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.

Cultural Dimplomacy Conference

A couple of things were impressed on me at the conference last week. The first was, obviously, the importance of cultural diplomacy and cultural awareness. The second however is a kind of negative, so I want to put out a disclaimer: I really liked the conference and thought a lot of important things were brought up. Anyways, I was struck by the lack of depth of content on the part of some individuals. Allow me to explain what I'm trying to say. For example, one woman (I believe she was the wife of the U.S. ambassador to Russia) spent a solid ten minutes talking about everything her embassy had done; to be more precise, all the money they had invested in so-called "cultural diplomacy". During the break, a man standing nearby was talking to me about the panel thus far. When I brought up what this woman had talked about, he told something along the lines of "she's a heavyweight of diplomacy, you should really listen to what she says". This sort of surprised me. I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: I feel like a lot of adults think their title should speak for them. In the world of diplomacy, this sort of mentality will not suffice. In any career you should have the knowledge to back up your title. I think this is especially important in international relations.

Disney-fying Mulan

One of the articles that we were asked to read for this week was about the Disney-fication of the Chinese story of Mulan, a young girl who pretends to be a man and takes her father's place in the army. I can still remember sitting in the movie theater, watching as the credit sequence unfolded, revealing the Great Wall being painted by an invisible hand in dark watercolors. It was like nothing I had seen before, so, of course, I was enthralled. However, I think I would have appreciated it more had I known what I know now after reading this article.

Two things (one being a sort of branch of the other) struck me about this article. Firstly, I was appalled to learn that the creators had tried to make Mulan a love story. As Joseph M. Chan reports in his article, the original text is "about filial piety, which is traditionally ranked as the most important virtue" (232). Understandably, Disney wanted to adapt the story to make it "work" in the American film circuit, but, seriously - a love story? To me, this is an issue of respecting the original cultural text. Readers, do you agree that it was the duty of Disney to stay within the reasonable bounds of the original story? 

As an offshoot of this issue, the heads of this project made the writers, who had been working on Mulan for at least two years, completely rewrite the script, making it about a woman who found her own strength through her trials. Okay, so it's not the original message, but it's much closer, right? Still, do you think it was the responsibility of Disney to respect the culture of China and to produce a film that closely followed one of its cultural texts? Or do you think this deviation is acceptable, making it both enjoyable for the American audience while reminiscent of the original story? Also, I'm curious to hear what you would think if Disney hadn't been presented with this story at first. What if this were a known story in America (that is, before this movie) and they had decided to use it to create a new project? I'm not sure I could say just how I would feel if this were the case. 

Mulan and the Cultural Diplomacy Seminar

I would like to start off saying that I truly enjoyed reading about Mulan in the perspective that we did. I am among many who watched Mulan as a young girl, but what amazed me is how much thought went behind the making of the movie. From the story behind it, to the style in which the characters were animated, every detail had to be considered. Traditional Chinese values had to be incorporated into the movie, but they also needed to make it enjoyable for children to watch. Because Mulan was shown to people all over the world, many accommodations needed to be made. Disney brought in all types of specialists and people of Chinese descent in order to produce a popular children's movie. Joseph F. Chan, author of "Disneyfying and Globalizing the Chinese Legend Mulan: A Study of Transculturization", writes:

"The idea is to get a first-hand feel of the actual location of their screen stories. The influence of the field trip shows in the movie, as evidenced by the presence of Chinese scenes such as vilions, tomb slabs, vertical flags and Budha caves. The influence also shows in the heavy use of spareness and simplicity, a visual style often found in Chinese art" (236-237).

I thought it was incredible how much thought and communication had to happen in order for the movie to be successful. Furthermore, it was the first Disney movie that used Chinese influence and didn't use the usual "Disney formula" where there is a love interest. I think Mulan successfully mixed Chinese and American culture to form a truly amazing movie.

The seminar we went to today, really helped to tie our talk about global media and culture. I thought it was really interesting to hear from a variety of panelists and to get their take on what cultural diplomacy meant to them. Even though some thought the man talking about Russia was too specific, I actually thought what he was saying was interesting. I liked hearing about what Russians thought about our culture and was surprised to hear that they weren't as enthusiastic about our culture as they used to be. The speaker explained that the Russians seem to think that they care more about our culture than we do about theirs. They also take culture a lot more serious and believe it makes up their identity. I enjoyed hearing about this alternate perspective on American culture. The different studies that were discussed and various points about the arts promoting diplomacy made me realize how important cross-cultural communication is. Without it, we would not have dialogue and would not know anything about other cultures. We would ultimately become isolated. Overall the seminar was fun to hear and I learned a lot.

International Popular Culture

Pop culture is everywhere. Quite literally, one cannot escape it. Every time we walk into a supermarket, there are tabloids and magazines with headlines that seem to be screaming, "Is Jennifer Anniston really happy?" or "Kristen and Robert's wedding!" However, it seems that the American culture is obsessed with only American culture. 

For instance, one of my favorite singers is Jamie Cullum, a fabulous British jazz singer. Whenever I mention him, people always look at me as if I were crazy. "Who is that?" they ask. No one knows his work or anything about him. Unfortunately, this is because the United States seem to be impervious to foreign culture's attempts to penetrate "the scene." Sure, a few people could sing along to the Jamie Cullum originals, or even quote a French movie, but the majority of the population is obsessed about what "our" stars are doing. 

I believe that is why the video portraying the Korean Wave stars so important. For years, I have been trying to introduce the international culture that I have experienced in my years of travel and study to others. It seems as if it's an almost impossible task, but the odd thing is, we never think about this task unless we are forced. How often do you sit in your dorm, thinking, "What new Korean song can I listen to today?" This oblivion is the thing I believe we must destroy to make a more unified and culturally-friendly world. 

Hello!Hallyu

When talking about the Korean Wave in class, I remembered that my friend Cuong is a fan of some Korean dramas. I was intrigued about the whole hallyu phenomenon so I decided to briefly interview him on the subject.
Allison: What parts of hallyu do you follow? (TV shows, movies, music)
Cuong:I follow Movies and TV shows.
A: How did you get interested in hallyu?
C: It's a long story, actually. As a family we've always watched tv shows and movies that were foreign, ie from China/Hong Kong/Japan/ and of course, Korea. My mom is a huge fan of tv shows from Korea and that's how I started watching it. It's really just grown from watching what my parents watch to finding what I want to watch.
A: How do Korean television programs differ from U.S. shows?
C: One of the most basic differences is that a Korean program begins with an end-date where U.S. shows hope to "last". A Korean TV show is filmed with a specific number of episodes to air before the show is over. Sometimes when a show does really well, they'll extend it by a couple of episodes.
A: Do you think hallyu could have mass appeal to U.S. consumers?
C: I definitely think so, the reasons why Korean shows/movies are so fun to watch is because they're equal parts whimsical and dramatic, I've watched movies that have plots that are probably deemed "unreal" for U.S. TV/movies.
A: American entertainment exports have often been accused of promoting American values like capitalism and individualism. What values do you think hallyu promotes?
C: Hallyu promotes family values, your standard good/bad and, as corny as it sounds, overcoming adversity.

