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.