Braema Mathiaparanam
I would like to first try and define graciousness, even though it is not so easy to find clear definitions. Interestingly, the concept of graciousness has also undergone some metamorphosis. According to the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary, the Middle English concept of graciousness in the 14th century was akin to “godliness” in an era of feudalism and Christian influence. Embodied in that concept was also a notion “to please”, coming from a place of obedience to God and to Lords. Today graciousness has evolved to connote kindness, courtesy, charm, good taste, generosity of spirit, tact and actions that denote being merciful and compassionate. Other Web searches on graciousness also reveal similar concepts. As such, there is a refrain to the concept with characteristics that signify warmth, courtesy compassion and charm.
Nevertheless it is not enough to say that each of these attributes can be applied or understood without further discussion to identify the tenets of each characteristic. For example, what does being charming mean amongst the diverse cultures in one country? To the Chinese, it is charming to make slurping noises when drinking soup but to many English it is unbecoming behaviour. It is uncouth if you eat noisily in an English home and equally unbecoming if you eat quietly in a Chinese home. As such, it is important to realise that each attribute of graciousness has its own field of meaning and a cultural context in which it operates.
For the purpose of this essay, I will limit the concept of graciousness to compassion and courteous behaviour, operating in a context of universal values of being caring and thoughtful towards each other.
In Singapore’s early history of colonisation and the heady post-independent days, there were community care services initiated by people to help those who were less fortunate. Some of these initiatives include the setting up of what is now known as the Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations, the Asian Welfare Women’s Association and the Singapore Cheshire Home. In addition, there are many visible legacies today of individual acts of kindness and justice — Chinese adult women in their 60s today who had been cared for by Malay and Indian families when they were put up for adoption. Clan associations — the precursor of the present self-help groups — were also formed with the primary purpose of pooling money and resources. Places of worship were built and traditional rituals were also performed as communities came together to make them happen. We also saw philanthropy through the generosity of patriarchs such as Mr Tan Tock Seng, Mr Tan Kah Kee and Mr Lee Seng Gee, who set up foundations or built institutions for the poor.
In terms of charm and courtesy, there was an openness that has been described as having the gotong royong and kongsi. Both words — the former a Malay word and the latter a Hokkien word — mean community spiritedness of shared responsibilities. In fact some examples are documented in the work of National University of Singapore lecturer
Dr Brenda Yeoh whose thesis is a report on how the early migrant communities worked to share their space (beds, even) and meals and also stood up against any intrusion by the colonial masters who at one point wanted to claim the pavement space — which was used as sleeping quarters — to widen the road.
As we went into the nation-building phase, with the ruling party taking over much of the decision-making and implementation for the betterment of the people of Singapore, it is my view that much of this early community-spiritedness gave way to an economic pragmatism. This meant that most people were focused on singular economic pursuits, like access to shelter, clean water, food, good schools, the best tertiary education. As the government asserted its role as an inclusive provider for all who needed help, it became easier to step back from being responsible for the community. It became easier to pass on the role of minding society to the government with the people feeling less empowered to engage in the process as the government took on a domineering role.
It was also easier to become more comfortable with giving money and time to help out at agencies that provided direct services. This meant that it was easier to be an armchair giver through donations while watching television, than to get engaged in upstream measures such as picking up on more advocacy-related causes. This emphasis on direct services, in my view, highlights how the graciousness concept of being compassionate and kind, seems to fall short of recognising that dignity is also equally important. In fact, in working harder to ask for permanent solutions to improve the condition of people and with a view to empowering them, it means that we are being gracious to ask that the imbalance be resolved with access to opportunities rather than through welfare.
One example of how welfare has reigned over advocacy is the case of people with disabilities. They still have limited access to facilities as, even after 44 years of nationhood, not all of our public transport can accommodate those in wheelchairs. The few advocates are seen as disruptive whilst those who provide services for the community are seen as being compassionate. But community service organisations (CSOs) that advocate empowerment and independence of the disabled person are playing a role in building up a gracious society as they are asking for upstream solutions without compromising the dignity of the disabled person.
Even organisations that work towards enhancing the well-being of people are often seen as charities and voluntary welfare organisations (VWO). Some began as citizen initiatives and remain entrenched in providing direct services, stepping back from upstream measures that are often advocacy-oriented. It is also equally important to assess how we serve one another. If we are truly a gracious people, how we serve one another must come from a place of observing and preserving the dignity of other individuals in society. If we refer to the people whom we serve as beneficiaries, it also begs the question of how we perceive them. Where is the graciousness when such terminology implies an inequality between those who provide and those who receive?
