From A Colorless Today to A Colorful Tomorrow!!!

Sometimes growing up is tiring, not only because of the strangeness in status and stature changing, not because of the continuum boredom in the days and time ensuing but the very tiredness is in an endless waiting for an uncertainty called future.  Every growing mind subconsciously or consciously expects a colorful future, fantasizes a wonderful day where its present situation would be drastically aright and imagines a morning where there will be a noticeable different between yesterday and today. Such expectations, fantasies and imaginations don’t always come to reality, and if they come at all, they come in disappointment. What is very sure is that, as long as the OWNER of time still let it count, Tomorrow will never stop coming and the natural colorless of everyday will be waiting to characterize it. I guess our mind has been created so tuneful to continuously sing us interesting fantasies even when it seems too miraculous to realize. It is a universal maxim that what pull us ahead are our hopes. 

REVENGE WILL ONLY MAKE YOU WORST

Back in the days when I was too young to be called a man and too old to be called a boy, when I can’t reason like either a man or a boy. Then, I have a very eccentric reasoning style which is mostly in conflict with my environmental, social and parental standards. Sociological theorists believe I was an adolescent, because environment, society and parent affect every adolescent’s thinking and behaviors. As an adolescent I do not have a full mind of my own, and even if I do, I would always want to contort it to suit the expectations of those three mentioned guidance. I learnt from psychologist that adolescence is a developmental stage, a transformational junction and a critical point in everyone’s life, because things that happen across this moment could eventually affect the whole rest of one’s life. I can’t argue that, because I myself can testify that most of the things I learn back then are still vividly sinuous in my memory. Part of the parental guidance I enjoyed reshaped my reasoning on “revenge”. I can still remember my father always told me whenever he sees me planning or showing a revenge reaction to an unacceptable action previously done to me by contemporaries. He would teach and caution me by saying; Oh you! Don’t let revenging bad actions teach you the bad you don’t actually have in you, because revenge would end up making you bad or even worst. He will fondly emphasize that there are so many bad people with bad minds living this life with us, and whenever you come across them, learn to avoid them and never to revenge their purposeful bad deeds if you don’t want to end up like them. Now that I have a mind of my own, what I can meaningfully infer from my adolescence lesson is that; bad actions and bad reactions are both bad deeds and it takes a bad mind to actualize either of the two. 

WAY TO SUCCESS

الطريق إلي النجاة  وعرٌ  فيه  زيـــغٌ  يقال بالرسوب ونجد يقال بالشك وهوته  الرفقاء , وموقفه الأعداء, ومتقاه الأنصاب , تكون الحرفة  مفلسة عجلته, ولكن إن كان لك لها عوضٌ تقال بالهمة, ومكينةٌ  تقال بالإحتمال, والوقاية هي الإيمان, و السائك هو الله "إذن"  بكل الإبقان  والإ طمئنان تصل إلى أرض تقال بالنجاة.!

WAY TO SUCCESS

The way to success is not straight. There is a curve called failure, a loop called confusion, a speed bombs called friends, red lights called enemies, caution light called families, you will have flat called jobs; but if you have spare called determination, an engine called perseverance, and an insurance called faith and a driver called Allah you will make it to a place called success.

Media and Islamic Representation

Cultural representation is a theoretical credence to the socially constructed identity of any object, while language and media is in many occasions the tool of that construction. Some analyst have noted that the terrorist attack of the September 11, 2001 spark the viral conception of “Islamphobia”, “Islamic Terrorism”, and “Muslim Fanatics” (Akbarzadeh and Smith, 2005) while others believe that it has been a western historical orientation, where Muslims are constructed and represented by the essentialist as other, immature, and backward ethics. The later and the former are unanimous. Deductively, the media has successfully represented Islam and the Muslims to the world as fanatics, fundamentalist, terrorist, and orthodox (Dunn, 2001). Cultural theorists believe that there is a strong nexus between the development of society, culture and the media, hence media is an influential tool that enliven social construction of identity; cultural representation. Interpretatively, what people do, affect what media say, and vice versa. Precisely, Hall (1997) regards media as a representational system with a potential capability of constructing and transmitting cultural identity.  Essentially with these theoretical postulations it is rightful to deduct that Medias are societal mirror that project a particular societal/cultural representation of a particular object.  According to Hall (1997), media applicably present and represent societal cultures, and the interpretation of media (TV programmes, Photograph, Entertainment and Music) is a cultural function that is bound to be unitary and unanimous.  Corroboratively with the Hall (1997) anthropological promulgation of language as a media and that media function through and for representation of human culture. Consistently, Mokhlis (2006) positively maintain that religion is an inseparable part of human culture that inherently affect their lifestyle and use of information. Apparently, religion is affectively capable of monitoring human emotional, cognitive and psychological transactions, depending on their level of affection and commitments.

