Ethnographies!

I must admit, when I first heard about the ethnography presentations, I was more than skeptical. I was unconvinced that the assignment would be anything more than pretending to see things in places where there was nothing to see and assigning abstract terms that we barely understood to describe these things. I was quite wrong. In ALL four of the other presentations, I came away entirely convinced that a tangible culture existed in each instance. While they may not have always been easy to see by any stretch, they are clearly there. Likewise, I am entirely convinced that in my particular group's topic (The Dav), a culture certainly existed and I can only hope that we conveyed it effectively.

Something interesting kept coming out of these presentations, though. It seems that, oftentimes, people are unaware or desensitized to the cultures that they belong to. Based on the reactions exhibited by the students at Howard or those who work as PSAs here at AU, it seems that they were almost humored by the concept of a cultural examination of their particular group and has perhaps never considered the possibility of a culture that they comprised. Maybe, though, this is what constitutes a true culture; if what a group of people shares is legitimate, perhaps so is an implied understanding.

Also, as I acknowledged in a number of my recent comments, I think that people need to be more open-minded when listening to others explaining their preconceived stereotypes or misconceptions.
-Dylan Parker

U.S. Convergence: Love it, Hate it, It's everywhere

Almost everybody who was old enough at the time remembers where they were and what they were doing on September 11th. For me personally, one of the most vivid memories of that day (outside of the images of the actual attacks being carried out and fulfilled) was the immediate televised reaction of some Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Upon hearing of the attacks, these people were shown cheering in the streets and burning American flags. While I do not believe that many of these people were actually anti-Americans (rather, they were more likely just being forced to do so or ignorant of what they were actually doing) there was certainly a very blatant hostile sentiment present in that scene. Somehow, my attention was drawn to a few little children. These kids were no older than 6 or 7, and likely had absolutely no idea what was going on or why they were screaming at the tops of their lungs. Interestingly, one kid was wearing a Spiderman t-shirt and the girl had a Christina Aguileira shirt on. I found it more than a bit ironic that, as these people for one reason or another were celebrating the U.S. being attacked, they were wearing shirts that represented some of the more prevalent instances of American culture worldwide.

This points to a greater trend; the same things can be seen worldwide. I recently watched a PBS documentary about humanitarian groups working in the Darfur region of Sudan. One of their main jobs was distributing clothing to war-ravaged refugees who otherwise had none. Interestingly enough, the shirts were all championship T-shirts from American professional sports teams (i.e, the Yankees 2003 ALCS championship or the Patriots 2004 Super Bowl championship) Upon seeing the Yankees logo, the younger men immediately recognized what they were seeing, and began saying "America! America!" over and over. These people probably had no idea what baseball actually was, but they could certainly recognize the Yankees logo, which has become one of the most famous American sports logos of all time. While America's political ideologies may conflict with other nations or factions, its cultural ones have certainly made their mark.
-Dylan Parker

What is "American" culture?

The terms "popular" and "mainstream" are thrown around these days with almost alarming regularity. We have, it seems, reached a status quo of just exactly what is or isn't acceptable in our greater culture and how it does or doesn't effect us. However, is it fair to call this culture "American"? I don't think so. I think that what is being played out on a daily basis in media, film, and music is the product of a less prevalent but far more omnipresent theme: freedom.

Patriotic and nationalistic campaigns and advertisements almost always focus on the concept of "freedom." This has been especially evident in the wake of 9/11, with Operation Enduring Freedom taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. From government officials to media pundits, almost everybody throws around the word "freedom," and treats it almost as a physical commodity rather than an abstract ideal. Freedom, as it has come to be defined, can be shared, defended, won, and also lost. It has overtaken society to the point that we are "free" to do as we please, which includes having a Blackberry, posting status updates on Facebook or Twitter, and driving environmentally efficient vehicles, which are all parts of "popular" culture.
-Dylan Parker

Cultural Diplomacy as a Coverup

After our dynamic discussion on cultural diplomacy I would like to offer a (brilliant) comparison:

The United States=
Kanye West

Confused? Just hear me through…

Most of us would concede that we like Kanye’s music, but do not like him as a person (or his public display of his character). This is similar to the Newsweek article that discussed the popularity of US culture in the world despite unpopular US policies. “We hate you but keep sending us Baywatch”, could easily be, “We hate you Kanye, but if you stop producing records, we’ll hate you more”. Thinking about it in terms of Kanye made me imagine how you ‘market’ Kanye to the American people. And the bottom line is that he doesn’t need to be marketed, he will always be Kanye. He could change his image if he wanted to (the current position of the US predicament). All it would take for Kanye to be a ‘good’ guy, would be him not being a jackass (as ironically noted by the president).

So, US State Department, just stop being a jerk, and you’ve reached the goals of your establishment. If the department worried half as much about its perception, and more about its policies, it wouldn’t have to worry about its perception.

Cultural Diplomacy would be completely unnecessary if the US had good policies. For those who argue that there are some aspects of US culture that some in the world don’t appreciate, it is not the foundational cause for disapproval. The beauty of US culture is that it is always changing and not really ‘institutionalized’.

The Purpose of the Practice

As we near the end of our cross-cultural semester, I figure I’d take a step back and reflect on why we’re all here, and how we can use the lessons of this course. After all, there must be some way we can utilize all that we’ve talked about, right?

For me, the ultimate lesson to be learned regarding cross-cultural communication is how to actually place oneself into the mind of a person whose viewpoint is totally different from their own. Intensive study of alternative means of thought, as well as an honest attempt to look at a situation from another point of view, teaches us that no opinion, practice, or perspective is “weird” or “illogical”; rather, they result from a complex set of social norms and priorities. While in our younger years, we may have marveled at that which we regarded as “exotic”, we now attempt to mold some sort of logical inference about that subject upon observation. The end result is recognition of the humanity of all people and cultures, a vital step towards effectively dealing with others.

These lessons help not just on an interpersonal level, but also at the top of the ladders of power. Consider this article published yesterday in Foreign Policy magazine. Using the most basic elements of cross-cultural understanding, that being the placement of oneself in the mind of another, effective conclusions are reached regarding the behavior of a people under military occupation. The person who makes no effort to do this only sees the situation as a map towards his or her goals. Yet, the person who adapts this technique is better able to predict the response of the other parties involved, and can, accordingly, either adjust their methods to overcome these barriers, or re-evaluate their original stance in light of the sentiments of others. In either case, the person who takes alternative opinions into account will always be better prepared to face down a challenge.

Recently, I was treated to a fascinating lecture on the possibility of an “American Civil Religion”. This encompasses the notion that American history, culture, and values take up in the minds of Americans the same place that religion once took up in earlier civilizations. Most importantly, Americans, like numerous other historical religious groups, mistake their ideals of a functioning society for universal ideals, and as such make a point to push such ideals wherever they go about the world. Like missionaries, they advocate what they see to be the most pressing issues for all of mankind, yet they are unexpectedly rebuked by the rest of the world upon arrival. Americans, perhaps more so than any other people, will have a difficult time adjusting to the myriad of social priorities when encountering other cultures, simply because they have been taught that their values of freedom of speech, liberal democracy, and the like are universal values. These are powerful ideals, and to electively shed them when acting upon other cultures will be a difficult trick to learn. Hopefully, the mastery of cross-cultural communication will become an attainable objective for all.

Perry Landesberg

Organic Cultural Diplomacy

In the past class we discussed the idea of cultural diplomacy and how it could/should be used in modern diplomacy. After doing all the reading it seems to me that the modern view takes a far different view of culture than the norm. Those espousing cultural diplomacy seem to shun the idea of organic cultural diplomacy and support a kind of forced cultural diplomacy. I'll elaborate further.

What's the difference between forced and organic cultural diplomacy. Organic cultural diplomacy is a kind of natural trade of ideas between cultures because of shared interest. Much of this type of cultural diplomacy comes in the form of pop culture. McDonalds, CSI, and various movies are great examples of this kind of cultural diplomacy. People like fried food and crime dramas, they spread because some entrepreneurial individual/company thought it might work, and they are subject to a price mechanism that keeps non-viable aspects out. An example of non-viable organic cultural diplomacy: Why are there no Wal-Mart subsidiaries in Russia? Simply, the people didn't embrace it and thus it was never able to establish itself. For those of us who ahve studied international development this is an Easterly-esque approach to cultural exchange. This all is different from forced cultural diplomacy.

Forded cultural diplomacy is what most people think of when they think cultural diplomacy. It's the embassy events, jazz concerts, and art exhibitions of the world. Much of this is top-down planned attempts at cultural diplomacy. The greatest difference between this and organic cultural diplomacy is the lack of a price mechanism. When these events are held it's hard to determine their true effectiveness on the target country, and there is no creative destruction to weed out practices that are non or counter productive. This is a great paradox of cultural diplomacy. If we're trying to do cultural diplomacy how do we integrate a form oa a price mechanism while accomplishing set goals.

