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for example, did not know that Kristin Chenoweth was originally a huge Broadway star or that the Girls Next Door had been replaced by three younger blondes, I yelled at her, "What?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.