Individual perception and believe are characterized by several demographic factors, such as educational background, social and cultural environments (Akbarzadeh and Smith, 2005).  Meanwhile, Poole, (2002) behold that media is an influential and powerful institution that opine the construction and implementation of cultural knowledge. Additionally, media itself contribute meaningfully to the societal source of information and knowledge, and its reportage (media content) relay on the vulnerable editorial decisions, which can indulge the framing of media content and sometimes availing the media content for an unconventional usage. A very good example of such manipulation is the account of the presently prevailing world media stereotyping of Islam and Muslims (Akbarzadeh and Smith, 2005).

To some extent, theorists believe that the conventional function of media surpass religious affiliations but still, the daily output of the entire media today, can be conspicuously associated to religiosity, thus it is arguable that religion and media are functionally connected. In fact, it is historically believed that Media was initially spawned purposefully for religious usage (Soukup, 2002). The “media output” as according to Soukup, is what the essays of (Hoijer, 2011; and Sanson, et al. 2000) referred as the intrinsic nature of media responsibility to actively compose, construct, shape, present and educate the societal perception of the world. Although, this societal or cultural perception construction by media can psychologically educate the society to allow or reject, like or dislike and can as well negatively or positively tag an object. As the world media has successfully stigmatized or rather represent Islam and Muslim with terrorism and extremism (Dunn, 2001), Akbarzadeh and Smith (2005) sense that media is capable of placing a prohibiting pressures and societal or cultural rejection on minority groups. The masterpiece of communication theory by Griffin (2012), reviewed the cultural studies of Stuart Hall, where he was accord the most influential figure in cultural and representation studies till date. The review highlighted most of the theoretical stands of Hall, such as the; corporate control of mass communication; making meaning through discourse; post 9/11 media coverage: the chill of constraint, most of which illuminate that “media has an influence and responsibility on societal culture and perception” and that influence could be true or false, and holds positive or negative effect. Griffin can be quoted as follow;

“…Hall and Scholars who follow his lead wish to place the academic spotlight directly on the ways media representations of culture reproduce social inequalities and keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world…” (Griffin 2012, p. 347)

Evidently, researchers from different disciplines (communication, philosophy, psychology and sociologist) have always been interested to theoretically and academically resolve the chaotic relationship between media and religion (Soukup, 2002). So far, a multidisciplinary and documentary literatures have recorded several findings on the issue of media and religion, including and most especially representation theorems. Sanson et al. (2000) advocate the relevancy of media researches, since the alarming and worrisome role of media in the societal public sphere continue to escalate. 

More particularly to the academic realm of which this project research propose to sail through, there have been quite a number of formative efforts by researchers (Susskind,2002; Akbarzadeh and Smith, 2005; Yenigun, 2004) that have examined the media representation of Islam and Muslims both before and after the 9/11 attack, and most of these studies have been done objectively to examine the Australian, European, and the United States media, hence; states where Muslims and Islam are minorities, immigrates or alien to their societal culture.

Yenigun (2004) in his study essentially examined the response of the American Muslim to the provenance terrorism stigmatization in the American Media amid his quest to compare the colonial and the postcolonial representation of Islam in the western media. The study of Yenigun found that American Muslims are reactive and responsive to the popular media discourse of Islam, but their response being a minority could not override the dominant discourse. The findings of Yenigun coincide with the critics of Griffin (2012) while reviewing the “corporate control of mass communication” by Stuart Hall, that the ownership and corporate control influence media reportage of events and resultantly “media representations”.