A lot of what Cuong brought up was echoed in the Youna Kim article, "The rising East Asian 'Wave'". When talking about South Korea's most popular television show, Winter Sonata, Kim mentions that it showcases "love in its purest form". Kim believes Americans would have a hard time embracing an 'old-fashioned' love story; that, as Cuong says, it would seem unreal.
The article also touches upon the values behind Korean shows, such as "family values and traditional emotive delicacies", saying that "Asian sensibilties" are part of what makes the shows so popular. The Joseph Chan article suggests that Americans do not relate to stories of filial piety, or as it's called in China, xiaodao. Chan describes how Disney changed the story of Mulan from a tale of familial duty to one of fierce individualism. If family values don't sell in the U.S., it would suggest that the Korean Wave might not be able to cross the pacific. But I find it interesting that my friend describes Korean shows as more whimsical than American television. With programs like Glee making a dent in the ratings, it seems to me that Americans are looking for more whimsy in their television; maybe the United States could be hallyu's next big market.

POP! There goes my heart

So for those of us who have seen the movie, Music and Lyrics, I have taken a line from one of there songs in order to explain the phenomenon of popular culture. It is addicting like allison was saying, whether it is in print form, TV, film or music, we all have some source we are intrigued or entertained by. We pour our hearts into TV shows, hoping certain characters have relationships with others. Or even in celebrity life, hoping Brad and Angelina don't split. We talk of popular culture as if we are living it and apart of it directly. Using first names of stars as if they are our everyday friends. We dedicate ourselves to ceratin genres of music, and attempt to recreate ceratin astyles of our favorite actresses or celebrity idols.We pour dedicate hours of our time to watching reality TV shows when can go live our own reality. The discussion of the trends and influences of popular culture saddens me, as much as I, myself, am enthralled. It saddens me to think that we care so much about thinks that do not affect us. Or on an opposite end, only those thigns that 'affect" us as Americans.
I would love to watch foreign films and follow foreign bands, but it is extremely difficult with our media lines clogged with American popular culture. I also would love to say I hate these new teenage stars that arise and bands liek the Jonas Brothers, becuase that isn't real music, but I can't help. I still even watch the disney channel at times. I am not as bad as some of my friends who live on people.com and update me 24/7 on celebrity relationships or read spoilers to tell me in advance what the outcome of our favorite TV show is going to be, but the majority of our culture is like that. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the type of popular culture we have come to idolize. It is fake and has no substance and I think we all as consumers of such media need to demand a change.

Ch. 9 Popular Culture

I am ashamed to admit that I kind of love pop culture. I soak it up like a sponge. I may not know much about U.S. history ( I probably can't even name all 50 states), but I can tell you all about Taylor Swift's dating history. I always sort of convinced myself that the database of pop cultural nonsense stored in my brain was just a product of the society around me. "Hey, it's not my fault there are a plethora of tabloids waiting for me at every supermarket checkout line!" But I realize that what may have started out as an innocent by-product of the media around me, is now for sure my own personal interest. When my sister, for example, did not know that Kristin Chenoweth was originally a huge Broadway star or that the Girls Next Door had been replaced by three younger blondes, I yelled at her, "What? Are you living under a rock??" It was at this point that I realized my sister was not living under a rock. There's no pop culture in the air we breathe, I am the one selectively choosing to read US Weekly at work, or watch InfoMania every weekend, or keep up with E!Online. I think this is part of what Hall is referring to in his encoding and decoding diagram. The writers of Entertainment Weekly can encode all they want into their magazine, but that does not necessarily determine what I decode. Individuals interpret meaning based on a multitude of cultural beliefs, histories, and values that cannot be perfectly determined. Meaning, when we're at the supermarket, my sister and I might both see the People magazine, but I'm the one who's storing the headline "Bikini Bod at 48" into the overflowing database in my mind.

Race and Ethnicity in Entertainment

During fall break, I returned to my high school and sat in on one of my favorite classes. I was listening to what the now-juniors were saying about one of the most controversial books, Huckleberry Finn. They had just met Jim, the stereotype slave who tags along with Huck on his crazy adventures. What interested me most was that they weren't standing up, shouting, "This is an outrage! No person is like this! This is so racist!" They were just sitting there, nodding their heads silently, accepting what Twain had prescribed to Jim's character so many years ago. When I talked to the teacher after the class had left, she told me that her classes were becoming more and more complacent when confronted with the issue of Jim's character. She said that they had just become desensitized to any racial issues because they were surrounded by it all the time in forms of entertainment. 

I think that's what made this topic of how Arabs were portrayed in entertainment so important to me. As a humanist, I am very sensitive to racial slurs and stereotyping. However, it seems that my generation has become almost numb to these things. No one thinks twice about the evil sultans in movies or the "CBD" (cool black dude) in comedies. Why is this? Why don't we notice these things on first seeing them? Only after watching that video, and seeing all of the Arab characters grouped together, did I realize just what role the Arabs had played in the entertainment world. However, I have to wonder, is this changing? Are minorities and "foreign" ethnicities gaining more and more prominence in American culture? I truly hope so. 

Arabs in Television

I thought the video about how Arabs are represented in television and movies was interesting because as a little girl, Aladdin was one of my favorite Disney movies. Obviously when I was young, I didn't realize that Aladdin was even Arab, and that he and the other Arab characters were being portrayed in negative ways. After watching the video, it further opened my eyes to how many movies and shows have been made that put Arabs in a bad light.

Our conversation about black people in television and movies raised some interesting questions. We began naming numerous black actors and someone noted that black female leads are rare. I cannot even think of a movie with a black actress as the lead. I thought about this when I went to the movies this weekend. I noticed a poster about a movie coming out called The Princess and the Frog and the main "actress" is a black female. Is that really one of the only black female actresses? And will it pave the way for black female actresses to become the lead more often? I just thought it was a coincidence that we had been talking about black actors and actresses and this movie happened to be coming out.

Stereotyping Disscussion

After reading the readings, especially the Arab as Enemy piece, I would say most equate stereotyping as discriminatory or negative. And in this sense, post 9/11 it most certainly is. Going step by step through the speeches and words used previous to the State of the Union address, it only laid the foundation for hatred to brew and classify all those who are Muslim as "evildoers." Also, regarding the underlying messages images present, I would say that is true for any add or picture, especially considering that a photo is one still moment in which so much lays behind it. It is not necessarily all discriminatory messages and stereotyping in all cases is not necessarily bad. By definition stereotyping is a exaggerated generalization about a group of people and so it is understood not everyone fits into it, but it created on some basis of truth.
Also, after watching those two video clips, I really was amazed at how I missed a large majority of discrimination in film towards Arabs. I know now that Disney movies have multiple underlying means, but in Aladdin it never occurred to me how much they push the stereotype of Arabs. And then at the same time, I do not think it is wrong to show Jasmine almost getting her hand cut off for stealing an apple because in actuality that can happen in some countries. So are we to avoid every situation in which a given event may be applied to a whole culture? That would be very difficult, which is why I think that more education needs to take place in regards to these films. Or as silly as it sounds, put out a disclaimer that actions we are about to witness do not occur on an everyday basis in this culture. And at the same time we have to recognize that not every culture is perfect, so just because soem are portrayed poorly, again does not mean that soem portions are not true.
I feel as if we have taken many steps toward inmprovement, evident through prominent African American actors who are go to stars or even Arab actors that are known for there work. And although we have a ways to go, it will come only with time.

