Thursday's fish bowl discussion was something I never did or heard before, and it was definitely an interesting way to do it, although at times, it was frustrating when I was outside and couldn't really comment on a topic I really wanted to talk about a topic. Besides that new experience, as we move into our new topic of wealth and poverty, it seemed that the term "wealth" did not have a concrete meaning that everyone could agree on.
I totally agree that wealth is something that cannot be defined easily. Something that one considers "wealth" may not be wealth to another person. For example, someone would consider his family part of his wealth, while some may argue that it is not, because he would consider wealth as something else, such as his friends and social connections. The definition of wealth is certainly a subjective one as we can see from the example and the class discussion; however, one thing that is extremely interesting from the discussion we had on Thursday, and at the same time could potentially be a "definition" of wealth is that it is something that one holds as important in their life. Also, it seemed that we were going in the direction in which we are seeing wealth as a "social construct," and seemed to hint at the fact that wealth is defined by what the society thinks, and this is also compatible with the suggested definition above. Growing number of people hold one common thing dear and that naturally becomes definition of wealth as constructed by society. However, the traditional definition of wealth has been centered around the concept of money and economy; you are wealthy if you have a big house, or if you have a nice car, and it generally reflects the material condition of something. Therefore, I think that something that one considers wealth that is not material is simply a metaphorical usage of the wealth, and for the sake of discussion, as well as for the proper usage of the word wealth, I think that thinking about wealth as the material condition, and more specifically, thinking about wealth as money, is more relevant that simply concluding that wealth is a social construct that one can define for one's own self.
It was suggested during the discussion about wealth that wealth consists of opportunities and freedom to choose; people make different choice; what to buy and what to do. During the discussion, I briefly asked what happens if one didn't capitalize on that opportunity, which I think didn't really get to the point that I wanted to make, which is the seeming confusion between wealth and signs of wealth. As we discussed what opportunities meant, I was continually struck by the notion that was mentioned before; what one considers important is wealth. However, I would refute that with the idea mentioned near the end of the above paragraph. If I follow this definition, then what does it imply for the notion of opportunities? I would say that true wealth is the financial or material capability of an individual to obtain "stuffs." This then implies that the opportunities and freedom to choose are either means of obtaining this material capability, or are simply a "showcase" of these capabilities. You have a gigantic house, which shows that you have the money; however, it doesn't necessarily equate to the owner's ability to buy stuff (unless, of course, if he chooses to directly trade the house for another good, oh lets say, a banana).
In the general flow of the society today, wealth has become increasingly subjective and a broad term that could cover almost everything. However, I believe that it is a very simple concept of financial capability. I would probably shape my comments around this idea, and I believe it is a concept that not most people would adhere to according to the discussion in class, and I hope I could certainly make some points from another perspective on wealth as the discussion progresses/
No comments:
Post a Comment