"Pain" is an experience that unites both the rich and the poor ! because "Happiness" is a subjective commodity that money is not always enough and not often the only needed fee to buy it !! Life is just about being sure of your own subjective needs and wants, because only when you are sure of it, only then you can discover a shrewd way of actualizing it. Sometimes if we decide to join the over-celebrated-stream for money and luxuriousness we might at the end realize it just a wasted effort if it could not earn us the eternal happiness that every human being struggle for, after wish we have over-zealously misuse our health, amorally offend our conscience, and sometimes illegally become the stain to our family and country names. it is categorically wrong to say being "rich" means being successful. likewise saying having the most high degree on earth make you the highest achiever. but we can hardly argue the fact that achieving any type and kind of our target is a success. if that's correct why don't we think of aiming something meaningful, something satisfactory, something righteous and something that would make us be prideful. If you can only reflect and flash back, there have been some predecessors to your dirty and pride-less way, they have also see pride in a ramshackle way of gathering money. i only want you to reflectively ask yourself can you refer them as successful?.. that's if they can still be referred as rich.. so then why would you think giving your ever-living name and history to a worthless course ?

i wonder how and where superstitions are generated, it's really funny the way people believe those anecdotal facts. for instance if an absentee is a subject matter of a discussion and S/He suddenly appears, the western says "it speak of the devil", in my culture they believe it ascertained S/He is not a bastard while a malaysian told me to them it means S/He will live long.... (^^^) :P

WHO ARE YOU ?

I am always baffled and sometimes entirely lost whenever I try to comprehend some thoughtful quotes about “knowing oneself”. It makes me wonder again and again what is it I have to know in myself or about myself, I often curiously ask myself is it my characters, my attitude, my behavior, or my destiny?, What are the actual differences within them? Which of these do I actually design myself? These questions always lead me to more other questions than answers. I doubt it, if those metaphysical features that make up my personality are the reasons why some people hate and why some like me, and why I hate some people and why I like some people. I guess they are not, because these features are too abstract and the fact that there is no correct perceptive skills or a universal systematic measurement to comprehend or measure such abstract properties. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to believe people’s judgments on my personality or for anyone to believe my judgment on their personality, because everyone is actually seeing through a self-constructed paradigm/lens. And you know what a lens sees is determined by how it is twisted (I know that because I use to have a DSLR camera). Consistently, Jamaica Kincaid wrote in “Autobiography of my Mother” and I quote; …who you are is a mystery that nobody can answer not even you… So why should I make myself a victim of other people’s opinion, their opinion is created by them and for them, it is never for me.    

I’m Intelligent, I’m Beautiful and that’s why I SMILE

Psychologists and philosophers unanimously believe humans are the simplest but sensitive social animals, thus primitively known to be sensitive of their mental and physical qualifications. From a psychological standpoint, that is why all our endeavors directly or indirectly relay our mental capabilities and mirrors our physical appearance. Possibly, not all intelligent people are beautiful, but arguably intelligent people are beautiful when they smile and beautiful people are intelligent people when they smile too. That is to prove the fact that SMILE beautifies you, even if you are not originally. Additionally, science has proved that the more you smile the more positive reactions others will give you. Invariably, positive reactions signify your intelligence. Now the reasons why intelligent and beautiful people smile “it’s not rocket science” -and if it is- I can tell you it is because they don’t want to show people that they are ugly or unintelligent. Am sure you will want people to see you that way too, if so you can start making SMILE your daily outfit!!! Apart from the fact that smiling is one of the easiest and healthiest thing to do, – even tight-lipped stretched horizontally is a smile- believe me on this; He Who Laughs Lasts!!!...

I may not know what it is, but it’s not CULTUR...

Advertising and Public Relations: Imay not know what it is, but it’s not  

CULTUR...: I may not know what it is, but it’s not     CULTURE and not RELIGION!!! The philosophical method of reasoning and thinking could be ...

I may not know what it is, but it’s not    

CULTURE and not RELIGION!!!

The philosophical method of reasoning and thinking could be interesting, convincing and confusing. It is interesting because of the way philosophers define human reasoning, they behold that humanly believe and credence must be a result of “reasonable” justifications and rationalizations. Conceptually, the sensibility and reasonability of any concept is pertinent to some subjective peculiarity. To them, there are some arbitrary or primitive characteristics of human nature and culture that inform what is reasonable and what is sensible.

It is convincing, as according to postmodernism theorists, they are of the opinion that there is no single approach to any definition, believe or truth. Human beings believe anything that appeal or harmonize to their historic, cultural, social and religious standpoints and sometimes anything that conform to their demographic features. For instance, it might be so difficult to justify washing the private part after urinating to a Non-Muslim, reasonably because s/he does not have an Islamic background or does not subscribe to the Islamic rationality. So philosophically human being can only believe what is related to their culture.