Stereotyping

I was not surprised reading any of the articles about stereotyping this week. To a certain degree we all stereotype because as Hall says in "The Spectacle of the Other", "without the use of types, it would be difficult... to make sense of the world." But just because it is in our nature to categorize everything we see, does not mean that stereotyping is acceptable. Behind it there is always a difference in power, which makes stereotyping an abuse of this power.
I am sure we can all think of instances in which we have been stereotyped or witnessed someone else being stereotyped. The instance that comes to mind for me was during post-911 haze of 2002. In the D.C. area there were a series of sniper attacks in October of 2002. They were random fatal shootings that resulted in 10 deaths. It sounds like a cliche, but people literally lived in fear. The police were desperate for any kind of lead and were grasping for straws. I remember when early on they were looking for a white van and ended up detaining a couple of suspects. These "suspects" turned out to be innocent, but they were also illegal immigrants from central America and so, desperate to save face, the police had them deported. I remember my mother ranting that the men were only arrested because of racial profiling and that they should have been granted citizenship for the pain and suffering they were subjected to. In this example, the police had societal power over the men they were arresting (both due to their occupation and their race).
This is just one large-scale example of a type of stereotyping that happens everyday.

Does the internet distract from organization?

When reading the article about the Internet & Democracy Blog, I was shocked by one of the questions asked by readers. The question is simple, but it simply blows my mind: "Does online discussion distract from activism?" I am part of the proof that it most certainly does not.

Yesterday, October 11, 2009, was the National Equality March right here in Washington, D.C. A few friends and I took the metro to I street around 11 a.m., gathered behind the mass of people that had already been waiting for a few hours, and got ready to march for gay rights. We bought flags and were given signs, crying out for equality. We read clever slogans like, "I'll have what you're having," and inspiring stories like, "I was beaten by cops in 1976 and I'm still fighting." It was a truly amazing day, knowing that I was fighting for something in which I deeply believe. Knowing that one of my best friends and some of my family members are gay, I just couldn't stand on the side lines and let something like this happen without me. The funny thing is, I would never have gone if it weren't for the internet.

I have an account on the infamous Twitter, which is kind of "odd for someone my age" (usually, when I check Twitter with other people around me, they ask me why I would do such a thing, etc). My best friend had "retweeted" something about the march, and when I looked into it, I decided that I just had to be there. A few days later, we had plans for a few of my high school friends to come and stay with me here, and we would march on Sunday. Everything was organized over the internet. We chatted with some other protestors online, and got all of the updates on the march from the organizers themselves. Now, if we hadn't had the amazing power of internet discussion, would I have gone? As I said, most likely not. 

This just illustrates one of the many amazing powers of the internet. It lends itself to reform and organization, just as speeches did at the time of the struggle for women's suffrage and the fight for racial equality. It's the same thing - we can just access the speeches quicker and can keep them with us through downloads, podcasts, etc. 

What do you think? Am I right or do you agree with those who say there is nothing like physically getting together to organize? 

Is the internet really that bad?

I really enjoyed watching that movie in class, not only because it switched things up a bit, but it also was a sort of comic relief. I thought the story with the "helicopter mom" was hilarious and really reached home for me because my mom is a mild case of "helicopter mom". She is always asking me about my life, and has only recently given up in getting information out of me. All she has to do is wait, and I usually tell her at the right time. I think the woman in the film was too extreme in her fight against the internet. If it's not the internet, it's going to be something else. Every teenager needs a place to let out steam and the internet is, in a way, a safe place to do so. I don't think it was fair of that boy's mom to expect him to open up to her so much. After all, before computers, kids wrote in diaries and many of them had locks. Isn't a lock the same thing as a password?

Overall this movie was a source of amusement because it made the internet seem poisonous to young adults. In the case of the girl who was anorexic, if she hadn't found the websites about anorexia online, she probably would have been able to find them elsewhere. I think that parents like the one in the video need to just relax and accept that they live in a world where their children are growing up with the internet and that it is a necessary for them to communicate with others and themselves.

The Frontline Video

While watching that video today I had so many little comments as it progressed. Whether it was shock, empathy or just downright confusion, it definitely provoked a lot of emotions, hence me choosing this as my topic of blogging this week. For one, it brought me backwards in time to a place that seems so far away but really is only about 2 years in actuality- high school. And personally I believe that is the only audience to which it can apply, because it is the last stage parents have any real hold on you before "your life begins." I remember I considered myself, even in high school, or should I say especially in high school, an independent individual. I did not share more than I felt necessary with my parents and just did my own thing. I didn't even get a myspace until sophomore year, after I did a summer program and wanted to keep in touch with those friends. But then once I had it, I became semi-obessed with decorating it, and writing on people's walls, etc. I wasn't a 24/7, stay in my room, glued to screen type of gal, but it had its effects. And naturally because I have a older brother, once we became "cyber friends" he informed my mom of my new addition. And so I had her inquiring about what I did, who I talked to and yes she to asked for me password, like Evan, and I naturally declined. I also can relate to the computer in a common space, mine being the living room/ family room of sorts and so just to bug her I would turn the screen towards me so she couldn't see if she was on the couch. Eventually, I jsut used my laptop which bugged her even more. And it became a routine of me doing that, her askind questions and getting no answers and then jsut accepting it. But that did not mean we did not go through the same process when I created a facebook account. However, this time she took a different approach and created one, and did not tell me, I only found out because she did not log off of the common computer.
My profile accounts were not the only areas of life my mother wanted to know everything about, she always had to know who I was ont eh phone with, who I went out with even if I was driving, what grades I got on assignments she knew about. She took up inquiring about the status of some of my friendships, especially male ones and just trying to pry into my life. I account this partly to her personality, because I she the tendencies in myself and partly to this generation gap aided by technology and the internet. I feel as if she reaches out in which ever way she can becuase we don't spend as much family time together. We are all doing different things, on own own computers, or watching our own T.Vs and then consumed with school activites or social lives. I used to feel liek in high school when I was home I never really was there. I wouldn't know who came and lef the house or what they were up to. Sometimes my brother and I even used to IM late at night when we were both in our rooms because we didn't feel like going up flights of steps to each other and it might cause suspicion brother and sister talking. My mother told me she felt that joining Facebook was a way to keep up with me and especially now in college, I barely have time to talk on the phone, so that is our communication. So in a way depending on age it can cause a gap, but then it can also bridge it. We email all the time now and same with my friends and there parents, just becuase most of the time we are doing work at the computer.
This brings me to another point about the sparknotes and education aspect. One teacher said she doens't like the internet or computers in a classroom setting becuase it distracts the student, etc. Ironically enough for all of high school I was required to have a laptop. Sometimes taking notes electronically in class, surfing the web and furthermore, I was encouraged to use Sparknotes by my English teacher! It is like themale teacher said the information is there as a general guideline and a supplement to which you cna then fill in your own work to pull it all together.
So what is my point out of all this venting? Technology has it ups and downs just like everything in life. If we are taught the proper way to utilize the positvie aspects then that in itself will minimize the negative. But if we try to control teh situation I believe it will only make it worse and cause for rebellion or further separation. We all go through phases, and now technology has become integrated into our adolesnce. The best thing for parents to do is jump on the ban wagon and learn about it for themselves not through their kids. Talk to their kids about saftey and caution and then after that let em be!

