First of all, I'm not against student societies' shouting slogans or "cheering" if it benefits people. At this point, however, I don't see how this slogan shouting benefits anyone but, perhaps, the people shouting. I don't know why people shout slogans. The shouting is also very exclusive. It doesn't seem as if anyone but the costumed student society is shouting with them, and it doesn't appear as if the costumed student society invites others to shout with them. Student society members shout to draw attention to how strange and obscure they are.
To dive more deeply into the assumptions, values and beliefs underlying this curious practice, I don't even think student societies need to raise awareness not least because they are virtually guaranteed election. I see one-party elections in student societies. I do not know if members even have an opportunity to vote against the society. In other words, if a member votes, the member cannot vote against the party even if there isn't an opposing party. That would not be fair. This whole system may be rigged. If this is the case, I am all the more against "cheering."
The student societies must explain why cheering is the only way to accomplish an objective. First they have to identify an objective and then explain why cheering is the only way to achieve that objective.
I drew the above for a student at Lingnan University. I was explaining how such an obscure practice as student society elections could emerge. In sum, obscure student society elections replete with slogan shouting and strange signs are a product of a particularly narrow stratum in Hong Kong. Think Lord of the Flies. Students who attended sports days and prominent tutorial schools, both of which heavily influence this curious student society election phenomenon, matriculate. They do not receive systematic or mandatory mentoring, guidance or support from their university, that is, the adults and outsiders. In essence, the students are left to their own devices on islands. They may talk to students on islands from other universities. They influence each other in developing their own fantasy worlds.
In this fantasy world, there are no outsiders. No staff. No foreign students. After all, the fantasy world was developed from a very narrow experience of prominent tutorial schools and sports days. Anyone without this experience wouldn't be able to understand this obscure practice. In fact, most people in Hong Kong, I believe, would not be able to make sense of this obscure, student society election practice since most Hong Kong people have never attended prominent tutorial schools and studied at university in Hong Kong.
I contrasted the organizational leadership models for these student societies with organizational leadership models of corporations and mainstream schools. Mainstream schools, even in Hong Kong, and corporations generally have outside directors who may bring coherence and balance to organizational directions. In contrast, these student societies are led only by the most inside of inside directors. The result is myopic, narrow, obscure practice. This is student folly in their fantasy world.
I apologized to my students on behalf of the university staff for the lack of pastoral care and mentorship for these students at the university-level. I sense an orphan spirit in these students.
To conclude, what remains is practice that makes sense only to a few. Although the practices do not have to be this way (There doesn't have to be a student union; there doesn't have to be a constitution; there doesn't have to be student societies associated with the union; there doesn't have to be elections; there doesn't have to be obscure signs, dress and slogans), the practice is virtually the same in all universities in Hong Kong!


0 comments:
Post a Comment