Saturday, December 29, 2007
Form and Content
Most things in the world have two innate properties. Their "form" and "content". The WHAT and the HOW of something.
Both are perhaps equally important, however if forced to choose, i would rate the "what" slightly higher than the "how". In my view, What you do should be desirable regardless of how efficiently you achieve it. However this is not to undermine the how which is critical.
For example lets look at a macro concept - Civic society. Civic society is driven by certain laws and their enforcement. The way in which we define our laws are their content. What is illegal ? Do we punish victimless Crimes ? What is our level of openess we desire ? The way these laws are implemented are the form. Do the laws get enforced by an impartial agency ? Do citizens trust and cooperate with this agency ? How much time does it take to bring the guilty to justice ? If either is deeply flawed, then then civic society will come crashing down.
Which means if we have ideologically bad laws (a dictatorship/religous biogoted), there can be little hope of civic society. However we may frame the most elegant of laws but if their implementation is really weak either due to widespread corruption/social prejudice then again we can again not have a civic society.
Every ideology has a form and content - say "Democracy" - the content of this political organisation is good and egalitarian. However most times democracy gets subverted due to the form in which it is practiced. To have a successful democracy, the electorate has to be educated (in the real sense) to take informed choices. This does not happen most times.
Even Parenting - the content is "what to teach to your child" and the form is "how you teach it". Both are equally important and neglecting either has serious consequences.
- The What is akin to the content and how is akin to the form.
- The what is akin to strategy and how is akin to tactics.
- The what is effectiveness and how is efficiency.
Both are perhaps equally important, however if forced to choose, i would rate the "what" slightly higher than the "how". In my view, What you do should be desirable regardless of how efficiently you achieve it. However this is not to undermine the how which is critical.
For example lets look at a macro concept - Civic society. Civic society is driven by certain laws and their enforcement. The way in which we define our laws are their content. What is illegal ? Do we punish victimless Crimes ? What is our level of openess we desire ? The way these laws are implemented are the form. Do the laws get enforced by an impartial agency ? Do citizens trust and cooperate with this agency ? How much time does it take to bring the guilty to justice ? If either is deeply flawed, then then civic society will come crashing down.
Which means if we have ideologically bad laws (a dictatorship/religous biogoted), there can be little hope of civic society. However we may frame the most elegant of laws but if their implementation is really weak either due to widespread corruption/social prejudice then again we can again not have a civic society.
Every ideology has a form and content - say "Democracy" - the content of this political organisation is good and egalitarian. However most times democracy gets subverted due to the form in which it is practiced. To have a successful democracy, the electorate has to be educated (in the real sense) to take informed choices. This does not happen most times.
Even Parenting - the content is "what to teach to your child" and the form is "how you teach it". Both are equally important and neglecting either has serious consequences.