Iran, I ran so far away...*

Obviously, the State Department must be pretty desperate if it is asking me for diplomacy tips, but I will try my best to help them out.

As everyone else has mentioned, knowledge of Iranian culture is key. It would be unproductive to negotiate with Iran without an in-depth look at their society. The State Department should send diplomats who have lived in Iran and speak persian. It would also be important to learn the history of Iran, its relationship with the United States, and its realtionship with surrounding nations. A quick look at their current political priorites couldn't hurt either.

In class we've talked a lot about different views of time. Here in the United States we are more of a monochronic culture. Events happen one after another, and time can be spent, saved and wasted. The opposite of this is polychronic, where time is viewed more cyclically; things can happen at the same time and using time efficiently is not a goal. I am not sure on which end of the spectrum Iran falls, but I would hope the State Department does before they start negotiations. According to our book, many a business meeting has been ruined by differences between polychornic and monochronic time.

Also, it takes more than speaking the native language to be able to communicate effectively. As we learned from Martin and Nakayama (and in class), nonverbals are just as important as verbals. I don't know any specifics of Iranian communication, but I know that it would be crucial to look into certain areas. One of the biggest differences in nonverbals across cutlures is space. The amount of space between two people who are speaking varies from country to country, region to region, etc. For example, in the United States, people are accustomed to having a"bubble". Taking the initiative to sit next to someone on an empty bus is considered odd (i.e. creepy) behavior. In Nicaragua, where a space bubble is uncommon, such distance could be considered rude. There are other nonverbals that could affect communication, such as eye contact, certain body language, symbols, as well as a speaker's appearance (such as their clothing, hair style, etc.).

The way in which you speak also makes a big difference. I don't remember where I heard this story, but I think/hope it might have been in class. Before the Gulf war, when President Bush sent someone (I forget now who it was, secretary of state maybe?) to have diplomatic talks with Saddam Hussein, their mannerisms prevented them from understanding each other. This Person Sent By The President spoke very calmly and directly when he threatened Iraq with military action. To Sadam Hussien, this meant that he was not serious. If he had been more over-the-top, there may never have been a Gulf War. My forgetfullness kind of ruined that story but the lesson holds true.

I guess the best piece of advice is to know your audience. The State Department should not go into negotiations as if they are speaking to the U.S. With everything they say, they should know that Iran is their audience.

*SNL anybody?

Negotiations

The United States is currently engaged in very sensitive negotiations with Iran over Iran's nuclear program. The State Department asks you, as a consultant in cross-cultural communications, to give them some tips on how their diplomats should plan their negotiations. To answer this question, think about what factors might influence the communication (setting, non-verbals, language, etc.) and give what you think is the most important advice. You don't have to be an Iranian culture or politics expert, but you can tell them what to look for as something to be concerned about.
I would say the number one thing to keep in mind is that Iran views the U.S. as a force to be reckoned with and is trying to equate itself with such a nation. Therefore, basing negotiations on that accepted ideology I would tell the U.S. to underplay. This is not a situation in which we can be the dominant player and control the other party. They no we want them to discontinue the build up of nuclear weapons and so we might have to play in a little.
For starters, I would definitely stay more than a day or two in the country, if we can spare time. Maybe just visit to see what the culture is like and become accustomed to it so that we are not reading "how to's" from a book. Also, by staying there for longer then the negotiations beforehand you are showing indirectly that you are comfortable with Iran and want to be friends, friends who do not have to have weapons of mass destruction just in case. Next, bring your own translator to allow them to speak in their own language. Ideas flow more natural in your original language of thought and I am sure they will feel more comfortable, but at the same time you do not want your message misconstrued so it is important to know your translator. Another tip would be to make some type of concession on the part of the U.S. in relation to our own nuclear program. Maybe going our with some aggreement that we will not use our weapons, or we will provide them with protection if necessary, etc. I know that Iran is probably a high context culture and therefore need only shake on it so for now leave doctrines and contracts at home.
I also realize that the State Department might not be happy with such a laid back, let Iran talk first approach because we love to control every situation. BUt in some instances it is necessary. I would not suggest to approach every situation like this because then we will be played like a fittle and used, or considered weak. So the most important thing ot remember is that sometimes to be the strongest you have to let others participate, in this case, the participation would be Iran leading the negotiations, hosting the U.S. official and getting a little something for it in return.

Nonverbal communication in real life!

Let me start by saying that I am in the Theatre University College here at American University. Last Friday, we went out as a "lab" to see Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. However, what was fascinating about this performance was the fact that it was completely nonverbal. As expected, everyone in my class shook their heads skeptically as we walked into the theatre, thinking that this was going to be a disaster. How could you have Shakespeare without the words? It would just be a bunch of people running around on stage, etc.  We were in for a surprise. 

If you think that Shakespeare is not Shakespeare without words, think again (we certainly did!). Every nuance of the text was played out in actions and facial expressions. The humorous bits of the text still came off just as humorous, and the actors said absolutely nothing. They told a story with their bodies, and communicated exactly what Shakespeare did in nine lengthy scenes. It didn't occur to me until I left the theater that this type of event could be qualified as a showcase for nonverbal communication. As I said, most of us had read the text before, but we met a woman who had never read it and who understood the plot line completely. The actors' movements and vocalizations (as Martina and Nakayama describe it) were truly effective and successful. They were generalized enough for everyone to get the basic idea, yet subtly complex so that those who were looking for an intellectual viewing were pleasantly pleased. 

I have thought about this quite a lot, and I would like to refer back to the text book. As Martin and Nakayama write, "Whereas we learn rules and meanings for language behavior in grammar and language arts lessons, we learn nonverbal meanings and behaviors by more implicit socialization" (269). Would the performance have been as effective if we weren't already aware of what the devilish smile Puck was wearing meant? Most likely not. Even in the world of entertainment, there is an intrinsic need for an understanding on nonverbal communication. 

What Diplomats Need to Know

In order for the State Department's diplomats to perform their negotiations well, they must acknowledge a few key concepts in regards to cross-cultural communications.....

I would start by having them figure out what language would be most appropriate to use or at least study to understand how to talk to the people of Iran. This would be useful in any negotiation as well because language has the ability to transmit not only a concrete message, but the meanings behind it. It is important to make sure the translations are accurate as well because some languages do not transfer over into english, or vice versa, easily. Different words may hold different meanings in other cultures.