That's for this generation of political economy students to determine, because nobody has come up with a truly viable answer thus far.

For the last time,
Nick Zaiac

The United States as a Cultural Equal

It was great to hear a number of voices on Thursday speaking on the topic of cultural diplomacy, and I’m sure the impressions we derived from the conference will vary greatly. I’ll just give my quick thoughts regarding a point that was brought up in the first discussion.

A member of the audience brought up the notion that the focus of United States missions abroad was focused towards the wrong goals. Whereas the embassies of other nations have strong cultural exchange programs, the United States lacks any formal office or department specifically dedicated towards the preservation and promulgation of American culture. This is needed, she claimed, in order to set the United States on the same footing with the rest of the world in the field of cultural diplomacy.

Now, many will decry her opinions as a blatant example of cultural imperialism. Such a view is especially suspect given the dominance of the United States in world affairs. However, I see her suggestions in an entirely different context, one which I think could turn the worldwide opinion of the United States around for the better.

As she stated, the United States government, especially the diplomatic organs, does not put major emphasis on using its diplomatic capabilities to promote interest in American culture. Rather, she said, the prime directive of all missions is to open up markets to trade, and all offices work in furtherance of this goal. While this may serve the nation’s interests, such a single-minded focus handicaps the ability of the United States to relate to the people in a given country on an intercultural basis. While most embassies sponsor artists and social events in order to exhibit their cultures and foster a friendly image, United States embassies around the world focus entirely on business, essentially closing themselves off socially to the societies they are situated among.

In effect, this isolation unintentionally helps to foster a negative image of American culture. In the absence of positive direct portrayals of American culture, the denizens of foreign lands are exposed to the United States through the only route promoted by the embassies: business. When American businesses, either public franchises or behind-the-scenes contractors, move in and dominate a market, they project an image of American culture as one of dominance and assimilation. They devour all domestically-owned businesses and force the locals to accept their authority. The locals then attach the feeling of subservience to American culture as a whole, and their overall opinion of the United States is irrevocably damaged.

So how should the Foreign Service combat this image? Rather than withdraw from foreign markets, the most beneficial (and diplomatic) course of action would be to install an office in the State Department and in American embassies tasked specifically with promoting American culture as a single, diverse world culture among many others. In essence, portray American culture as other countries portray their own cultures: in an idealized and inviting way.

Of course, no country portrays their culture exactly the way it is. I was in the Embassy of Benin about three months ago for a cultural open house, and the main features on display were a collection of tribal masks and a drum-and-dance show. But it goes without saying that actual daily life in Benin incorporates none of these things. Rather, such cultural expressions are societal ornaments, reminiscent of a time long past.

The United States should direct its missions to adopt similar public relations techniques. America, with its myriad cultural expressions, could easily entertain foreign audiences with the best elements of its culture, and direct attention away from unpopular private business practices. Embracing the full possibilities of cultural diplomacy is an excellent first step towards rebranding the United States and regaining the international respect it once enjoyed.

Perry Landesberg

We interupt your regularly scheduled post for this special note

This day I'm not going to blog about what everyone else is. Sure, we went to a conference that was really interesting with a lot of insight to be had. Sure we read the reading for class as well. But today is November 9, 2009.

Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall fell to the ground.Twenty years ago today millions were freed from the communist yoke. Twenty years ago today was the symbolic end to the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Twenty years ago today...

Saturday evening I sat in a massive auditorium in Philadelphia, at the Mid-Atlantic Students For Liberty Conference graciously hosted by the Drexel Student Liberty Front. I was surrounded by over a hundred peers, brothers in liberty from across the Mid-Atlantic. We entered that auditorium that morning running on nothing but passion and half an hour of sleep, only to leave that evening exhausted but burning, burning with a fire that no man could extinguish. Why? How do some kids from Philly and DC make it though a 12 hour day of sitting in a room without passing out? One final speech by little-known a UPenn professor by the name of Alan Charles Kors.

Kors gave speech entitled "Can there be an 'After Socialism'". It asks whether the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago today really was as significant as we think.

We are surrounded by slain innocents, and the scale is wholly new. This is not the thousands killed during the Inquisition; it is not the thousands of American lynching. This is not the six million dead from Nazi extermination. The best scholarship yields numbers that the mind must try to comprehend: scores, and scores, and scores, and scores of millions of bodies.¹ All around us. If we count those who died of starvation during Communists' experiments with human interactions—twenty to forty million in three years in China alone²—we may add scores of millions more. Shot; dead by deliberate exposure; starved; and murdered in work camps and prisons meant to extract every last fiber of labor from human beings and then kill them. And all around us, widows and widowers and orphans.

This speech was powerful, to say the least. More so when you consider one of the people in the room.

The coordinator of the conference was a young liberty-lover, Mid-Atlantic Director of Students For Liberty and AU student whom I've grown to know closely. She also happened to be born in Russia. The day she was born was the day before the Berlin Wall fell. After the speech ended was the moment scores of people realized what they were really living for. She walked up to the stage, tears streaming down her face and brought the conference to a close after struggling to pronounce the words of her two-minute speech.

Now that's what I call Cross Cultural Communication.

Nick Zaiac

Hands OFF!

The conference last Thursday focused on some interesting concepts regarding cultural diplomacy. But, one thing kind of made me tick. The panelist came to the conclusion that the US does not value a nationally defined culture. So, when trying to promote cultural diplomacy (aka trying to get money from the US government) it becomes tricky. But here’s the thing, the US culture is this idea that we don’t have a defined culture. That’s a part of what makes ‘us’ us. We are a hodge podge, a mix of just about everything. US culture varies hugely based on region, and even within each region culture is completely dependent on the group. And that’s a part of what makes our culture amazing. I think that it’s great that we don’t have a Ministry of Culture. I mean, can you imagine what implications such a ministry would have? It would formalize our culture and inevitably discriminate against certain subcultures that make up our country. Formal culture stagnates forward motion. And frankly, the US does enough to export our ‘culture’ without government intervention.

I used to be a firm believer in multi-track diplomacy. But, now I’m starting to have second thoughts. Before you peg me for a crazy, I guess I’m just thinking that it might be better to keep the government’s dirty hands away from our culture. It has a bad track record for putting up a nice front and distorting the realities of US lifestyle. Such distortions of life in the US could have the opposite effect of the intention.

I also find it interesting that when discussing cultural diplomacy, in general the panelists only discussed western countries. This type of discriminatory angle to cultural diplomacy only makes me less of a fan. They would most likely argue that government programs, such as Peace Corps, operate as mechanisms of cultural diplomacy in the global south. I just find the argument for cultural diplomacy to be a matter of ego. We don’t need to prove to the world that our culture is amazing. It comes across as ‘censorship’ of the negative stereotype Americans have in the world.

What makes our culture unique is that there is no one forcing it on us! We, the people, make our culture and that is what makes us different and beautifully distinct from the rest of the world.

The Allure of Familiarity

While studying the “Korean Wave” phenomenon in class last week, there was an element to it that I don’t believe was brought up. It appears, at least to me, that the focus of this cultural craze is essentially limited to East Asia. The "Hallyu" fad was shown to be strong in places such as Japan, China, and Thailand, but didn’t appear at all in India, the Muslim world, Europe, or the Americas. While I’m sure that there are Korea aficionados in all of these places, the culture wave appears not to have struck outside the East and Southeast Asian regions. It appears that there are powerful cultural boundaries that seal off these places from the rest of the world, creating an invisible divide through which few mass ideas can pass. While there have been instances in the past of Asian fads catching on in Western countries (read: Pokémon), large cultural movements never seem to advance past the continent. Yet, on the other hand, such movements receive wild popularity within East Asia, despite regional language and cultural barriers. Why is it that Asian nations have no trouble accepting each others’ cultures, while non-Asian nations are unable to? And can the same be said of non-Asian nations and their own cultures?

I think that at the heart of every society, there is a dualistic view on alien cultures. On one hand, the allure of the unknown draws people into experimenting with foreign ways of life. However, the part that always throws people off is the wholly different mindset and worldview that breeds such behavior. The process of viewing the world from an alternate perspective is too hard for most individuals to grasp, so instead, they search for inroads based on cultural values they can understand. Despite the conscious desire to encounter the exotic, the individual looks for familiar signs upon which to base their experience.

In 2006, the Asian nations experienced another such cultural fad when the young heir to the Bhutanese throne, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, arrived in Thailand to attend the Thai King’s 60th Anniversary. He had rarely been seen in public before, since he had spent most of his life in his native Bhutan, a small Himalayan state known for its beauty and seclusion. His sudden appearance and dashing good looks made him a superstar, and for weeks afterward, Asian tabloid papers and magazines would publish stories about him and life in Bhutan. By the end of the year, Khesar had been crowned King, and he was declared by Asian media sources to be the most eligible bachelor in Asia.

