Ethnographies Galore!

I thought last Thursday's presentations went really well. I thought the ethnography at the Dav was really interesting because I never would have thought to look at it as its own culture or community, but the group who presented did a great job explaining why it was its own bounded culture. I couldn't help but think during that whole presentation that most coffee shops are their own bounded culture. Think about Starbucks. Starbucks in itself is a culture; it has its own language, rituals, rule, etc. You can't go into Starbucks and say, "I'll have a small coffee with some cream and sugar". No, it has to be "I'll have a venti skinny vanilla latte." Then look at Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts, like the Davenport, is the anti-Starbucks. They use normal words such as "small", "medium", and "large", and there is not much thinking involved in ordering a drink. You don't have to be a regular to know what you are getting and the coffee is cheaper. Critics of Dunkin Donuts would say that the coffee doesn't taste as strong or is as good quality as Starbucks. As you can see, different places to get coffee can become their own bounded cultures and people can become quite defensive about where they get their coffee.

Then there was the Howard ethnography. I felt badly because the group seemed to stay as honest as possible, yet got a bit of criticism during the question portion. I thought their ethnography was interesting and they were daring to bring up certain topics, especially their preconceived assumptions about the university. A question that popped into my head after the presentation was, would this group have observed this same culture and presented their findings in the same way if there were an African American student in the class? I wonder if they would phrase their findings in different ways or be more cautious as to not offend anyone. I texted my friend from Howard after the presentation and told him that the kids doing a project on Howard thought the university as a whole was extremely friendly and welcoming. He didn't seem to know what I was talking about and laughed. I think the ethnography would have looked a bit different if the group had gone to Howard more times, but because of time constraints they weren't able to do so.

Our presentation is tomorrow and I hope we can present just as well as the other groups. Good job everyone!

Ethnography Presentations

Last week, we here at CLAMO saw a little of the competition we had in our ethnography presentations. I was pretty impressed with both groups' projects. The first group did an ethnography on a Tavern-like food spot at Howard University. There were definitely a couple of controversial statements made. Supposed stereotypes like "we thought they wouldn't be as studious" and the nature of the project in general really set off the racism alarms in my head. But at the same time, I was impressed that the group took a risk and really tried to observe a specific in-group.
The ethnography on the Davenport was pretty cool. I know the first time I went to the Dav I felt a little out of place. I couldn't quite pinpoint it at the time, but their ethnography shed some light on that. In a weird way, the Dav reminds me of all the hipster cafes and and stores at home. I know that should probably make me feel right at home, but I think I felt alienated because it was different than the rest of the American campus.
Anyway, the point is, both groups were really impressive and I think CLAMO needs to bring our A-game on Thursday.
(P.S. I know this post was kind of useless but that is one of the consequences of Thanksgiving.)

Ethnography and Prejudice

In class on Thursday, two groups presented their ethnographies -- one on the students of Howard University and the other on the culture of "the Dav." Each was interesting in its own way, but there seemed to be an underlying similarity between the two. Each group, as instructed, discussed the prejudices and preconceptions that they had to conquer in order to give a fair and unbiased report. This led to many interesting questions as I mulled over my own preconceptions of the culture that my group has chosen (it's a secret!). How, in fact, do we get rid of these notions? Is it even possible? Should we choose a group with which we have NEVER had experience?

I know it is very hard to get rid of our prejudices (trust me, I've tried), but I feel that there should be some sort of process for ethnographers to do so. I believe that this task IS possible, but like I said, extremely hard. However, I don't think that we are safe from any type of prejudice, even ones against groups that we have never seen. For instance, I read an ethnography about a car theft ring, and immediately, I was prejudiced, thinking that the members were just common criminals, and deserved to be punished. I have never come in contact with anyone from this sort of culture, but still, I had my own preconceptions. So, how do we keep these theories and thoughts at bay? I believe that we have to keep an open mind and see everything relatively. What do you think? Do you think it's possible for an ethnographer to stay free of any and all prejudices?

Ethnographies

I really enjoyed the first two presentations on cultural groups, both here at AU and also off campus. And I started to think about the term itself, ethnography. It breaks down to ethnos, which means people and then graphy or graphein which means writing. It is about observing other cultures and people in their "natural" setting or whichever setting you want to observe them in, work, social life, etc. It is a given then that because there is no empirical evidence, that the findings are subjective. And although I knwo most researchers try and eliminate their bias, it is hard to elimante something you are unaware of. If one of your own cultural beliefs is ingrained in you, then you might be focusing on the lack of it in otehr group unknowingly. Or when looking at groups of a different race, there has been so much institutionalized racism in our society we might over look that we are placing that bias on people. I found that these concerns most definitely affect students like us who are approaching this for the first time. We don't really know what to block our from our own perceptions or how to tell if others are aware of our presence. For instance, in our own ethnography we were looking at a group of people we knew little about structural and could not get an indepth view on without approaching them so once they were aware f our presence they coudl have very well changed how they reacted to proposed situations. Or in the Howard example, I am curious to see if another group of students from GW or georgetwon went to Howard, would they have acted the same?
Therefore I think ethnographies present a good starting point for oberving culture and drawing conclusion, but there are so many things to take into consideration that would alter those resutls, I question its efficiency.