Another aspect to take under consideration is the use of nonverbal communication. Whether it is how much space the diplomat gives the other person, or how much eye contact they use, being aware of what is "acceptable" in that particular society is imperative. For instance, we have learned that the "wave hello" can mean "come here I have something to tell you".

It might also be helpful to research the different histories of a culture. This can be useful when trying to understand the way they speak or behave because history influences the way we are and how we perceive ourselves.

My last point is that they should be conscious of what kind of technology they use and how they use it. Emails can be taken differently by different cultures. Depending on if the culture is high-context or low-context, emails will have a different sound or tone. It may be possible that an email comes off as rude, when the sender was just being direct.

Reflection: Nonverbal Communication

Today's discussion brought up a few interesting points that I wanted to blog about:

First, we began by talking about code switching. This reminded me of the drive over to American University when my parents were moving me in. My sister came along, and was planning on interviewing for two possible babysitting jobs in DC (she was moving into DC in October). She happened to be pretty grumpy because we had already been driving for about 8 hours and was busy screaming at my mom. She suddenly received a call from one of her employers and instantly her voice rose 8 octaves and she sounded completely professional. I thought it was hilarious because she was busy screaming at my mom and then completely did a 18o when she had to talk to someone she needed to look good for. In this case, her code switching was a conscious decision to sound a certain way for a specific audience.

We later talked about nonverbal communication and what it meant between men and women. This made me think of something that I have been told as long as I can remember. I've heard from countless boys that "girls are hard to read" or we're never "direct" enough. I thought this was interesting because as we were talking about nonverbal communication, I started thinking how this may be true. Someone brought up the situation when girls go shopping and one tries on an ugly shirt and asks her friend if it looks good. The friend will sometimes tell her friend with the shirt that it looks good even if it doesn't, but add a view subtle hints that may let her friend know that the shirt isn't as cute as she had said, such as a change in tone or a raised eyebrow. In terms of guys, a girl may say there is nothing wrong when a guy asks her, but with nonverbal communication such as a slightly pained tone of voice, she may really be saying there is something wrong. I definitely feel that guys say how they really feel more than girls do. However, I do not think we are as complicated as many guys would think. If you look for nonverbal cues, it is easy to figure out what a girl truly means.

Planner= Life

So this week I really enjoyed reading the monochronic and polychronic time classifications. I was also confused because there seem to be blurred things. For instance, I myself cannot be classified as one or the other. I have tendencies and characteristics of both. I consider family important and will try to not plan anything that conflicts with that, or also when we have family events I try my best to make sure I am home for them, etc. Yet I guess in using the word "try" it would seem as if I lean more towards the monochronic tendenices because I plan to make them not conflict, whereas most p-time users would not allow any conflicts. It is to this point that I see my planner as my life. I have multiple activities going on, usually one right after the other and today in class looking at the board and list of possible activities I maybe didn't have one on there. I have to plan everything because of the multiple activities I am involved in and I also highly respect the times in which they take place. If one was to start late or run late it would ruint he amount of time I could say and shorten it or threaten the time I arrived at the next event. I schedule eating times, lunch dates, regular dates, study time, and even nap time some days.
Then to another point we discussed in class of non verbal communication, I feel like it is an inescapable part of culture and defintiely, myself as an individual. Considering the excercise in class of story telling, I know I could not tell a story for a second without using some type of communication. And as one classmate pointed out, a woman in her car tlaking on the phone nad still using her hands, that is me. I walk on the phone and make me facial expressions still. I use my hands constantly, raise my eyebrows, twist my lips, change my posture and even now as I am thinking of more things to put on the list I am bitting the inside of my lip, contoring my face to it's "thinking position". So it is very difficult for me to imagine not using non verbal communication in everyday conversation, as well as a tool for understanding people's underlying emotions and conveying my own.
This is why, I would have to say the greatest non verbal tool is silence. It is perfect because it can apply to a variety of situations and still nto lose the meaning it is intending. Silence can be an indication of intense thought/ study, a hint of disdain or anger, it can be a moment of embarassment, etc. And to date I must say I liked this week's conversation the best because it was interactive and more relatable than soem of the other issues, again bringing up the universality of communication forms.

With every chapter I read in our textbook, I think "this is what culture is". The chapter on language demonstrated this especially for me.
When I was a kid, I went to a French immersion elementary school. I had all my classes in french from kindergarten to fifth grade. But in sixth grade I switched to a regular middle school. I hadn't moved to another country, or even another state or city, but I felt like I'd entered another world. The bullies seemed meaner, the teachers stricter, and every subject, even ones I'd learned before, felt foreign to me. It took me over a year to feel comfortable in a school that was 5 minutes from my house. Since I spoke English in every other aspect of my life, you would think that the transition would be easy for me, but it was just the opposite. I think this says a lot about the setting in which language is used. Since I spoke English with my family and friends, I associated it with casual, less threatening situations. So when it was used in a school setting, the contrast stressed me out.
The reason my parents sent me to a French immersion school in the first place speaks to the importance of language in culture. My mom, who had spent time in France, thought it was important to teach children foreign languages while they could easily absorb them. She believed that being bilingual would make her children more accepting of different cultures and more able to adapt to a foreign situation. My mother seems to take more of a relativist position; that language influences the way we see the world and that speaking a different language allows you to see the world in a different way. In some ways I agree with her; while my French immersion past may have at one point stunted my academics, overall I think it has made me a more open-minded person.

Is language really a "jailhouse?"

My former roommate, Amber, is from Shanghai. She speaks very broken English (but she's doing really well picking up certain idioms, expanding her vocabulary, etc. Brava, Amber!). When she and I first began to speak via e-mail, as a literature major, I cringed at almost every verb she wrote. I knew it was going to be difficult speaking to her, and, with my use of the English language, she had a very hard time understanding me. It went back and forth for a few weeks until finally, we discovered that we both speak French. We started conversing in this shared language, and we were able to understand each other so much better. Even to this day, when we just can't understand each other, we slip into French and have one of those long-awaited "aha!" moments.

I guess you could say that language has its pros and cons. If we both spoke Mandarin or English, we would be doing perfectly fine! However, I've never spoken a word of Mandarin in my life, and as previously stated, she is still advancing her English speaking skills. We wouldn't have to go into a five to twenty minute explanation of what the curtain is or why we sleep in/under sheets. However, without the mutual knowledge of the French language, we wouldn't have been able to converse at all.  Language certainly does bring people of a culture (and, as demonstrated, different cultures) together, and it most definitely drives people apart when there is the chance for miscommunication. 

So, is language a "jailhouse" as someone termed it in last Thursday's class? I don't think so entirely, but I am fully aware (and certainly Amber is, too) that a difference in language presents an extraordinary problem that, unless we are well equipped with knowledge of other languages, is very difficult to mediate. 

Do you think language is a "jailhouse?" Je voudrais lire vos réponses!  Bises!

Language: From a Relativist Perception

In class on Thursday, we briefly talked about the nominalist vs. relativist approach on how language influences our perception. After our discussion and reading about the Biola community and the study of the Kuuk Thaayorre (an Aboriginal community, it is clear to me that language does affect perception.