However, despite his popularity throughout Asia, Khesar has not achieved such notoriety in the West. Despite differences in media reporting, I would place the cause of this on differing images of beauty in the East and the West. In Asia, Khesar clearly fit the “Prince Charming” archetype; he was young, handsome, and heir to the throne of a foreign kingdom. However, I would contend that Asian audiences would more likely picture Bhutan as this foreign kingdom, while European and American audiences would more likely think of places like Monaco or Liechtenstein. This is not based on racism; rather, each audience subconsciously chooses a locale that seems different enough to be intrigued, yet familiar enough to understand. As an Asian country, Bhutan is presumed to have Asian values, despite its unique culture. It therefore appeals to Asians as unusual, but in a non-confusing manner. The same holds true for Westerners and nations like Monaco or Liechtenstein.

No matter where we come from, no matter how fascinated we may be by other cultures and peoples, we will always try at first to view them through our own lens of familiarity. Instances of this kind of thought range from Disney films to transnational political movements, and while they may be either harmful or benign, they are indicative of the challenges we face in effectively managing intercultural communication.

Perry Landesberg

Why don't we just meet in the middle?

Of everything we learned this week I found the piece on convergence culture to be the most eye-opening. In that piece Deuze argues that the concept of "convergence culture" is becoming far more prevalent in the modern era. One of the primary reasons for this is that the rise of the internet has allowed a more bottom-up method of information dissemination. Whats more, it plays significantly into the concept of the decentralization of information. I would argue that these interrelated concepts are far more prevalent than most understand. With information we don't just meet in the middle, with half of the information coming from to-down sources and the other coming from decentralized information sources.

The key to understanding these concepts is to simply think about how much you learn and know and how much you don't. How much time do you spend consuming mass information? Now stop and compare that to what you learn as an individual. Now let's cover the underlying concept here of the decentralization of knowledge.

Leonard Read wrote probably the most prominent and well known piece on the decentralization of knowledge. I, Pencil explains the concept that no individual has all the information necessary for the creation of our favorite yellow writing utensil. No matter how well read you are, nobody knows all the various jobs that go into it, from the graphite miner to the waitress who serves the coffee to a trucker hauling the lumber which makes him not fall asleep and drive off the road.

Now what role does all this play in cross cultural communication? By understanding that information itself is almost entirely decentralized it gives us a new perspective on where that delicate point of informational equilibrium lies. This information would lead one to think that the balance leans toward decentralized, consumer driven information, with it shifting toward even more decentralization with the advent of the publications that Deuze writes about.

Nick

The Mistake on the Lake

I'm a Clevelander. Born and raised on the east side, it took me a while to understand and love the city I'm from. Cleveland has taught me about resilliance: to factories shutting down, lake effect blizzards and most of all, sports team dissappointment.

It's a part of life. Sundays, my family would go to church and come home, eat lunch and watch the Browns get beat. But every once in a while, we get lucky. And Cleveland comes alive. That's what LeBron James has done. But now that LeBron is gearing up to leave beloved Cleveland, the Indians are front and center.

The Cleveleand Indians (aka the Tribe) are not normally very good. About one season per decade, they might 'accomplish' something. But, the Indians are a staple represented by none other than good old Cheif Wahoo.

Now, in class we touched on the stereotypes that play into team mascots. But there was one major point that we didn't make in regards to the Indians. On top of the symbolic representation of Cheif Wahoo, the Indians are on the same level as the Marlins, the Orioles, the Cubs, the Cardinals, and even 'Sox'. It's not bad enough that we've continued to allow such a stereotype to exist, but we've degraded it to comparisons with fish and birds. Yikes.

This type of representation creates a breeding ground for the 'third person effect'. I guess I just don't understand why 'we' don't try to change the names of stereotypical mascots. One would think that 'we' would like to forget the woes of our culturally dominant history over marginalized groups such as the Native Americans.

It's time to let it go and start fresh. I mean, what would it say about our country if the 'Indians' were to win the world series? The rest of the world would laugh at our hypocricy and racism.

One day perhaps we'll have had enough of subconcious misrepresentation. But most Clevelanders would just say that the name's unlucky and it's time for a change...

Digital Convergence: A New Frontier

While the internet has been in use for the better part of twenty years, its true effect on the spectrum of daily transgressions has only been tangible since roughly 2003. The impetus, so to speak, behind this newfound prominence can be almost directly attributed to one medium: social networking. Since the advent of networking sites such as MySpace, Friendster, and later Facebook and Twitter, society as a whole has become far more "plugged in." While in the past the go-to means of technological communication were limited mostly to e-mail and instant messengers, the paradigm has shifted tangibly. The reason for this is that these new networking venues essentially provide an individual with a combination of the sources that came before it. Facebook, for instance, allows people to send both e-mail type and instant messages in one place. The level of convenience it affords is unprecedented.

However, there is another very significant aspect of social networking that remains somewhat of a wild card: exposure. The ability to upload personal pictures and post status updates that convey people's moods, actions, and opinions has opened up the floodgates for what is considered "private." By looking at one's Facebook or Twitter page, an observer can essentially learn how someone dresses, who their friends are, and what they have been or will be doing. This is a concept that was altogether foreign even ten years ago; now it is relatively mundane. It has really made its mark in popular culture as well. Famous athletes, music artists, and actors routinely employ Facebook and Twitter as a means of communicating with their fans and keeping them posted on near every aspect of their personal lives. Effectively, if someone has a social networking account, their privacy no longer really exists. It has become a popular adage that once something about someone is posted online, it is there forever. Granted, there are certain steps one can take to attempt to rectify this situation, but those steps are becoming less and less easy to take. Society in general has become so interconnected that we really all now live in the "public eye."
-Dylan Parker

Displaced Identity: Culture Here and There

America is an extremely unique country in that nearly every single inhabitant, citizen or not, has their roots in another country. During the colonial period, the indigenous native peoples were all but wiped out and are now reduced to almost meager populations. What ensued over the next three centuries were wave after wave after wave of immigrations, starting with Northern and Western Europeans, moving furthermore to Southern and Eastern Europeans, East Asians, and Latin Americans. Immigration has continued to intensify as time has gone on, motivated my the promise (or rather, premise) of a "better life" that comes with enhanced economic opportunity as well as political, social, and religious freedoms.

However, it is quite obvious that the many millions of people who emigrated to this country did not leave their respective cultures behind. Rather, they brought their cultures with them in full-force and projected it onto as large a scale as possible. This is tremendously evident in all aspects of our lives today. The most prevalent example that comes to mind is when going out for a meal. A common question asked is "What do you feel like eating?". More often than not, the response would be "Mexican" or "Italian" or "Chinese". Rarely ever do you hear someone say "American". Also, the traditional ways in which people celebrate their holidays has carried over immensely. While, for many people, "home" is thousands of miles away (and often generations away), their home culture is very close and tangible.
-Dylan Parker

Films: A key to the subconscious

Look at almost any major motion picture released in the past century, and you will undoubtedly come across numerous stereotypes and generalizations. These can be evident in the forms of characters, events, or settings written into the plot that, subtle or not, often represent a greater mentality. Hollywood films have long been an outlet for mass forms of expression, often going so far as to characterize a group or a generation. Another, more harmful thing that films have tended to characterize are a world of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Nowhere is this more evident than the role that Arab characters so often play. In nearly every film, an Arab character is portrayed as a savage, brutal, almost inhumane individual who lacks the necessary social grace to even communicate with sophisticated Western counterparts. This is both offensive and demeaning to Arabs everywhere and has actually increased in recent years, despite the fact that communication between the Arab and Western worlds is at an all-time high.

Where does this come from, however? In my opinion, it all stems from a lack of understanding. For centuries, the Arab world was extremely mysterious and even exotic to the average Westerner. Since geographical, political, and cultural factors prevented a true cultural exchange between the two worlds, an air of uncertainty existed. This uncertainty soon grew into animosity and outright rejection of Arab people, and they came to be viewed as lesser individuals. An instance such as this shows that while technology and communication mediums have made the world far smaller, certain prejudices die hard.
-Dylan Parker

Rebranding Arab Society

We spent a good deal of time in Thursday’s class pondering why the popular portrayal of Arabs in film and television appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As was made evident to us, films and televisions shows produced since the inception of the medium have predominantly featured Arab characters in violent, barbaric roles. In earlier cinema, the typical Arab character was a wealthy, exotic, short-tempered man in possession of a host of women. They would either help or hurt the (usually white) main character, depending on their fickle attitudes.

Today, such images have largely been discredited and discarded. Though classical portrayals are nevertheless heralded as classic masterpieces of cinema, to re-imagine that stereotype in the present day would be terribly distasteful. Yet, the modern image of Arab characters is perhaps even more on the antagonist side. They appear more often than not in the role of a terrorist or other form of militant, usually rebelling against Western culture in general. Though several attempts have been made to balance the spectrum with heroic Arab characters, the efforts usually appear forced and fall flat.

