helping them save cost on hiring cleaners bring down the cost of eating in MacD? Or will it only push up their profit margin? In contrast, hawker centres, which charge a lot less, have full time cleaners to clear tables, and no one is expected to clear up after themselves after their meals.

When I showed the same article to another of my students, an English boy from Tanglin Trust, I got a very different answer. He said that he was taught to always clean up after eating. Back in the UK, he added, MacDonalds do not have cleaners to clear up. He felt it was the 'morally correct' thing to do and we should be considerate and think of the people using the facilities after us. And while it is true there are people paid to clean up after us, out of respect for the working class, we should help them along a little by chucking the trash into the bin, so that they only have to wipe the tables.

I finally showed the same article to a third student, a girl from China but grew up in Singapore and now studying in Raffles Girls School. She too said she was taught the 'proper' behaviour was to clear up after yourself, and it was what they had to do in both RGS and her previous neighbourhood school. She emphasised that this is not a view shared by people back in China though, where they will just leave their trash on the table after eating.

I found it fascinating that Dan Ariely's principle of the Social vs Market Norm is actually in play here without me realising it. Those who argued that the students who did not clear up were perfectly in the right actually saw the issue from the market norm point of view. Clearing up or not, is an economic transaction. I am the patron and I paid for services. I am here to enjoy myself, not do cleaning up work for the restaurant and help them make more money (especially since they are already making so much off us as it is).

However, those who argued for people to be considerate, actually see the issue from a social point of view. They viewed the cause and effect to the social balance, where people should show consideration for other patrons in the restaurant, to be considerate to the workers so that they are not unnecessarily burdened with more work, etc.

Which viewpoint is valid? This appears to be the crucial question that we must answer. This is even more crucial for Singapore, since we started off from the Social Norms during Independence, and subsequently turned into a 'materialistic' market driven society. The call for a Civil Society seems to be an attempt to revert back to the social norm. However, if Dan Ariely's conclusions are correct, a situation that has progressed from social norms to market norms cannot easily go back to a social norm.


As Shakespeare, in Macbeth [iii. ii. 12] put it: "Things without all remedy Should be without regard. What's done is done. Ibid. v. i. 65 What's done cannot be undone."

Oops!

Talk Money, Lo$e Relation$hip

I have my buddy, Alwyn, to thank for introducing Dan Ariely's excellent "Predictably Irrational." This must surely be the best read I've had in a long time. I particularly like his experiments which empirically confirms what many of us may have already known since we-don't-know-when.

The experiment which I particularly liked is the one making a distinction between what is Social Norm Driven and Market Norm Driven situation. To us Chinese this is certainly not something new, as most of us have been taught from young that if we Talk Money, we lose Relationships (Kong Chin Sat Kum Cheng!) The Chinese, at least, have long since recognised that in certain situations it is not good to mix money with relationships. And this coming from the only group of people I know with an official God of Money in their religion. Not bad!

The problem arises when we try to make the transition from one norm to the other. I experienced this when I was serving in church. All that a pastor does is lauded as saintly for the self sacrifices he made for practically nothing. The moment he asks for a little bit more, he would be met with greater consternation than Dicken's Oliver Twist when he asked for a second helping. I would not be surprised that if any study is done it would show that the problems faced by many churches with their pastors, at least in Malaysia, occur when they try to navigate that tricky area between the social and market norm.

Conversely, my personal observation here in Singapore is that the situation has swung to the opposite end, and many modern churches are now driven by market norms rather than social norms. Pastors are professionals and demand that appointments are made before you can see them. Visitations are scheduled rigidly, and you would be very lucky, or a VIP (Very Important Parishioner), if the pastor is there with your family if a family member is dying. (He will turn up to conduct the funeral because that can be scheduled, but don't expect him to jump out of his bed to come to the hospital. However, he can recommend a good funeral director to come over.)

The Senior Pastor is the CEO and his tenure with the church is contractual rather than relational, unlike in the past, where the relationship between a church and its pastor had been described by some as "almost like a marriage" [citation needed, as I'd chucked away the books that I read which dealt with this issue.] I guess marriages that comes with pre-nuptials are not very different.

I find a similar phenomenon in what is commonly dubbed "Chinamen's Companies" where employees who show undying loyalty to their bosses, are often the most valued, and yet paid pittance. And sometimes this can happen despite the the employee being thoroughly incompetent. It becomes very Christian because some how "love covers all things." This is the Social Norm in operation. In contrast, an efficient worker who works the hours are deemed a threat because it goes against the social contract that has been laid out.