The Biola community made it clear that religion, family, and hard work were important aspects of their daily lives. They conveyed this point of view in the way they spoke about themselves. I thought it was interesting how the age gap between an older woman and her son changed the way they viewed their religion. One of the women, Virginia, explained, "I see tradition fading a little...The morals and the values aren't there like they used to be at one time" Her son explains how he has started going to another church, different than the one he grew up with. Clearly, just by listening to both the mother and son talk about themselves, religion and family play a big part in their lives. Their perception of life is different than other cultures, even in the way they speak. This culture talks a lot about religion and family while another culture may talk more about social status, etc. Their perception of what is important in life is changed, and comes through in their speech.

The study of the Kuuk Thaayorre community proves again that language can truly affect perception. Because in their language there is no "left" or "right", they use directional language such as "northwest" or "south". When they were told to put pictures in order, each time facing a different direction, the way in which they placed the pictures changed because they were following the directional terms. I thought this was especially interesting because it proved that they literally viewed the world in a different way. They viewed it in a more spatially-oriented way than other cultures.

In both these readings, the way in which one lives and one views the world is greatly influenced by language. It really has led me to believe that language controls a good portion of perception.

Language as a "Homewrecker"

In M&N and in class today we were taking about the different functions of language and one that was brought up was language as a "prison house". I have decided to take a different approach and call language a home-wrecker. Now I am not saying that all language is negative in this sense, but in my experience language is such a sensitive issue that if it isn't addressed properly things can go wrong or things can be prevented. For instance, I spoke of my heritage as an Italian -American and how that meant certain aspects of my life were determined for me already, like Sunday afternoons at nonna's house. Now although that may seem as if that would foster a close relationship between my nonna and I, that is false. In fact it was the language of our common heritage that kept us apart. For one she never learned English, and tried here and there to speak a few words. I was never spoken to in Italian by my father because he though it was difficult learning English as a second language, so he didn't want to impose that on his children. But where that left me was betweena rock and a hard place because I could never have one on one conversations with my nonna. It was not until I got older and learned Italian that I could understand her better and even then her dialect was so different from the uniform Italian language we still to this day do not have as close of a relationship as I would like.
Language is also a homwrecker in the sense of generational differences between parents and chidlren. Sometimes things are said in a non chalanct manner by kids and taken more seriously by adults insighting a fight or disagreement. And the fact that kids have there own language for there peers, leaves their parents in the dark and puts a gap between them communication wise.
Due to the complexity of language messages can be missed between cultures of different context and cause issues. Also in the sense of institutions or instructions, there can only be so many languages displayed so the ones that are chosen, leave out others and create a sense of un importance. So basically although language can be helpful at times, most of the time becuase it is not uniform, there are more hardships that arise from it.

Analysis question 1

It seems that with every controversial political topic, identities always come into conflict. Health care is something that everyone connects with. Like Laura said, people seem to need to include an identity statement when talking about the issue (like "as a doctor" or "as a senior citizen").

I work at a bookstore in Union Station and over the summer a man came in looking for both Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly's latest books. Clearly we did not agree politically. When I was ringing him up he asked me if I was a fan of either Beck or O'Reilly. When I smiled and said "no", he said "Young lady you are going to be paying for the rest of your life for what these guys are trying to do. What do you have to say about that?" His question caught me off guard for a couple of reasons, the first being that I was at work and didn't have time to discuss politics. But also I did not like the way he made assumptions about my identity. He assumed that because I am young, he was more knowledgeable than me. His age also allowed him to ask me a personal question to begin with. It was clear that our identities were conflicting, not just our stances on health care. His being an older conservative man conflicted with my being a young liberal female. The funny thing about this exchange is that we both judged each others identities before the question was asked. While I was busy judging him by his choice in pundits, he was probably making assumptions based on my age or hair color or choice in shoes (TOMS) and decided I was a fair-weather liberal. In the end, I answered the customer by smiling, muttering something about the past 8 years, and telling him sincerely to have a nice day.

Identity plays a big role in this and every debate. I think we have an almost ego-maniacal way of trying to make everything about us. While health care reform will clearly affect all of us, I believe our need to identify with it is based more on a desire to feel important than it is to protect our fellow "seniors" or "liberal constituents". But maybe that's a little harsh.

HC Reform

Health care reform has been a topic of constant debate not only over the summer, but also continuously now, especially since we are in session. I myself work for my Congressman of New York’s 13th district and receive calls from constituents everyday expressing their opinion on health care reform. Some identify in a strictly political sense of liberal v. conservative. They identify with the general consensus of their parties opinion and stick to it. Others identify in social terms of small business owner or also in terms of age. A lot of the time the first words I hear are, “I am a senior citizen in your district.” Also, in letters that I read people feel the need to identify with any possible title that might pertain to them, such as “ I am a senior citizen, veteran widow, 89 years of age…”

I think that because the health care reform affects many areas, multiple identities are now being claimed. Each person is sticking up for their own concerns and where they fit into the plan. Senior Citizens are concerned or for the changes to Medicare advantage. Those under the poverty line that rely on Social Security are concerned or for change to Medicad. Business owners see this reform as chance to stop paying for employees insurance out of their own pockets and get a break they believe they deserve. Also, it is viewed as positive for business owners in the sense they have smaller premiums depending on which plan is instituted.

Therefore, I see identity as playing an explicit role in this debate. When considering the different parts of health care reform, the language itself opens the door for multiple identification groups. And the ironic thing is that even under those groups of senior citizen or small business owner there are still divided opinions. So it furthermore implies identification as a senior citizen against health care reform or the opposite. The whole point of a debate is to take sides and identify with a particular position so these circumstances were unavoidable.

My Racial and Ethnic Identity

In the text book, the authors cite many different types of social and cultural identities, like gender identity and age identity. While reading, two in particular caught my eye - the ideas of racial and ethnic identities. In the book, racial identity is defined as identifying with a particular racial group. In this respect, I identify myself as Caucasian. However, the idea of ethnic identity is something more developed, being described as feeling a sense of belonging to one's own ethnic group and having ideas and knowledge about the shared experience of the ethnicity. By these standards, I would identify as mostly Irish, with British and French mixed in.

I am your perfect Irish girl - pale skin, lots of freckles, and reddish hair. Although we are now into the third generation of American born family members, my family and I still hold onto my family practices passed down from my great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers. We are also your stereotypical Irish family - we are loud and bawdy, even when everyone hasn't been drinking, which is very unusual. We can never leave a party without saying goodbye for at least two hours, and of course, we have many red-haired children in the family. We still cook our own potatoes, for instant potatoes are a sin in my family. The smell of boiling cabbage is nothing new to our nostrils - in fact, we enjoy the smell. 

However, I never really considered myself really Irish until I learned about the persecution that my family went through when they came to America. Along with many other Irish immigrants, my great-grandparents had a hard time finding jobs because they were not considered "white" in the eyes of their society. For God's sake, my great-grandfather was John Wayne's stand-in at one point (in Ireland, of course)! How could they not be considered "white"? I'm still doing research on this point, and as my brother has agreed, when he goes to Ireland this December, he will send me the contact information of the family we have still left in Ireland so that I may talk with them about what their family members went through in the "promised land." 