What causes such a continual negative portrayal? Are Hollywood and the entertainment industry guilty of holding such base racist beliefs? Aren’t they aware that elements of the public have caught on to this trend?

I would make the case that such stereotypes are not perpetuated consciously today. In fact, films that make honest and intelligent attempts to portray current troubles in the Arab world can have exactly the same effect. While I cannot speak for earlier films, whose portrayal of Arabs may have been based on uninformed assumptions, I posit that the image of the Arab world as a violent place comes not from fiction, but from real events. In the American film market, viewers are more likely to make a connection with a film if they identify with its main characters, and American viewers, like viewers of any nationality, are best able to understand their own culture and perspective. For this reason, the great majority of American films feature American protagonists. However, in order to attract an audience, a film must also hold the viewer’s attention, and this is often done through portrayal of violent conflict. Nowadays, the Arab world provides an ever-fresh medium for non-fiction violence, so it easily acts as a viable setting for politically-contextual fiction.

However, when the Arab world is so ubiquitously used as a violent setting, it can create the impression in the minds of the viewers that whatever actions are transpiring on the screen are representative of everyday life in that setting. Without appropriate balancing forces, the only image Americans receive of the region and its people is overwhelmingly negative. Such a balance does not exist because films showing the positive side of Arab society would likely not appeal to American viewers, as they would likely be thrown off by the cultural and linguistic differences. The only entertaining way of presenting Arab society nowadays is to filter it through a current events context, making the problems there seem far more pervasive than they actually are.

So, what to do in order to alleviate this problem? To be honest, I don’t know. I’m sure Hollywood would love to hear an alternative, but the idea simply hasn’t been formulated as of yet. I suppose a good example of filmmakers attempting to cross cultural barriers would be the recently-produced Slumdog Millionaire. In that case, a foreign culture was shown for both its benefits and drawbacks, but in a believable and humanist sense. Unlike the violent Middle East, the India portrayed in the film featured social hierarchy and competition that was understandable to Americans, yet retained Indian cultural symbols. If only one such film could be made about the Arab world, it may help dispel the inaccurate perceptions that are currently being transmitted.

Perry Landesberg

The Joys of Language

In last week's readings we learned about the use of language to construe Arabs as enemies in Bush's speech. While much of the class felt that the arguments the author made didn't hold water, the basic idea is important to address. I've learned about this concept first hand because I both write op-eds and work in the intelligence department for two different non-profits.
Both of my endeavors have heavily involved how to use language to attempt to both prove and reinforce certain points. I've realized that a single word can dramatically change how one's ideas are viewed. For a basic example, liberty and freedom generally mean the same thing, but have entirely different connotations. Experience has shown that "freedom" is a far more polarizing term when used in political discussion. It tends to group someone with conservatism more than any other group. It also has a less positive connotation.
On the other hand, the word "liberty" has a more positive connotation. It tends be less polarizing with audiences. Also, liberals and libertarians are more associated with the term as opposed to conservatives.
One can see this association by looking at websites associated with libertarianism and conservatism. There is a reason that the primary moderate-conservative group is entitled Young Americans for Freedom and the primary libertarian groups are Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty. These examples are a great case in point of how certain groups specifically use language to help portray their political messages.

Can you blame the Average Person?

After our class discussion on the issues of representation especially in relation to the Arab world, there seemed no better explanation that Edward Said (who was mentioned breifly). The concept of having a 'set' or fixed meaning associated with a certain group of people is certainly a slant that we should a least recognize (if not reverse). I find the role that the writing of history plays into current stereotypes fascinating mostly because it is so underscored. How can we learn from history if it is incorrectly communicated to us? Is the average human to be blamed for wrongly representing a group merely consuming slanted media/history?

Put it in "r"

“What would a universal society be like which would have no particular country, which would be neither French nor English, nor German, nor Spanish, nor Portuguese, nor Italian, nor Russian, nor Tartar, nor Turkish, nor Persian, nor Indian, nor Chinese, nor American, or rather which would be all of these societies at the same time? What would be the consequence for its customs, its sciences, its arts, its poetry? How would people express emotions that are felt at the same time, but in different ways by different nations in different climates? How would the language incorporate this confusion of needs and images? . . . And what would that language be? Would the fusion of societies result in a universal idiom, or would there be a dialect of transactions serving daily usage, while each nation spoke its own language, or would different languages rather be understood by everyone? Under what similar rule, under what single law would this society exist? How is one to find a place in a world which is made larger by the power of ubiquitousness; and made smaller by the little proportions of a globe which is everywhere polluted? All that will be left will be to demand that science find a way of changing planets."
The author of this passage was the French writer and diplomat Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand, writing in 1841.
While I studied in Nigeria, I took a class entitled ‘Globalization’. As you can imagine, globalization is an elaborate complex that would take years of study to fully understand, but that one semester forever shaped the way in which I view globalization. But from an economic standpoint, the current period of globalization that we are experiencing is not nearly as drastic as in previous epochs. Not one single Nigerian thought that globalization was a good thing, it was simply a part of life.
While increased technology has allowed for increased communication across oceans, I can’t help but wonder if we have forever ruined what ‘community’ means. No longer are we dependent on our neighbors for conversation, we can just call up our friends in Turkey for a chat. But what happens when WWIII breaks out, and we manage to reverse globalization (which is in fact a huge possibility)? Is that ‘nature’ proving the cycle?

*quote taken from Emma Rothschild's "Globalization and the Return of History"

Surfin the U-Curve

We talked a bit about U and W curves in the last class. These ideas are very important to young college students, so much so that the ideas are talked about in freshman orientation. I remember going through both during my freshman year. From my experiences the U-curve is truly a great predictor of how a person will react to a changed environment.

I'll likely be spending my next summer, fall and the following spring away from home. Within this time period is approximately one year in London. I've come to acknowledge that this time abroad will be like going back to that U-curve I experienced as a freshman. I'll be in a new land, separated by thousands of miles of water from anywhere I've ever seen. This time next year I should be hitting the low point in the U-curve.

Since this realization I've wondered how I can minimize the effects of the U-curve without making my life significantly worse in other aspects. I've realized that it's pretty much inescapable. The only ways I've seen to minimize the effects would be to ease the transition by spending the majority of my time with other Americans. This would negate many of the benefits of studying abroad, since the point of going over there is to learn a new culture. The other way would be to spend more time with people from that culture before leaving the country. The downside to that is the high time cost of finding the people, then befriending them and learning their culture.

So after much thought I've determined one thing: You just have to roll with the curve and acknowledge it exists. Surf it, know you're going to slide, get homesick, have a bad week. Since you know it's going to happen you can enjoy the highs of the beginning and end while understanding that the low is inevitable. Looks like that's t he only real way to beat the curve.

The Internet and Information

In the most recent class we discussed the idea that internet sites such as Facebook and personal blogs can have an effect on people in the "real world". Taken simply, the internet allows people to consume hugely more information than in any era prior. So what? Why do I care? You care because this fact changes everything.

Social networking has changed the way people interact. It's not only given us a whole new medium of communication, but it's changed the very way people get information about others. As compared with years past this generation consumes far more information about others' thoughts, feelings, and actions than any prior time period. A person can't deny that the fact that you know things as minute as what an associate ate for breakfast changes how we communicate with people. You're more in touch with what people think or like without having spent nearly the face time that such learning would take in prior years. A real world example: I learned on facebook that a person I'd wanted to come speak at AU was a huge hockey fan. So what did I do? I looked up come information on his favorite team and was able to hold a solid conversation with him. He's coming to campus from New York a month from today.

Another way this vast opening of information has changed people is in how we buy things. Have you ever wanted to buy some product and stopped to look up the review online first? The internet provides a treasure trove of peer reviews, ratings, and pricings. No longer can a person buy a horrible product to say they didn't know it was the worst of its type. The internet helps alleviate what economists call the "lemon problem". This happens when information isn't symmetrical and the consumer ends up with a bad product. It's especially prevalent with cars. Now, with sites like Carfax a person can bring the information more in line and often avoid buying a real clunker.

So really, next time you go online think: How has this changed how I live. There is no denying that it has, it's a question of its specific effect on you. Honestly, in my case, I wouldn't trade it for the world.

Technology is the Devil... or worse

Okay, so I know what you’re thinking…
“reading boring blogs for ccc…fml”
Not because I’m a mind-reader, but because you just tweeted about it.

I grew up in a family that does not really care about technology. My mother is a letter writer, with beautiful penmanship and personalized stationary. My father gets home from work and reads books by the fireplace. We never had cable, or pagers or beepers. It is only recently that my family caved in to going mobile.

Growing up with this influence made a profound impact on how I view technology in the world today. I do not participate in many forms of communication because they go against my upbringing. I do not text message. I do not tweet. I do not use any sort of personal music device. It’s not that I hate the technology; I hate what it has done to society and how we relate to each other. Everything is so fast-paced and information filled, that in general people just don’t ‘converse’ anymore without an agenda. The Frontline video only reiterated that in my mind.