And it is confusing because philosophers do not have a unanimous way to define culture, but most often, they opine that culture is an identical way of living that historically link or connect a group of people, while religion is categorized as an element of culture and often described as a way of life. Which interpretatively means culture is the mother of everyone’s idiosyncratic and peculiar way of life. Therefore, our religion, society, norms and language are facets or derivatives or our culture which is supposedly said to be the connection between us, just like language can also be. Ostensibly, the connection between culture and religion does not need arguing because of the way they can perfectly intertwine. Sometimes it can be difficult to exemplify by separating some features of culture from religion.

But still, I insist that even with the ostensible and philosophically proved connection between religion and culture, they may not be the correct way of human life or the apt guidance of human behavior. It is unfortunate that I may not have theoretical back up to support why, but because philosophically, everyone’s believe should base on his/her rationality, I can enjoy that notion to question some of the sarcastic stance that may not conform with the justification of culture being an element of religion or culture and religion being the systematic guide to everyone’s behavior (way of life). At least if culture is not an institutionalized concept like religion, religion-the element of culture- is an institutionalized concept with unique and distinctive jurisprudence, teachings and virtues peculiar to the type of the religion (such as; Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on). All universal cultures and religions guide their flowers differently as according to the grounding spiritual ideology of that religion or the historic progression of the culture. But in actuality, human beings have succeeded in contorting the good will of these religion and culture to their own convenience, and that is why religion has now become a dreaded word, and often avoided in peaceful settings. Consistently, the fact that two different people may have the same cultural background, they are supposed to behave identically but it possible they don’t and the fact that A and B are followers of the same religion doesn't mean they behave the same way. I strongly believe every individual singly define his/her way of life that can be different from the postulations of religion and culture. On this, I can’t say philosophers are wrong with their definition of culture and religion, but I believe they should be a refurbishment to their definition. Especially if considering the conceptual flaws that the definition of religion being human way of life has caused to this present world. Because the real interpretation of the aforesaid definition is that genocide is a real teachings of Christianity, or there is a chapter in the Islamic holy book that actually condole insurgence and terrorism, or as if slaughtering of humans is the true Buddhism. And if this philosophical view is not refurbish, it will only continue to give room for stereotyping of other peoples’ cultures and religions, racism will continue to grow viral, discrimination and ethnocentrism will eternally prevail and religious bigotry will forever govern the world’s commentary on some people selfish cruelty and violence. Convincingly, as according to the postmodernism way of thinking, what I personally believe is that most human culture and religion often denounce harming, forbid killing of innocents, refute cheating, condemn stealing and so on, and not always guide anyone to the devilish and satanic behaviors that are universally rampant among people of distinct cultures and religion nowadays. - Raji Ridwan Adetunji (2013). 

IT’S ALL OUR FAULT

Yes I mean it, it is our fault! We the dwellers of the digital century; the owners of the global village; the occupants of the post-modern world (in a social science parlance) are to be blamed. You should all sincerely agree with me that our societies are identically doomed. Both the young and the old among us now difficultly struggle to overcome numerous societal threats that are actually our handiwork  It is almost impossible to cite a living society of nowadays that is not presently witnessing an economic chaos, civilian riots, religious bigotry and prejudice, ethnic or racial oppression  governmental flaws and dubiousness, or intentional massacres of innocents, that is to name few among other severity maiming our societal development.  Surprisingly, looking back to the annals of history among all centuries lived by human, we are actually the most highly equipped with all the developmental and constructive tools ever available to human existence, for instance; our technological innovations is at the pace of light movement, philosophical theories never stop thrusting to perfect our social interactions, knowledge is easily acquired through convenient virtual learning ubiquity, polity had grown modernly mature in simultaneous with world populace minds and dauntless exposures. It is shameful and disheartening that these aforesaid tools are in essence useless and powerless in mitigating and trivializing our present societal troubles. They have failed to provide us the needed sternness and arsenal to combat these globally invading challenges. Or, I rather say we have acquired the best of these tools, but failed to use them astutely. It is a shame that our pole-tall educations, excessive technologies, and modernized politics are not enough for us to build a truthful, trustworthy, nonracial, religious, moral, peaceful, war-less and diligent society. It is as if to say, the more will progress in our innovations, modernization and globalization of our knowledge, politics, religion, cultures, and other backbones of human existence, their intrinsic essence and usefulness fade off. Or to say the utilitarian of these tools have been washed off as they are chronologically and anthropologically passed down to us. But I insist, as I believe nothing as wrong with the functionalists of those humanly constructive tools, it is we that have intentionally chosen to misuse them in order to achieve our own ill-fated, mischievous and malicious purposes. 

Raji Ridwan Adetunji-