The general use of the term ‘Architect’ has been commented upon previously: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/search?q=who+or+what+is+an+architect and https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-architecture-of-architecture.html.
No board of architects in the country, (boards in Australia are all state-based), ever sees a need to comment on this use of the ‘controlled’ term in common language, even though one is not allowed to call oneself an ‘architect’ without appropriate approval. Indeed, in Queensland, Australia, one has to be registered as a ‘non-practising architect’ to be able to name oneself an ‘architect’ even if retired, such is the importance placed on this term and its likely abuse by those not appropriately registered. So one is puzzled by the way in which the term can be used willy-nilly, ironically, in any context other than the practice of architecture, without any problem.
It all becomes very confusing. There are always examples turning up in the media. The most recent involves the discussion on The Voice. The question that is going to be put to the people of Australia later this year, 2023, is should the indigenous, first nations people be given a Voice in the constitution? The media headlines continue the discussion on whether this is a good idea or not, with references to ‘The Uluru Statement Architect’ and ‘The Voice Architects’ – see:
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/voice-architects-front-inquiry/102173722
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/the-voice-architects-make-their-case/102223876
and
As if this use of the word ‘Architect’ might not be confusing enough, there is the further muddle with the term ‘The Voice’ itself, which happens to be a television show as well as a voice – see:
https://youtu.be/SezI_lH5Ri4 Architect discovers his talent in The Voice
https://aiacalifornia.org/ The Voice of Architectural Profession in California
All of this mixed referencing only befuddles one, and makes one wonder why the word ‘Architect’ has been allowed to get into such a situation; and why the idea of indigenous, first nations involvement in government should have been called ‘The Voice.’ Things would all be much more clear if language was better managed. The sense of jumbled meanings only causes confusion and raises an unfortunate, unnecessary doubt in the ambience of any considerate reflection on the subject which seems to be a totally reasonable proposition, albeit not perfect, as this text explains:
THE VOICE
The argument for The Voice seems to be unequivocal: given our history, it is deserved and necessary; yet we already hear the call to vote No. The cynic might say that there is no problem with giving our indigenous folk, or anyone, a voice, noting that, even with a voice, communications forwarded to politicians and media outlets just get ignored - as this piece will be. So the position could be: yes, give ‘them’ The Voice as it has been labelled, shut ‘them’ up, and continue doing what those in authority are very skilled at: just ignoring matters and doing whatever is wanted to suit themselves while pretending to do otherwise, all ‘for the good of the community/country.’ Even with The Voice, it is very likely that nothing will change other than that these folk in charge, in power, will be able to boast with a glowing personal pride that they have given our indigenous people The Voice: vote for ME. At least one political pressure point will have been eliminated, and a new talking point created.
It doesn’t seem to matter which side of politics one might be addressing, at what level of government, or at what level of seniority, PM or Minister, Lord Mayor, Local Councillor, etc.; or which media outlet is involved, left or right: any communication can just be ignored, shoved aside, mocked, forgotten about if it suits the purpose to do this, or just managed with gobbledegook telling one nothing, or trying to prove that black is white. Why be bothered, seems to be the position, when no one can force us to act? From experience, the situation seems to be: we hold the power; voice or no voice will not alter our voice. So why should anything be different with The Voice?
What is needed is not just The Voice, but ears that will listen and hear; eyes that will read and comprehend; and an intent to respond, to be truly responsible: to reflect, consider, and understand, with a willingness to change both position and thinking; and to act accordingly with empathy and commitment so that real, lasting, transformative, co- operative outcomes can be achieved, instead of being content with the safe, silent inertia of the protective, proverbial brick wall that accompanies the blatant exercise of power.
The Voice without any power relies on power itself to be sensitive and aware, to listen, to be responsive to subtlety, everything the brute force of indulgent authority is not. One could argue that we already have The Voice; that it is the exercise of shameless power that needs to change. Sadly history has shown how impossibly difficult this change is with meaningful matters being so easily distorted into hollow words by cunning, controlling spin.
It could be seen that voting Yes or No will make no difference when we have this rude exercise of bold power. If we are to be really serious about change, then this has to come from the powerful - our politicians and our media. These need to change from dismissive black holes to bright, inspiring stars that truly reflect the voices of others responsibly, with care and attention, rather than continue to spin distracting fantasies to achieve programmed outcomes seeking praise in glowing reports.