I recognize that I am putting a higher value on the ‘olden’ ways of communication and that there is some valuable progression that has come with our generation’s technology. But still, there aren’t situations where you make space in life for people, instead of filling in the time (presumably while waiting for the bus) with empty texts and one line responses. Is it a direct and efficient way of communication? Perhaps. But it takes out the element of storytelling and openness and creates a purely ‘mission accomplished’ mindset.

And so, it’s really all about mindset. I think that texting is used in a lot of situations to avoid people or difficult conversations. It is a mechanism of laziness (which we touched on in class). We are addicted to feeling up-to-date and plugged in, but ironically enough we’ve never been so out of touch with the honest truth.

Facebook Diplomacy

In our latest class, we addressed the effects that social networking and cultural digitization have had on our society. Seeing as how popular American culture has already been widely addressed, I’d rather take a step back and consider what changes these new technologies may bring to other venues, specifically world politics. As an international relations major, dealing with the as-of-now unpredictable effects of social networking on governments and cultures around the world will undoubtedly be a part of my future career.

Exporting the internet around the globe can have positive and negative, intended and unintended consequences. On one hand, having such freedom of information exchange will likely aid idealists in repressive countries. To be able to witness the growth of the internet, a product of free exchanges of ideas, must be inspiring, especially in regions where such rights do not exist. Using the internet to create a global community also reduces the mistrust between peoples, a common driving force behind so many unfortunate events throughout history.

On the other hand, such autonomy of thought makes it extremely difficult for existing institutions to maintain, much less control, their popular image. As we discussed in an earlier class, nations that have tried to take advantage of new technologies to promote a certain image of themselves have often failed. More often, nations are granted new images as a result of collective reflection, or their existing images are reinforced as popular stereotype. It seems as though nations, like all other institutions, are more likely to be changed by the internet through collective uncontrolled forces, rather than a conscious primary effort.

But with specific regard to social networking, how do innovations such as Facebook or Myspace affect national image? The consequences originate at an individual level; nations that tout ideal expectations of its representatives suffer the backlash when those expectations meet with reality, a common occurrence on the internet. Around a year ago, the Israeli military forced its soldiers to regulate their Myspace pages, fearing that pictures of secret military facilities would be posted. About a year before that, a number of Thai citizens were given prison sentences for using the internet to defame the King. In both of these cases, the individual did not meet the expectations of authorities, and by broadcasting it to the world, created a perceived risk to national stability. In the eyes of many, even the possession of a Facebook account by government representatives shows them in an approachable light, and serves to undermine their image of authority

Consider this example I encountered just the other day: For the past few weeks, I have been working on behalf of an organization that interfaces with D.C.-area embassies. My task on Wednesday was to telephone each embassy and speak to an appropriate representative, most often the cultural attaché, to inquire as to whether or not they would be attending an upcoming event. When one of them confirmed their attendance to me, I had to enter their name on a spreadsheet, along with their official position at the embassy. In order to get their position, I entered their name on Google, hoping to find some mention of them on a diplomatic web site. To my surprise, the first link listed under each of their names was a Facebook account.

Now, to me at least, a Facebook account is something that signifies an intimate network of friends. I generally think of it as a product of the youth, whose projection of themselves often include possession of a Facebook account as a common characteristic. It is a trait I generally associate with those who haven’t entered the professional sphere as of yet. To see diplomatic representatives, some of whom are customarily referred to as “His/Her Excellency”, as a part of this youthful subculture was not only surprising, but it altered the “distinguished” image I had of them. And yet it begs the question, how can a state effectively represent itself abroad when its delegates are allowed, and accept, such personal liberties of image?

What I'd Say to the Iranians

The first thing one must realize when entering major inter-state negotiations is that, contrary to popular belief, the actual negotiation process is little more than formality. Each side has already mapped out exactly where they want negotiations to go, and the presentation of such plans is what face-to-face negotiations are all about. Actual policy cannot be decided at the negotiation table, but rather is debated after the proceedings, among the two sides in seclusion. They take the incentives presented by the opposing side and re-consider their offer, and report back with a new set of directives. For this reason, such negotiations take a great deal of time, and often fall short of their expectations. For one side to successfully achieve its ends, difficult concessions must often be made, and such positions are much less likely to be adopted by policymakers when they aren’t sitting directly across from the people demanding them.

This isn’t to say, however, that the actual negotiation process isn’t important. Rather, success or failure in the overall process rests largely on how one is able to conduct oneself in the debate. It becomes much easier to demand more of one’s opponent when one obtains a verbal victory in confrontation. To achieve this with a state like Iran, a number of cultural points must be considered.

As a starter, Persian culture experts should be consulted on all starting matters. This could include greetings, appearance, timeliness, location, date, proper topics of conversation, and a number of other criteria. Using the wrong greeting, wearing distasteful clothes, or holding negotiations on a religious holiday could automatically put the negotiator at a disadvantage, on the mere assumption that they haven’t done their research or can’t relate to the Persian mindset.

More important than face-value cultural inroads, however, are basic perspective disparities. In the United States’ eyes, most of the world’s nuclear weapons are in the hands of reliable countries. The U.S., the U.K., and France are all friendly and civil powers, and the Russians and the Chinese know better than to deploy nuclear weapons to solve conflicts. India and Israel are responsible states, even though they developed their nuclear weapons covertly, and Pakistan should be able to keep its weapons out of radical hands as long as the military is well-supplied. But in the eyes of the west, Iran is a rogue state. They live under a radical theocratic regime, and have stated their intention to destroy the state of Israel by any means possible. They are known to supply weapons to extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and beyond, and the prospect of such a state with nuclear technology is unacceptable. But in the Iranian government’s eyes, the world exists almost in reverse: the present nuclear-weapons states are rogue, and act to oppress the third world, particularly Iran, for the purpose of power and profit. Dispelling such a notion through negotiations is impossible; working through it is difficult, and will require a major reworking of rhetoric in order to bridge perspective-based gaps.

However, just because one is heavily reworking their presentation to accommodate the Iranians doesn’t mean they should expect the same in return. In fact, it’s very likely that the Iranian negotiators will launch into major criticisms of the West, and of the U.S. in particular. They will probably bring up a litany of charges against the United States, ranging from the overthrow of the Mossadegh government to the support of the Shah to the propping up of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War. Iran’s list of grievances against the West goes on and on, and it’s important to make sure that one’s conduct in the face of these criticisms does not allow them to be made into bargaining points. One should not, in an attempt to bridge the cultural divide, agree with the charges being levelled, or attempt to apologize for past transgressions. Capitulation in the face of historical events will undermine the case being made presently. However, when facing charges from the Iranians, one should also avoid defending against them. Do not attempt to change their views on history at the present time, and certainly do not criticize the Iranian state. Circumventing all of recent history will help ground negotiations in the here and now, and will deal them one less card to play with.

If a speech is to be given at the negotiations, I would suggest that it be written first in Farsi, by a native Farsi speaker. It should then be translated back to English to be read publicly, but the original text should be kept as the official translation. The readability of the speech in English is unimportant, since its target audience speaks Farsi. It would help to have an eloquent Farsi speech to give, not one that displays the clear linguistic shortcomings of a foreigner.

Be aware: For all the cultural and linguistic considerations, as well as the Iranians’ dramatic flair, there are still strategic interests at stake. Despite all the helpful suggestions on how not to offend the other side, there remain goals that need to be accomplished, and Iran will want more-than-appropriate quid pro quo in exchange for abandoning their nuclear designs. Keep in mind what the Iranian government wants. First and foremost, they want a guarantee that they will remain in power. For them, the worst-case scenario is a revolution leading to their overthrow, and any legitimacy they can derive from direct negotiations with the United States helps them propagate their image as the sole political representatives of Iran. If absolutely necessary, open the prospect of establishing official diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, including setting up embassies in each others’ countries. After legitimacy, the Iranian government seeks regional power, especially in the Fertile Crescent region. Leave Iraq on the table to discuss, since they seek influence on the Shi’a majority there.

Most importantly, as with any negotiations, try to make as few concessions as possible while obtaining your goal, that being nuclear disarmament. The greatest good all of the formal elements can do it to set one off on strong footing for the remainder of the debate. To obtain extra concessions from them, mention, in a respectful but strategic manner, the election turmoil that occurred recently. Without appearing too haughty or conceited, make it seem as though they’re on much less stable footing than they make themselves out to be, and offer some help in recognizing and legitimizing the current regime.

To make progress with talks on Iran’s nuclear capability, bridging cultural discrepancies is necessary for any negotiator. However, backing up such diplomacy with solid political bait is the only way to obtain final resolution to the situation.