So, am I Caucasian or Irish? As the authors state, we are many things, for our full identity is a conglomeration  of all of these different sub-identities. With much reflection, I have decided that I am a young, straight, Irish-American Caucasian Lutheran female from the upper-middle class of Edgmont, Pennsylvania. I am an American.

I would love to hear what others think of themselves and what others think of me from this blog. If you have any comments, I PROMISE that I will get back to you (I know that I wasn't very good at this before). I'n very interested in hearing what you all have to say! Thank you for reading!

Age and Technology

During our discussion yesterday, we brought up the whole age barrier concept and technology. Technology does serve as a way of communication but it can also become a barrier or a source of conflict.

Not too long ago, I showed my parents how to make their first text. Ever since then, I get texts from my parents using abbreviations like "ily" or "sup". I find it humorous and I sometimes make fun of them for it. I think my parents' age is what really gets me. Why are my 50-year-old parents texting me abbreviations when they didn't even have cell phones when they were my age? Are they trying to relate to me? Someone brought up that her parents texted and facebook messaged her on her birthday instead of getting a phone call and how this upset her. Sometimes when I look down at my phone and see that my dad has sent me an "I'm thinking of you" text, I get upset myself. If he had time to text me, why didn't he have time to call me? I text my friends, but it's different when my father or even my mother does it. Maybe I'm just being age-ist, yet it seems a bit odd to receive a text from a person more than twice my age.

Technology, as I said before, can also become a barrier due to age. Take my grandmother for instance. She is even older than my parents, yet we bought her a cell phone not too long ago. She can't even understand how to use the computer, how could she possibly work a cell phone? She never even picks up because she can't understand where her ringtone is coming from when we call her. Whenever she calls, I look at my caller ID and answer "Hey grandma!". She seems surprised every time, "How did you know it was me?" she asks. I laugh, but it just proves that sometimes age can really affect communication. The only way I can get a hold of my grandmother is by her house phone or if she comes over unexpectedly.

In my generation, technology is a vital source of communication. I would love too see what would happen if all of a sudden, everyone's ipod, cell phone, computer, etc. just turned off and stopped working for a day. What would happen? I honestly don't know if people know how to function without technology anymore, myself included.

Before I end this post, the discussion made me think of a commercial that I think everyone has seen. It relates to this whole age barrier and technology idea and made me laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o

On History and the "Grand Narrative"

Upon reading about all the different types of histories, there were a few parts of the chapter that really stuck out.

First of all, I (like many others) was struck by how many histories there were. It wasn't as if I had no idea that there was a gender history or that there were social histories. I had just never thought of them all separately and in the same chapter of a textbook. When we learn history in high school, it is as though it is all clumped into one big history and the authors choose parts of history that seem the most important. I had never even thought of the idea that there could be histories such as absent history. I thought the idea of absent history was especially interesting because when you think of the word "history" you automatically think of all that you have read in textbooks or have read about elsewhere. I had never stopped to think that maybe there were events that occurred, but just weren't recorded. How much of history is not covered by the textbooks we read in school or retold by the media?

Another idea that I thought was interesting was the idea of the "grand narrative". The book defined it as "A unified history and view of humankind" (130). But how could we all possibly believe in one solid history of humankind? There are so many different views on what occurred in history and what didn't. Take, for instance, the idea of absent histories that I already mentioned. How could we have a "grand narrative" when there are histories that weren't even recorded or were forgotten.

I agree with the idea that in order to understand different cultures and their ways of behavior and communication, the different histories are important to acknowledge. History helps give us reasons why certain cultures think or behave in a certain way. It can put us in someone else's shoes and help us understand a culture's background. It may even make us more sensitive to people of different group's differences.

When I was reading about history in the textbook, I couldn't help but come back to the ideas of relativism and universalism. Much of chapter four was about how different types of history influence our identity. It included more types of history than I would ever guess existed; there was family, national, diasporic, colonial, religious, and more histories than I could name. Our identities seem to be pulled in countless directions by different accounts of events. It is no wonder then that so much of the differences between cultures is built upon differences in history.

For example, the anniversary of September 11th just recently passed. My roommate, who is from New England, said she thought that no one really cared about 9/11 anymore. I had to disagree. Because I grew up in the D.C. area, I think the history of that day is different to me, although I can't really explain how. (But to put it in perspective, my mother still talks about escape plans and moving to the country). Just experiencing the same moment in time, but in a different place, can change a person's perspective, not to mention the differences in perspective than can come from conflicting experiences. This is not the best example of how history affects our identity, but I think it works.

What I was getting to about relativism is this. If our history can vary not just from culture to culture, but from person to person, doesn't that support the idea that nothing can be absolute, and that everything is subjective? If everything is subjective, how could we ever agree on, say, a family history, let alone a national history or grand narrative? And how important are these agreed-upon accounts? It is amazing to me that there is any human consensus at all when I see more and more how different we all view things.

Histories? Plural?

Before reading last week's assignments, I was aware that there are individual histories, national histories, and a world history, of multiple events and interactions. But I was blown away by all the different types of history they created out of thin air, or so it seemed. For instance, why is there a need to differentiate between social history and intellectual history? Intellectual histories are defined as written histories that focus on the development of ideas so why can't that just be out into its respective categories of developments under national history, family history, etc. I felt as if creating all these sub groups just confuses and complicates the idea of history considering that most elements overlap anyway. This point is especially evident in the idea Weaver presents about the iceberg of culture v. customs and attitudes. Histories are made up of behaviors, beliefs and values and thoughts that influenced people's tendencies at which they eventually overlap somewhere. So can't we just combine diasporic histories with certain culture histories or socieconomic histories?
Furthermore as Hall brings up about context and information being functionally related, histories include these and so you cannot explicty distingush between them, especially when considering that it is very difficult to exclude context. And I personally believe that the power in history M&N touches upon in texts and other histories, etc..is more powerful when we look at all the histories together. If you look at them separate it is easier to forget the implications and influences they had on each other. I think that separating histories in an acadmeic sense also fosters segration between groups of people, which isn't a usefool ideology to have floating around because there is more power in numebrs and unity then individuals standing alone. Which bring up the contact hypothesis of better communication between groups of people is faciliated by bringing them together and allowing them to interact. I don't necesarily agree that it is so simple as that, but I so believe that it important for them to interact so that they understand their differences and no avoid them or see them as negative aspects.

Different Histories

Last night, I was texting my brother, and we were discussing the biography of Teddy Roosevelt that he is reading. I expressed how much I love history, and he told me not to confuse the two genres, stating, "Don't confuse a biography of a historical figure with an actual history." This got me to thinking about the different type of histories described in Chapter 4. Can we really not confuse the two? Or is a history made up of all different components, including the biography of a historical figure like the great T.R.? 

When reading, I was taken aback by how many different histories the authors listed within our text book. Some were simple and obvious, like political, social and national histories. Others, not so much, like absent history and family histories, and other nonmainstream histories. All of these combined make up what can be called the "Grand Narrative" of the existence of humankind.  Even personal histories of those who were not or are not in the limelight are vital to the Grand Narrative. So, was my brother wrong to say that you shouldn't confuse a biography of a historical figure and an actual history? I believe he was. 