Mmmm! As if these things will ever change. Hope might ‘spring eternal,’ but it has to be numb to reality, blinded by faith, to be maintained; for one to see that a Yes vote is warranted: it is deserved, as a matter of principle. It is a start, a small step in the right direction that envisages a better world. Even the cynic should be able to see that doing nothing is not helpful, or hopeful.
21 APRIL 23
NOTE
This piece was written in order to prove the very point that this article makes, and predicts. The text was forwarded to two major media outlets, one print and one television. Neither bothered to even acknowledge receipt of the piece, which is the point being made: one can have a ‘voice,’ but there is no obligation on anyone to either listen or respond.#
The piece was not sent to any politician as one already knows from the many attempts made to contact politicians while stranded overseas when the country was COVID-closed, that one would not get anything but a prolonged and careless silence. No, this has to be corrected: one response from the local member was received; it told us to go away and “contact your local member"! The member just thoughtlessly flicked out the standard reply to go elsewhere.
The only difference a constitutional ‘voice’ will have is that this ‘right to talk’ will allow the protests made when the ‘voice’ is ignored, to start from a different base that has some substance in law. There will be a greater opportunity for politicians to be embarrassed into action: but given the past where it has been made crystal clear that politicians have no shame, one can predict that this ‘voice’ is pure, formal, legitimised spin that aims to give the impression of empowerment when it is obvious that all power remains where it always has been - with the government. The Voice will be used by the politicians to show that they are listening and responsive only when they want to do what The Voice has suggested; otherwise The Voice will be ignored, managed with gyrating gobbledygook to try to intimate that politicians are doing what has been spoken about in another way - all for the good of ‘the people of Australia.’
The article made the point that, if there was to be any change, it had to come from those in power, and we all know that this is never given up or changed easily; it usually takes civil protests or civil war to achieve this. These words alarm: one has to note that in this context, ‘civil’ relates to ordinary citizens, and has nothing to do with being courteous and polite: there is nothing civil in this latter sense, in either protests or wars.
#
The print media only wants quirky ‘selfies’ for readers to drool over: see - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/apr/17/how-we-met-i-had-gone-straight-from-the-bar-to-the-airport-then-i-sat-next-to-her-on-the-plane?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other These usually involve intimacies and problems with a ‘Dorothy Dix’ quality: “Should I . . . ?” “Will it . . . ?” “My partner . . . ?” Situations like blind dates are structured just for the readers’ indulgences, for them to salivate over the feedback: “Did you kiss?” “Did you . . . ?” Ideas on matters political are unwanted; irrelevant.
24 April 2023
This is a collection of articles from today’s news:
and
It seems that such interests alone make the idea of The Voice just a poor joke; a political diversion.
28 APRIL 2023
One could go on and on with examples of ‘selfie’ trivia cast as news; here are a few more:
https://autos.yahoo.com/hailey-bieber-steps-see-slip-150000648.html
The point of seeing The Voice as ‘a joke,’ is that, if we are so concerned with self-centred trifles in our news, it is difficult to take the idea of The Voice seriously. With such trivialities taking centre stage in our lives, there seems to be no way anyone would be interested in matters subtle and serious, let alone expecting a politician to listen and respond to anyone’s ideas with anything but self-interest and rehearsed spin.
29 April 23
Apart from the fact that there is no obligation for anyone to listen, and that The Voice lacks all power other than having a right to be put, the title of this proposed constitutional change begs the question: whose voice? Does the whole concept assume that the ‘first nations’ people of Australia all speak with the one voice? Gosh, there is no agreement on backing the concept of The Voice, so what hope is there? Who’s voice is the government going to listen to? It is all very messy and is looking more and more like a stunt pretending to establish ‘recognition’ and ‘having a say.’
We know the voice the politicians will listen to: the one they want to hear.
1 MAY 2023
More wisdom from the news:
https://www.instyle.com/sydney-sweeney-tiny-bralette-see-through-skirt-red-carpet-7486961
https://people.com/music/justin-bieber-wears-shirt-tied-over-his-head/
5 MAY 2023
See:
Indigenous
rights activist Gary Foley warns voice will be ignored by government
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.