Perry Landesberg

Analysis response: Sensitive topic, sensitive process

Any time two nations with different cultures are engaged in sensitive negotiations, it can seem that both sides are walking through a metaphorical minefield to meet in the middle. The mines, in this sense, often tend to be cultural nuances and underpinnings that either side would not be inherently aware of (hence why they are "buried" like mines). Since in the instance of the U.S. and Iran there tend to be literally explosive consequences to a mistake in negotiations, a level of understanding is paramount.

My suggestion to the negotiators would be to entirely immerse themselves in Persian culture. The region of Persia that we now know as Iran was a rich and glorious empire centuries before Islam or terrorism or oil were ever factors. Acknowledging that Persia and the West have a mutually rich and often shared history, both sides would likely be far more comfortable proceeding to the important details at hand. Additionally, it would certainly prove a meaningful gesture if the negotiators were to learn basic greetings in Farsi and familiarize themselves with the proper way that Iranian men would handle themselves in such formal and official settings (i.e, a "handshake" equivalent, standing when others enter the room). Such procedures would not necessarily solve all or any of the problems at hand, but would undoubtedly establish a common ground on which both sides could work more effectively.
-Dylan Parker

Nonverbal communication

Before studying the topic of nonverbal communication, both through the reading and actually in class, I never really gave much thought to its existence or prevalence. I have always considered myself a pretty good reader of people's body language and how they express themselves silently, but I simply took it for granted. The first instance I saw of just how important nonverbals are was in the Martin and Nakayama book, where they talk about Finnish and American exchange students. The Finnish students, when asked about their experiences in America, said that they learned little because all Americans did was talk. Contrarily, the American students said that while they were in Finland they also learned little because Finns do not talk enough. This shows just how important people's nonverbal actions really can be; oftentimes they dictate whether or not someone can communicate effectively or not.

In class last Thursday, I volunteered to be one of the test subjects for our exercise in studying nonverbal communication skills. When I first was presented with the task (recounting a funny, scary, or angering experience without using any nonverbal indicators) I thought it would be quite easy. However, when I got up in front of the class and began to recount my story of how I was systematically infuriated by an individual in Delaware, I lasted all of three seconds before succumbing to the power of nonverbal communication. While I thought I was maintaining a stern and unrevealing disposition, in reality my face was like an open book. Afterwards, I was able to go up and retell the same story with free reign over usage of nonverbal communicators. This time, it was extremely easy for me and I believe that everyone in class could easily discern what type of experience I was describing. Hypothetically, had I completed the story the first time without nonverbals, it would have almost certainly been far more difficult for those in the class to figure out what I was talking about. Words may paint a picture, but nonverbal communicators tell the real story.
-Dylan Parker

Breaking Body Language

In last week’s class, we discussed the importance of nonverbal communication, specifically with regard to physical involvement in speech. It was gratifying to illuminate an aspect of public communication that we so rarely think about consciously. I had a good deal to write about in the blog for this week, but I think this video sums up everything that needs to be said about nonverbal communication.

Instead, I’d like to briefly talk about the importance of hand gestures and other methods of nonverbal communication in the context of communicating in multiple languages. One added benefit of proper movement and gesticulation is that it makes the audience feel more comfortable with the words being spoken, and by extension, the topic being discussed. Hand motions at the correct times indicate that the speaker is not just aware of the point they’re making, but also the effect of each individual word. It’s always easiest to do this when one is speaking their first language, since they have an innate reflexive understanding of it. To effectively do so with an acquired language takes a great deal of exposure to speakers of that language, and it indicates a high degree of instinctive comprehension. When native speakers of that language recognize familiar movements, they will feel less alienated from the speaker’s point of view, and will have less trouble accepting the speaker’s argument.

To speak effectively in a foreign language, mastery of local body language must be achieved. It indicates that one’s understanding of the language and culture extends beyond a mere academic level. The speaker is psychologically granted more authority by the audience, on the basis of shared cultural experience.

So to sum it up, Africa is a mixture of people of different sizes and shapes...

Perry Landesberg

It's in the Persona and Place...

I would advise the State Department to walk into these crucial negotiations with Iran from a fresh perspective which will hopefully be rewarded by a successful conclusion to the negotiations. First, I would suggest focusing on how the diplomats carry themselves. It is important that they come across as firm and yet willing to compromise. Non-verbals are key in this situation. Confident posture, eye contact, and signals of attentive listening are very important. Iranian's must be contacted in regards to Iranian nonverbals and the 'translation' of US nonverbals. Such signals will convey respect: a diplomat’s best friend. Second, I would pay close attention to the venue and set-up of the meetings. Perhaps a boardroom is not the most inviting setting for comfortable discussion of the grave issues at hand. Iranian officials might be more open to frank conversation if special consideration was taken to some adaptation to the Iranian style of negotiation and where negotiation takes place.

Killing Time?

It’s amazing how adaptive we humans are. Our surroundings explain so much about us: our pace, our priorities, our lifestyle. Last week in class we analyzed the unique contexts of how we organize time. Hall managed to simplify the distinctions into two categories: monochromic and polychromic. This being said, I am a firm believer that these categories are not concrete. Each and every day millions of people walk the line in between the two ‘worlds’ of time. How can I be so sure? Plain and simple, I’ve done it…

It’s relatively easy to switch it up when everyone around you is doing it. Studying abroad offers this type of scenario. I will be the first to openly admit and promote monochromic scheduling, but when I was forced into situations in both Nigeria and Argentina, where p-type runs rampant, it was easy to become a convert. On one hand, Life is less demanding when left to happen instead of forcing it to. But, as a m-time dependent person, it took time to not feel unproductive and frustrated. I’m not trying to say that one type is better or more productive, these are just by own perceptions and conclusions according to my own social construction.

This is all fine and dandy, but it begs a deeper question… In this period of skyrocketing integration caused by globalization (and by globalization I’m referring to the spread of Western ideologies to non-Western nations) is m-time being forced on p-timers? Yes.

I’m reminded of a conversation with one of my best friends in Nigeria. I was talking to him about ‘trads’ (traditional clothes) and I asked him why he didn’t where them more often. He responded by noting how he would have to wear a western suit at an interview at a respectable firm. For men, suits are the clothes of international business, of ‘sophisticated’ business, of successful business. To me, this is globalization. M-time is the time of western business. Bottomline. Western business is frustrated so those firms who confirm to m-time will survive and flourish. Eventually, p-time will die out… courtesy of globalization.

Mushrooms and Other Persian Delicacies

Analysis Question 2:
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.

There are many things that a State Department diplomat would need to take into consideration during any negotiation. I'd say that the most important thing to focus on would be the high-context-low context differentiation. If a diplomat were to truly fail on this issue they could end up destroying both negotiations and millions of lives. Almost as important, or possibly more important would be the issue of language. If the diplomat does not have a complete handle on language with its intricacies and non-verbals then negotiations could quickly break down. Examples of this are known to have caused many wars throughout history, on multiple continents. Other factors that they would need a keen understanding of would include setting(including the culture, practices, and other aspects of Iran and Iranians). By not understanding any single one of these, given the wrong circumstances and incentives, a war could easily erupt. This would be key to any diplomat, it's not enough to simply have a full understanding of one aspect of cross cultural communication, they need all of them. Every one of these could be a poison pill during sensitive negotiations. Needless to say, the consequences of an absence of full understanding are grave.

Nick

Journeys in the 4th dimension

The reading this week really sparked an interest and introspection in me that was never really there before. We talked about time preference, and the differences between Hall's m-time and p-time. He says that these two systems really don't mesh well. The issue that confused me was the he followed with the idea that companies benefit from a greater use of p-time, but can't function without m-time. There's a pretty basic contradiction here that I think exists in most people as well.

People feel safe when they have guidelines. This want of safety can help explain how m-time helps many people prefer to keep at least some semblance of m-time in their lives, even if they work primarily by p-time. This bit of m-time also helps keep people at least modestly productive. I've found that if I give myself a block of time to do a number of things, I'll be more productive with a set deadline for them than without. This works even if it's as simple as "I want to wake up, shower, eat breakfast, and be at the National Mall by 2 pm." If I don't have a deadline, then the trip doesn't happen, without fail. This methodology, as Hull finds, is prevalent in Southern Europe, which gives great insights into their culture.

Contrast this with a primarily m-time culture where there is little room for p-time. In a culture where m-time is the norm, schedules are strict. This too can be a massive drain on productivity, because then tasks that might simply need a bit more work are left incomplete for another time. This, like the issue of fully-p-time situations, can be remedied by compromise. If a primarily m-time culture were to build its schedules with time flexibility between events then it can allow for time overruns or early completions. I've seen this work as well. If I schedule a day full of productive activity, with strict deadlines for each event I end up losing focus if I miss any deadline. By building flex time between activities, say 15 minutes longer than I thought something would take, it makes achieving the goals easier, and more enjoyable. Since m-time is so prevalent in the Western business world, I would say that some p-time might help make many businesses more productive and lower employee burnout rates.