To the Grand Narrative of humankind, every aspect of human life - sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, even geographical placement - counts towards the full "report" through their respective histories. 

Why study cultures? And how do we view them?

To address first the readings of Rohrlich and Hall, and the question of why we study this discipline I found them useful. Especially for an international relations student, understanding how cultures interact with each other is a major part of the discipline. I believe it is true that is helps address and understand global problems. Furthermore, this discipline should be encouraged so people understand the general terms used to discuss cultures, such as high and low context. I myself also felt as if the sense of culture was instilled in everyone, but now being at college and meeting new people I understand the term 'sheltered'. For me, I live in Staten Island, New York and so as a kid I would go into the city with my parents to museums and the park and just see the 'melting pot' that NYC is. I grew up with different cultures around me, my father for one who immersed us in the Native American culture out of his own interest. And then attending cultural events like pow-wows or an African wedding. So when I came to college I thought it was ironic to take a class on cultures considering you can learn so much from just observing, but like I said I realize now not everyone has this opportunity.
Also touching on the issues of ethics and more specifically universalism and relativism, I relate to the relative camp. Universalism sounds as if it is an idealistic concept, implying everyone is working together under the same norms and there is continual peace. This would be something to strive for considering the growth of globalization; however, I also follow a realist lens for international issues, which is why relativism speaks to me. It instead looks at particular groups and views certain groups as having particular rights. In the international world actors and states like to be distinguished regard each other in terms of power. With this alone comes individual characteristics, and this extends to culture. People are proud of their own cultures and have traditions they practice and to which they hold as standards for others.
This brings up the discussion from class and intervention. In class I argued that other cultures may view our practices of raising children as 'wrong' considering we allow them so much technological access, but that is because other cultures have correlations between ages and receiving knowledge. So really who is to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. When do we intervene? And judging on the argument I was presenting it would seem as if I believe non-intervention is the way to go. However, I myself am conflicted because regarding humanitarian aspects I believe we should assist the global south and help them enter the developed world and global economy. Yet, again I am conflicted because how do we do that without imposing our own culture and standards upon these individuals. This is why universalism would have its perks, if there was an international consensus on how to intervene and during what instances, but with that we lose the subjectivity that relativism offers. So really this is me just exploring the options, I have yet to come to a definitive answer, but as of now I am leaning towards relativism.

In theory I like the idea of relativism. When cultures vary so much, it seems insensitive- and impossible- to hold everyone to the same values or standards of behavior. However I don't think it works in practice. It is unrealistic to believe that culture lives in a bubble. With globalization, the advent of internet and the ease of travel, cultures that were once very separate can collide on a daily basis. With all of these former walls being knocked down, there will come a point when the excuse "but it's a different culture" will no longer be enough.

On the other hand, I understand that pure universalism is not effective either. It can clearly cause more trouble than it prevents. When trying to create a set of values to apply to a world's worth of people, the beliefs of the powerful will invariably overshadow others. You cannot have equality under a global law if it is founded upon inequality.

But despite its flaws, I think we need to work towards some kind of universalism if for no other reason than that it is our current reality. Globalization is effectively putting the world's cultures in a blender so that we can no longer ignore that the lines between "us" and "them" are blurring. We can't really choose between relativism and universalism; the nature of cross-cultural interaction has made that choice for us.

The Epic Battle Between Universalism and Relativism

In class the other day, I couldn't believe how heated the debate became over the concepts of universalism and relativism within the world of ethics. 

I've thought about these views many times before and have firmly grounded myself in the belief of relativism. I do believe ethics and moral practices are relevant to the culture within which they are practiced, but at the same time, I believe that it is basic human nature to know the difference between right and wrong, creating some sort of parallel within all cultures. In my opinion, it is not our place to interfere with other cultures just because we are shockingly disgusted at what they consider normal. 

However, someone brought up an interesting point that I have never thought about before. One young lady (I'm sorry, I can't remember names at this point in time) asked something along the lines of, "Well, what if it [meaning an ethical issue that you find disturbing and disgusting] was happening within your own culture? Would you intervene then?" To be quite honest, I don't know.

Please keep in mind the fact that I don't mean for this blog to become a heated debate over the very sensitive subject of abortion, but because I have experience with this issue, I'm going to use it merely for demonstrative purposes. 

For about four years, I have been journeying to Washington, D.C. on January 22 with about one hundred other girls from my high school to walk in the March for Life (I chose American University partially for this reason! ). As you may have guessed, I am pro-life and proud of it.  I find the practice appalling and quite disturbing, and I will peacefully fight for the right of every human life. I guess some would call this intervening, but honestly, I think that if someone is pro-choice, they're going to ignore the march all together, blocking out all "intervention". However, I would never go and bomb an abortion clinic or hold back a woman from walking into the building. That goes beyond my right as a human. Everyone has free will and the abilities to make their own judgments. Let them use it. 

After reflecting, I guess I would say that I'm still firmly grounded in the belief of relativism. I don't believe in interfering in another culture (even your own) just because your ethical and moral standards don't match up with someone else's. Tolerance and respect are the key points to a united world, and without them, we, as a community of nations, are taking giant steps backward instead of forward. 

*Disclaimer: I'm not intending to make anyone think the way that I do. Feel free to share your opinions civilly, and know that they will be considered and respected. Thank you for reading!

Sense of Time

When reading the conversation between Edward and Elizabeth Hall, I was particularly interested in the topic of time.

I think it is really interesting to see the relationship between culture and sense of time. Hall points out:

"Our culture happens to organize most activities on a time base. We talk about time as if it were money; we spend it, save it or waste it. Time patterns are so deeply embedded in our central nervous system that we can't imagine getting along without them" (13). 

Where our culture is constantly aware of the time and legitimately could not function without it, other cultures are quite the opposite. Other cultures are "polychronic"(13). They believe that each individual creature or object has its own time structure and it should be treated individually. For instance, as explained by Hall, if the Hopi Indians were to plant corn that did not grow as efficiently as it should, they would just let it be and accept it for how it is. In our culture, however, we would try to create a new type of corn that would grow more efficiently and abundantly. 

This idea of time can relate to everyday life. If there is one concept I learned when going to Italy, it was their sense of time was incredibly different than ours. While we ate dinner at the "american time" of around 7pm, their dinner wouldn't start until 11pm. You could literally walk down the streets and see all the americans sitting down to eat at around the same time, and then a few hours later the native italians would come out to dinner. Dinner itself took forever to be completed because they would wait for longer periods of time in between each course. At first, this was a shock to me but as we stayed in Italy longer, our dinners became more relaxed and we were able to really sit and enjoy each other's company longer. We even started going to dinner later. 

I never realized how sense of time could truly affect a culture, but after experiencing it myself and reading about it in this article, I've come to realize the difference time structure can make. I really do envy the more relaxed time structure of other cultures, because I feel it reduces stress and anxiety overall. Maybe we should all take some time to slow down.