If we were to look at the private sector, there is a disconnect in how companies respond to observing corporate social responsibility (CSR). It has come to mean big donations for charitable causes, which is all good. But CSR is also about a code of conduct which includes how personnel treat each other within a company, for example: how colleagues are treated and whether they have rights to flexible work arrangements and fair trade practices. If a company treats differently a woman who is pregnant or a woman wearing a headscarf, that company is discriminating and cannot be CSR-oriented. CSR is about dignity and being gracious. CSR is an attribute of being gracious, being mindful of people, being compassionate. It has also to be internalised within the company and become part of employment guidelines.
The government too plays a role in this discussion of graciousness as it sends signals to the population on what ought to be done through its campaigns and its appointed persons of goodwill who champion causes, But sometimes, government leaders and spokesmen also dabble in doublespeak. Since 2004, when the Prime Minister gave his speech at the Harvard Club about working towards a more open society, the government has sent out a series of mixed signals on how open one can be. One important aspect of an open society is to engage in dialogue, a two-way process that gives equal respect to both parties, even if both were to disagree on the common points. Have we reached this level of maturity and graciousness where we can sit across a table and have differing points of views on a common subject matter and know how to part from the table without feeling that there is a traitor in the room just because the views are different?
It may be a bit odd to talk about graciousness from such a perspective of dealing with diverse views. But what is graciousness? It is courtesy. It is giving respect to diverse views and learning to deal with the diversity. Recently, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a gracious comment on opposition parties attracting better educated people. This was a gracious comment as it showed that we can deal with such a spread of well-qualified people across political parties. It is good for the whole of Singapore as it embraces openness and a graciousness to let the competition sort itself out through the ballot box. This, hopefully, marks the beginning of a process to deal with electioneering and candidates from the various political parties without compromising on being gracious even when the stakes are high.
We can no longer run the risk of having episodic graciousness movements or campaigns. We need instead to promote a process that instils values, minimises doublespeak and leads by example. Campaigns are also difficult to measure. How effective have our campaigns been if people still litter when no one is watching or if cyclists and motorists squabble over use of road space? Some less-than-charming habits include: letting a door slam into a person’s face instead of holding it open for him or her, not signalling while driving, reserving seats at public eating places like hawker centres,
and asking for the cheapest prices without a care for the cultural handiwork of the people or fair trade practices. It ought to embarrass us that our forefathers may have had better graciousness in knowing how to give space, respect and dignity to various users in that common space.
HOW TO EMBRACE GRACIOUSNESS
So how do we really embrace the notions of graciousness from the definition that I have worked on — being compassionate and courteous?
Firstly, it has to come from a place of instilling values. I went to Canossian Convent Primary School. What I have taken away from Canossian Convent are the constant lessons in ethics where morals were taught through down-to-earth examples, like how not to let a door slam into another person’s face. At home, values were also reinforced and there was little room for a disconnect. If we really want to start shifting gears and work towards becoming more gracious, we have to embrace the indicators that show us to be gracious and get that value system across to our children in as consistent a manner as possible.
Secondly, topics that provoke thinking and critical analysis need to be introduced from a young age into the school for children so that they can deal with diverse views. It cannot all be held back till the General Paper stage or only introduced into certain schools. I would also say that Literature should be re-introduced to all classes as a non-examinable subject. Literature deals with multiculturalism. It deals with people, passions, emotions, discouragement: the whole gamut of experiences a human being goes through. It is an important humanities subject that gives us our humanity. It also gives teachers many opportunities to deal with a diversity of views as well as value systems within societies.
Thirdly, I do believe that laws are important. Laws give a signal to society as to what we value most. That the Compulsory Education Act still does not include children with disabilities signals, as a nation, our lack of graciousness — we do not believe that these children are important enough. We are also saying that such children deserve our goodwill, but not their place as equals in our society. When the right laws are introduced to preserve and protect the dignity of all members of a society, it is a signal of the proper value system. A country with anti-discrimination laws recognises human failings and strives to put things right for others who have been victimised.
Fourthly, we also need to distinguish between living graciously and gracious living. Currently there is much marketing of gracious living — waterfront living, elegant homes, beautiful parks, underground pools, etc. But we also need to work towards living graciously in gracious-living surroundings. But they cannot be replacements for each other as these are two different concepts. One can spit in the pool in gracious surroundings but living there with care and dignity for the others, means blowing the whistle on such recalcitrant behaviour. When we can have both, Singapore would have truly arrived.
Lastly, the narrative on graciousness needs dedication and consistency. From time to time, it is resurrected in various campaigns. I would like to suggest not a campaign but, perhaps with the help of the media and other stakeholders in our society, to run a remedial effort to instil one good habit per year. For example, we could try to change one micro social bad habit, such as not holding open the door for the person behind. In five years, we would have attempted changing five bad social habits. I know it can be controlling but steering is always hard work.
I would like to end with a quote from Martin Luther King which speaks of the essence of graciousness. “Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart, full of grace, and a soul generated by love for the other person.”
© Copyright 2012 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved. You are welcome to reproduce this material for non-commercial purposes and please ensure you cite the source when doing so.