Cultural Diplomacy

Thinking about what were discussing in terms of cultural diplomacy, the question of whether the U.S. had its own culture came up. It is hard to come up with a clear cut answer because, as we've said before, the U.S. is one big "salad" of cultures. At the same time, however, there are many examples in popular culture that shows the U.S. "Americanizing" movies, games, T.V. shows, etc. The movie Mulan is just one example of our so-called culture extending into another, forming a sort of "hybrid" culture. This also touches upon what Allison was saying about the cultural diplomacy conference attended. One of the speakers mentioned how important it was to join together with other cultures to form this sort of "hybrid" culture. If we joined forces and worked together, extending our culture onto one another, I think a lot would be accomplished. Learning about each other's cultures is not only beneficial in terms of sharing ideas, but also to create more diversity.

Cultural Diplomacy

I found it interesting that the Writers Guild's panel decided that Hollywood was not to blame for the negative opinions of America abroad. While the entertainment industry is certainly not the only contributor to our nation's reputation, it is clearly a contributor. As the Newsweek article mentions, movies and television shows often exemplify a "vulgar, violent, vitriolic" America that has a negative effect on our image. A recent Gallup poll proves this point. The poll (which asked individuals whether they approved or disapproved of the leadership of the United states) showed only a 15% approval rating of the U.S. among individuals in the regions of the Middle East and North Africa. A more important question to me is this: does it matter? Maybe this is just a little ethnocentrism speaking, but I feel like the United States is one few countries obsessively trying to export their culture. I get that the industry wants to open foreign markets in order to make more money (hey, Transformers 2 cost over $150 million to make) and I understand- to an extent- that the U.S. wants to improve the image that decades of self-centered foreign policy has created. But maybe these two things don't go together. Maybe the best way to improve our image is not to suffocate our friends (and enemies) overseas with CSI and Batman. Another Gallup poll showed a correlation between the development of communications infrastructure and disapproval of the United States. (Am I addicted to Gallup? The answer is yes.) According to the surveys, the areas that are the most connected to communication infrastructures had the highest disapproval rating- 54%.
Someone at the cultural diplomacy conference emphasized promoting cultures working together. I believe he mentioned artists from different countries working to create a joint project. I think it is this type of cultural diplomacy that the government should be focused on. We have such a culture of convenience in the U.S. that it is only natural for us to expect that sharing (I use this term loosely) our culture with others should follow the same formula. But that is not the case. Of course, the government is a creature of habit and is going to continue beating that dead horse. In the Omnibus Appropriations Act which passed in March, $341 million was given to the Federal Communications Commission to make worldwide communication services available. This is not to say that U.S. shouldn't be providing worldwide communication services, but that maybe we need to alter our approach to "communications".

Cultural Diplomacy

When I first heard this term I was intrigued as to what exactly it means and how it is looked at in real context. Upon first hearing the term, it sound as such a lofty idea and now I find it funny that talk of this idea has become politicized. Personally, I would summarize cultural diplomacy as appreciating another country's culture and expressing interest in it, while also recognizing certain actions as a direct effect of their cultural norms. Furthermore, I found it very interesting to hear ambassadors and figures of authority discussing how we can improve cultural diplomacy and develop programs to enhance it.
The panel surprised me with everyone's concern for this issue and input on the situation. Who even knew there was a situation? I figured if people want to learn about a culture they will go out and learn about it themselves.I never thought culture would be brought into a political context as jsut another tool for winning the other side over, gaining an ally. Instead to me it is about appreciating for it's value and influence on you, not what you can get out of the relationship by "appreciating it". The talk about developing programs makes it sound forced, as if these other cultures are so boring, no one would be interested in them unless told to do so.
And for the United States, maybe if they want to increase cultural diplomacy they should let ambassadors stay in a country for more than two years if they so desire. And we should make it easier for people to visit our own country so that they are not only influenced by the mass products that make it across the media connections, like Mcdonald's or reality shows. I feel as if the term cultural diplomacy is unncessary and a redundant term, because globalization in itself, heigtens the sharing and knowledge of cultures among nations, so we create another term that is jsut a broad? If only to make governmental figures feel more secure in their efforts, when they say we have attained a high level of cultural diplomacy, while to a normal individual, the idea escapes them because we do not use that phrase.