In summary, I both agree and disagree with Hull. His opinion that m and p times are inherently contradictory is sound, but I feel here is room for compromise. By mixing the two in proper balance found through trial and error a person or group could make themselves more productive and/or happier.

Nick

Idiomatic Translation

As we more or less concluded in class, language is a major staple of any culture, and differences in languages give separate meanings to the same concepts in various cultures. I personally tend to take a more relativist approach to the language-and-culture debate; in my view, speaking another language is not merely a matter of translation, but rather a whole new method of thinking in some respects. I recall when I first started studying Italian in middle school, and how surprised I was when I learned that the structure of the sentences, rather than just the words, had to be changed. Before that age, I had never really been exposed to languages other than English, and I suddenly realized just how impermanent my beliefs about communication were.

In a more practical sense, understanding the cultural differences embedded in languages is a necessary tool for communicating across borders, especially in a business and marketing sense. To take on such tasks, a translator cannot simply translate words; they must also know how to instinctively appeal to an entirely different population.

Take an example from the film industry. The James Bond series, with its 22 films, has developed a global fan base. Its exciting storylines and exotic locales have transcended cultural barriers; however, the numerous English phrases and idioms used in the films often cannot be translated. So, when 1987’s The Living Daylights was released, the title had to be changed in various countries to something more recognizable. In France, it was released as Tuer n’est pas Jouer, meaning Death is Not a Game. In Spain, it became Alta Tensión, or High Tension. In Sweden, it was titled Iskallt Uppdrag, meaning Ice Cold Mission. And in Greece, the title was Me to Daktylo sti Skandali, which approximately means Having the Finger on the Trigger.

Now, while each of these titles may have some special significance within their realm, they cannot replicate the original intent behind the title The Living Daylights. However, on a more concrete level, the change in name must have also affected how the film was marketed. Certainly a film called High Tension would present a different theme than one called Ice Cold Mission. Different commercials would have to be shot, different posters would have to be drawn up, and ultimately, the audience’s expectations of the film differ between countries.

If you think that’s fun, try translating Octopussy.

I think it’s clear that differences in words, phrases, and sentence structures contribute to variation between cultures and identities. The order in which sentences are formed affects the order in which thoughts are formed, which goes on to shape the psyche of an entire society. While I hesitate to use vocabulary of restriction to describe lingual variation, its effect on our identity in undeniable.

Perry Landesberg

Language: The Mortar of Culture

In so many ways, AU is one of the best places to study something like cross-cultural communication. A short walk through the LA quad or MGC may, at times, resemble one through an airport terminal due to the breadth of cultures represented here. Regardless of exact numbers, nearly every major culture is well-accounted for and pronounced here on campus. The funny thing about this, though, is exactly what distinguishes these "non-Americans" from "Americans". In many cases, they dress and act just like any normal American teenager would, listening to the same music and engaging in the same types of activities. More often than not, it is language which sets them apart.

While the international students here are very friendly and all speak very good English, they do also tend to keep more to themselves, a practice that is marked by them speaking their own languages from home. While, unless they are speaking Spanish, I oftentimes cannot even come close to discerning what they talk about in groups, sometimes it is actually quite easy. Being that they are immersed in our "American" culture, where nearly everything hinges on English, very often they will mix in English words in the context of whatever else they are speaking. The reason for this, I believe, is that they are talking about things pertinent to their respective experiences here at AU and may therefore find it odd or less natural to talk about or refer to these things in any other language. Contrarily, if they are discussing things that take place in their home country or relate to their own cultures, they would likely be far less inclined to use English at any length.

This example, I believe, is a perfect example of just how significant language is to our study and understanding of culture. Here at AU, which while very diverse is still clearly American (obviously), a common language is in many cases the only thing students who have traveled thousands of miles have to connect themselves with home and their native culture. Language really is the mortar of culture in general, connecting and providing a framework for the building of something more complex and universal.

-Dylan Parker

Lost in Translation

This most recent week was eventful in class. There was a massive amount of material covered, combined with the speaker. All that said, I found most of it intuitive and expected. I really wish we would have talked about one point a bit longer though. How a person can use language to tailor their message to differing audiences? Here's an example of what I mean:

The club which I help run is hosting a controversial speaker in 2 weeks. He'll be talking of the virtues of a purely free market health care system. This event is targeted at a number of groups, rather than our bread-and-butter constituency of the DC Forum For Freedom. The targeted groups include: students, professors and staff of the SPA, Democrats, Republicans, community members, press, and other smaller groups. Clearly, each of these groups comes from a differing background and would have a differing motive to come to the event. Because they have differing motivations, a group would want to target each group with differing language. How does anyone do that? It seems complicated, and time consuming.

No, not with a little thought into the motivations of each group and some background in what we learned today. AUSFL is gifted to have a number of members who have either taken Cross Cultural Communication or have backgrounds in marketing(which draws heavily from it). We have a basic game plan to bring out each of the targeted groups. First, to bring out the SPA, we'll call the event a great place to direct students for class projects. We'll also use a more formal language in the communication, playing on our position as the best-led political organization on campus. This language allows for the high-context respect factor to take more of a role, leading to a greater likelihood for the professors to recommend the event.

Democrats and Republicans will get similar but different treatment in the field of language. We'll attempt to play upon each group's emotions with controversial wording, hoping to stir either anger or fear. Logically, the primary motivation for each group to come out would be to oppose us, and emotion is one of the greatest motivators in this case. This goes double for community members, because it takes even more emotion to have people even walk a block to see a speaker.

The final group will need a 180 in language from the prior 3. When addressing the press a group wants to be as low context, detail oriented as possible in their language. We'll want to lay out each and every detail, including contact information and how to get to campus were they to want to cover the event. This will be the first event where we'll be actively engaging the press, so some trial and error will be inevitable.

This ends my case study in the way I'll be using language to tailor a single message to many groups.

Nick

Language is a Prison House

I wholeheartedly believe that this statement is true. But I want to examine it from a different angle. Language defines how we think and perceive the world around us. But I want to focus on how language locks us into a community. I have an interesting anecdote that pertains to this concept of language as a prison house.

One of my nephews was born legally deaf. And I know you might be thinking how the story ends (but just hear me out). His ears are malformed and he has no ear canal, no opening to let the sound in. And yet, with a hearing aid he can hear 80% of what a hearing person can. So as a toddler he learned to sign. It was only basics, I don’t think he ever got to a point of making a complete sentence. Then he got his really good hearing aid and my sister had to decide whether or not to send him to a ‘sign oriented’ or ‘regular’ class for preschool. Either one runs major risks. If he were to go to the sign class, he would obviously rely mostly on sign and not work on his speaking skills. If he were to go to the ‘regular’ class, he could get left behind, even with special help just based on his inability to hear (not his intelligence).
As a parent this is a pretty big decision (to say the least0. The deaf community is wonderful, but, it is a small community with limited opportunity. My sister would have to learn a new language just to communicate with her son. But could it possibly be worth it to risk him not learning any language at all? Imagine having no means to communicate, in any language.

My nephew did not go to the school that specialized in sign. He instead goes to a special class in a regular school that is just for kids with hearing ‘impairments’. They do not use any sign language in his class. His communications skills are improving, but if you didn’t have practice talking with him it would be difficult to understand him. Trust me, he has no problem expressing himself but it has taken a lot of work and speech therapy to get to that point.

Language is a prison house in that it defines our community and shapes our identity. Sometimes I think that we forget (because all of us know English) how many people in the world feel cut off from the greater international community because they only speak Serbian or Quechua or Hausa or Sign Language. We are fortunate, I suppose, that the ‘English speaking’ prison cell is at least very large.

An Unhealthy State of Affairs

I think it’s safe to say that by this point, both the supporters and opponents of health care reform have pulled out nearly every argument that can logically (and illogically) be made. It’s been anything but an orderly process. Of particular note is the “name-calling” aspect of it, and the presumptions each side tends to make of the other. In some cases, those of us on the sidelines are forced to wonder what led them to such astonishing conclusions.

The Right, it seems, has been the more vocal half in this debate. What started as a debate over budget concerns and patient rights has ballooned into accusations of socialism, comparisons to the Nazi Party, and persistent rumors of “death panels” tasked with culling the gene pool of the sick and the elderly. The Left, while certainly less inflammatory, has not been perfectly balanced either. They have painted all opponents of the public option as uninformed, easily-led, and boorish.

Both sets of sentiments arise from differing views of what the American identity represents. From the conservative end, the United States is a bastion of free will, the highest expression of which is a perfectly independent market. Only market competition, they argue, will generate the most effective system of governance, a trend that continues into the realm of health care. To that end, all those who oppose the free market are akin to America’s 20th-century enemies, who have characteristically been portrayed as “overgoverned”. However, under closer inspection, such comparisons make little to no sense; the parallel makes wild assumptions about the intent and motivation of left-wingers, and it displays a great lack of understanding of Nazi or Soviet society.

