July 2007 - Millennium Watch

Millennium Watch

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Vimu Subscription

Millennium Watch - July 2007

Is the Moral Fibre of Modern Society in Decay?

July 18th 2007 03:51

Given the moral fibre of a society is embodied or personified in its citizens—for societies don’t commit evil or immoral acts people do—the question should be: are citizens of modern society, their habits and customs, in a state of moral decay?
Ok, so what does it mean to be a good citizen? The ancient philosopher Aristotle (384-322BC), arguably one of the greatest Western thinkers, pondered this very same question. He concluded that it’s all about good habit, like virtue and the pursuit of excellence, for example. A good citizen is made, not born. Moreover, it is the responsibility of legislators to ensure citizens are trained in the art of being good. Moral decay equates to a defective Constitution. Granted, modern society is a far more complex place than in Aristotle’s day, yet the basic premise is still relevant: if the morality within a society is declining, then legislation, like a healing salve, can be applied to fix it.

Yet, surely we are living in an over-regulated society already, a mind-boggling maze of criminal and civil law. While this may be true, the unfortunate facts are the streets are getting more violent with each passing day and our gaols are at capacity level. Modern society needs regulating more than ever. Our political system of acts and decrees, the justice system, police, and prisons, all barely able to contain and at times are implicated in, the seething undercurrent of corruption, extortion, and drugs flowing beneath our society. Where then, did it all go wrong? More importantly, can it be fixed

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Shared on

Millennium Watch

Pete Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Pete - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Cultural Patronage in Australia and Historical Precedents Series (Final)

July 5th 2007 01:04

By 1979, the funding crisis and continued scrutiny forced the Australia Council to adopt a transparent policy towards the allocation of funding grants. In its Report of the same year, the Council stipulated those small organisations applying for grants must ‘provide financial and artistic details of the whole program’ (Rowse 1988, p23), and went on to add any financial support and expected audience participation must also be declared. Large organisations on the other hand, had their methods mostly taken for granted, due to already established and accepted practices. Rowse adds that this seemingly one-sided policy of the second phase of patronage, was in fact an effort to show that ‘critical interest’ is applied in funding with equity (Rowse 1988, p24).

The third and current phase of government patronage to the arts has been termed by Rowse as ‘decentralised’, three Boards within the Council: Community Arts, Crafts, and Aboriginal Arts being initial participants. ‘Decentralised’ meaning instead of funding criteria assessed solely by Council, a third party must endorse the applicant based on responsiveness to community interest. It also has the added benefit of ‘a more pluralistic conception of cultures’ within Australian society ((Rowse 1988, p26). It is in fact multiculturalism and cultural equity that are the impetus behind Council’s interaction in 1975 with the trade union movement: ‘The Art and Working Life policy’, developed directly from the Community Arts program. This radical new approach on a micro level sought to develop cultural traditions within the trade union movement. On a macro level, the government hoped to alleviate the problem of access and equity in art within Australian multiculturalism, by utilising (a) the national-demographic of the union movement (b) the cultural diversity of the workplace. Again the object and instrument regime at work within government cultural policy: the union movement being an object of intense ‘gaze’, policies already in-effect / The AC now an effective power-distributing instrument, ‘bringing about the cultural lifting of the subordinate classes’.
In conclusion, this essay will briefly examine contemporary government practice in an effort to define the results of historical cultural patronage—the object and instrument regime-shaping policy. The growth in arts funding that lead to the first cultural policy, those three phases of patronage, is the expected cultural evolution of a young nation. Citizens need to keep abreast of current policy and future direction

Millennium Watch - July 2007

Is the Moral Fibre of Modern Society in Decay?

Cultural Patronage in Australia and Historical Precedents Series (Final)

Pete's Blogs