From the progressive perspective, the United States’ greatest achievement has been to provide more care and safety to those in need than any other society in history. It only seems logical that life-saving medical treatment should be among those services. However, they often fail to recognize, or intentionally downplay, the cost of these services, and they overestimate how effectively such treatment could be administered when regulated by the federal government.

Looking back at the health care fight, I would say that the political flame war was initiated by actual policy differences, and did not incorporate identity issues until later. Though contrary ideals of American identity certainly acted as a catalyst for the conflict, as did partisan maneuvering, the debate wouldn’t have reached this point if the two sides did not actually disagree on funding and organizational matters. It can be hard to consider the actual debate taking place amid the pandemonium created by the opposing camps. Such a ruckus is terribly irresponsible, but sadly does not lack precedent.

Perry Landesberg

Analysis Question: Split

Bottom Line: Politics is problematic in that it combines interests with identities. It is made worse that in the US we have only two parties, so overarching coalitions are made with interests and identities getting lost in the cracks or having to pick sides (it's really like one giant game of Red Rover).

President Obama's Health care plan is igniting lots of flames from both sides of the aisle and across the country. While many sub-groups are thrilled about supporting the plan to assist those with no coverage, there are just as many sub-groups who are thrilled about protecting the system we have (if the numbers Obama hands out, the system cannot just pick up 30 million new clients without expansion of the facilities).

Health care reform brings out multiple identities within each of us. While I would venture to say that most feel that the issue is one of social justice and equality there is still some essence of practicality and functionality. Let's say there is a wealthy El Salvadorian who is trying to decide how she feels about this issue. First off, she remembers what it was like to be a poor immigrant in the US barely getting by. But second, she now wants to protect what she has and not jeopardize an overcrowded system where everyone's quality falls. So this leaves me with the question, if there are two conflicting identities within one person, which identity wins when it comes down to it?

the o word

Last class we touched on an interesting topic that I wanted to expand on: The O word. For those who need a refresher, it was in the context of the question “What sustains identity over time?” and within that answer we discussed interpellation (according to M&N it is the communication process by which one is pulled into the social forces that place people into a specific identity).

I found an interesting article (although a few years old) it is a celebration of the state of Washington illegalizing the ‘O’ word from legislation and regulations. According to Senator Paul Shin, “Originally meant “from the direction of the rising sun,” however, the term “has absorbed the connotations of centuries of colonialism and oppression. Beginning in the 17th century, the British empire popularized the use of the word Oriental, which was a western way to refer to someone from east of London. Use of this pejorative word is no longer appropriate when referring to people. My greatest concern is for our youth -that they learn to be more sensitive to different cultures and ideas”.

This issue also falls into those little boxes that most applications for just about anything ask us to ‘voluntarily’ chose. Identity is based on one’s perception. But if one does not identify with a certain identity (an interesting dynamic brought up in Aoki article with the research on Mexicans within the US).
“Members of the Asian community have told me that they are offended to be referred to as ‘Oriental’ in our state statutes. The definition of the word notwithstanding, its various applications, such as ‘exotic,’ ‘strange,’ and so forth is demeaning. While many Asians under European colonial influence have not been educated to the application of the word, they now understand its meaning and connotations.”

I find it intriguing that there is a level of awareness involved. For example, in Nigeria I had a professor who urged us to refer to ‘ethnicities’ not tribes. The word ‘tribe’ has very similar connotations as the ‘O’ word. But the use of ‘tribe’ has been so ingrained in the language and culture that for the majority it is not seen as offensive (despite the connection to ‘occupation’ aka colonialism).

So this begs the question, if a group/identity perceives a term as offensive (perhaps it may be seen by others as over picky or it may be viewed as justified) does that make the word offensive?

The Article on Washington State Illegalizing the O Word:

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=143

The Institution of Identity

In our last class, the word “postmodern” was tossed around frequently. By all accounts, it seems as though we’ve reached the “postmodern” stage of human history. But what does this development imply for cultural identity?

To be postmodern, as I understand it, is to already have a somewhat clear idea of one’s own cultural identity. Though the elements of this identity are slowly presented throughout one’s formative years, they are already set by previous generations. Culture is, or appears to be, an institution; it has been formed over many generations, but the unique characteristics cannot be altered anymore. Our understanding of the culture, however, helps us to analyze it, albeit from a third-person perspective. We have, in effect, adopted a “look, don’t touch” attitude towards cultural identity, treating ethnic or religious heritage as a museum showpiece, rather than a logical way of life.

The three examples that I, as a New Yorker, am most familiar with would be the cultural pillars of Jewish-American, Italian-American, and Irish-American life. Though modern practitioners of these three cultural heritages ascribe to modern standards of American living, they nevertheless find time to honor certain traditions and cultural holidays alongside family and friends. Yet, while these practices hold very dear meanings to each individual, their origins may not always be considered. The fact of the matter is, most were the result of necessities at the time. In all likelihood, the holidays each culture commemorates, the cuisine each culture enjoys, and the customs each culture observes were set many generations ago, and were not consciously created to boost cultural uniqueness, but were simply the most logical way of living given the circumstances.

Now, all that is well and good, and is probably understood by most people, but it does beg one more question. In today’s world, we celebrate each culture’s unique history; however, does the arrival of postmodernism not signal that the history of each culture has, in effect, been written? Are we done building our cultures, now that we have become self-aware?

As much as we laud the innovations of the present day, those of us attempting to hold on to a cultural identity cannot help but feel cheated by modern innovations. We each like to be unique, yet we all express our uniqueness through common platforms, such as Facebook. We are powerless to eschew such uniform changes in lifestyle, so we attempt to translate our own individual heritage into modern terms. That, coupled with a wider flow of information, has brought cultural heritage, at least in America, to a pitiful caricature of what it once was.

A clear example of this is Christmas. As the most important holiday in the Christian faith, its divinity cannot be ignored. However, due to the influence of the mass media and the consumer market, its image in popular American culture is not one of pious observance, but cartoonish folklore and materialism. It hardly addresses the cultural history behind the date, yet its qualities have now been set in stone.

On a large scale, most nations rely on similar tactics in order to justify their existence. They will tout their unique history, and tailor their public image, in order to shore up nationalist sentiment. Elements of history may be sugarcoated, but the intention remains clear: that the national culture is vivid and distinctive. Anything to get away from the reality that in the postmodern age of globalization, our cultural distinctions are slowly evaporating.

Perry Landesberg

Identity in Healthcare

One of the most significant issues for Barack Obama, both in campaigning and in actually presiding over the country, has been the revitalization and reform of the healthcare system. Putting it lightly, this is a touchy subject. In 2007, nearly 50 million Americans were completely uninsured with another 25 million underinsured (healthcareproblems.org) When Obama took office this past January, numbers were almost certainly far worse than that, with the tough economic times preventing many Americans from paying for their necessities. The problem now has become increasingly more sociological. While it is certainly true that the problems concering healthcare and the like know no boundaries and affect all facets of our nation, it is also undeniable that certain economic classes are vastly more affected than others. The sad nature of the American socioeconomic climate is that, more often than not, one's race dictates where they stand economically. One would be a fool to deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of the underclass are of African-American or Hispanic descent while the majority of the middle and upper classes are generally Caucasian. Obviously, there are exceptions but it becomes increasingly clear that economic classes are quite homogenous.

The healthcare issue becomes touchy for this preicise reason. Since the problem is infinitely more prevalent in the lower classes, it is also infinitely more prevalent in Black and Latino America (Literally, Latino America. NOT Latin America) For this reason, it is only natural to expect these individuals to associate their identity with the problems they are facing. In effect, the healthcare problem has become far more. It points to a greater divide that is magnified equally by social and economic stratifications. These days, one would be hard-pressed to have a debate on President Obama's healthcare plan without at least making or hearing a reference to the racial divide and how it applies.

Interestingly enough, however, it is not just those of the aforementioned economic class and races that feel strongly about the issue. It is only natural to expect those who do not have healthcare to advocate zealously so that they obtain it. However, it is a two-sided coin; there are just as many vocal people from the upperclass who feel that healthcare should not be universalized and should be kept in the private sector entirely. Once again, this points to the idea of IDENTITY. The vast majority of these people have long enjoyed the benefits that come with relative or outright affluence, not the least of which is normally healthcare being a certainty. For them, the universilization of healthcare perhaps poses a threat to the high quality of it they have always been accustomed to.

As far as this issue goes, there is hardly a "right" answer. Any time something is so deeply charged with racial and ethnic issues, one must approach it with a great deal of empathy and open-mindedness. What is right for me, a white male from an upperclass community in the suburbs of New York, is probably not right for an African-American contemporary of mine living on Rhode Island Ave in Brookland in Northeast D.C. It's just different, and its all tied back to our IDENTITY