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
Monday, September 28, 2009
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
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
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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
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
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
Monday, September 21, 2009
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
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
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
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Identity In Health Care
What kinds of identity conflicts have emerged over the summer in the debates we've seen over U.S. health care reform? Do you think identity plays a big role in this debate?
That's the question, and the real answer is something that will be debated for years. In my opinion identity played a huge role in this debate, just not in the same way most people would think. The easy answer is that political identity is what drove the back and forth debate between the left and right. While that may have merit, the answer is deeper than simple left/right, yes/on identity issues. The greater identity issue here lies with why the debate is taking place in the first place.
The vast majority of people want others to look on them as "good people". It feels good to identify with trying to help the disadvantaged. This want to identify with such a group has widespread unintended consequences. People want to "do something" rather than be seen as identifying with those who do nothing. Doing anything, no matter how ultimately irrational or harmful it may be, makes those who support health care happy because they have may identify with those who tried.
So in this case, the conflict is between those who want to try something and those who would do nothing. This is one of the great underlying themes to the conflict. Because this debate between the "somethings" and the "nothings" was one of the causes of the debate in the first place, identity must have played a huge role in the debate as a whole.
Nick
That's the question, and the real answer is something that will be debated for years. In my opinion identity played a huge role in this debate, just not in the same way most people would think. The easy answer is that political identity is what drove the back and forth debate between the left and right. While that may have merit, the answer is deeper than simple left/right, yes/on identity issues. The greater identity issue here lies with why the debate is taking place in the first place.
The vast majority of people want others to look on them as "good people". It feels good to identify with trying to help the disadvantaged. This want to identify with such a group has widespread unintended consequences. People want to "do something" rather than be seen as identifying with those who do nothing. Doing anything, no matter how ultimately irrational or harmful it may be, makes those who support health care happy because they have may identify with those who tried.
So in this case, the conflict is between those who want to try something and those who would do nothing. This is one of the great underlying themes to the conflict. Because this debate between the "somethings" and the "nothings" was one of the causes of the debate in the first place, identity must have played a huge role in the debate as a whole.
Nick
Reverse Causality: A Personal Story
"When everything falls down, you'll have Liberty"~Anonymous
Throughout the book's chapter and class the idea of how people come to have identity was discussed. Does it come about from others or ourselves, or neither. Are we shaped more by our peers or by ourselves? What role do the groups with which we associate have? Those are all good questions, but there is one idea that's conspicuously missing: How can identity itself shape a person's actions?
I'm about one of the most extreme examples of how identity can shape a person. In the past year I had 3 days that will shape my life forever, and all dealt with identity. The first day was when I realized that my personal beliefs had a name, that day I made my first step toward the rest of my life. I became a classical liberal. What followed would be a slow progression toward ever-greater radicalism. For years before my personal beliefs were a ball of clay, adapting to whatever situation presented itself. When I realized I had an identity, that would change for good.
The next day came after a month or so. I met another person with similar interests and we decided to become activists upon arriving in DC. I now joined, as one of my professors would put it, the tribe of the Liberty Activist. The fact that I identified with this group before doing a thing helped push me into becoming an activist in the first place. In this case identity influenced action rather than the opposite, which seems to be considered normal.
The third important day came almost exactly a yeah after the second. That was the day I took the The Anarchist's Declaration. This was the day I officially renounced the use or sanction of force for the duration of my lifetime. I decided this on the spur of the moment after a slow evolution brought about by the prior two days of identity shift. The final jump into the extreme has changed not only my actions but my outlook on life as a whole.
Taken as a whole, these three days illustrate how identity may change both actions and personality, as opposed to the standard view of identity changing how a person acts in the social context. I feel that this is important to consider in the context of communication because if one tries to challenge another's identity when it is the root of actions, they could react differently(possibly with more hostility) than were their identity rooted in action.
Nick
Throughout the book's chapter and class the idea of how people come to have identity was discussed. Does it come about from others or ourselves, or neither. Are we shaped more by our peers or by ourselves? What role do the groups with which we associate have? Those are all good questions, but there is one idea that's conspicuously missing: How can identity itself shape a person's actions?
I'm about one of the most extreme examples of how identity can shape a person. In the past year I had 3 days that will shape my life forever, and all dealt with identity. The first day was when I realized that my personal beliefs had a name, that day I made my first step toward the rest of my life. I became a classical liberal. What followed would be a slow progression toward ever-greater radicalism. For years before my personal beliefs were a ball of clay, adapting to whatever situation presented itself. When I realized I had an identity, that would change for good.
The next day came after a month or so. I met another person with similar interests and we decided to become activists upon arriving in DC. I now joined, as one of my professors would put it, the tribe of the Liberty Activist. The fact that I identified with this group before doing a thing helped push me into becoming an activist in the first place. In this case identity influenced action rather than the opposite, which seems to be considered normal.
The third important day came almost exactly a yeah after the second. That was the day I took the The Anarchist's Declaration. This was the day I officially renounced the use or sanction of force for the duration of my lifetime. I decided this on the spur of the moment after a slow evolution brought about by the prior two days of identity shift. The final jump into the extreme has changed not only my actions but my outlook on life as a whole.
Taken as a whole, these three days illustrate how identity may change both actions and personality, as opposed to the standard view of identity changing how a person acts in the social context. I feel that this is important to consider in the context of communication because if one tries to challenge another's identity when it is the root of actions, they could react differently(possibly with more hostility) than were their identity rooted in action.
Nick
Monday, September 14, 2009
History Matters
Around three years ago, I read Cornel West’s book Democracy Matters. Though he effectively alternates between praise of American democratic ideals and criticism of modern antidemocratic trends, one passage in the first chapter caught my eye. On page 15, he states “Our democratic tradition has built on the profound democratic impulse that stretches all the way back to the Greeks, and this book will, in part, explore the rich insights and expressions of that deep democratic tradition, from the radical iconoclasm of Socrates, to the tragically schizophrenic visions of the American Founding Fathers, to the exuberant and brilliant indictments laid down by hip-hop.”
To hear the Founding Fathers described in such an unflattering manner actually surprised me at first glance. Throughout grade school, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had always been described to me as the epitome of positive idealism; they were, in effect, infallible. To hear them described as “tragically schizophrenic” without offering any praise to balance their reputations struck me as absurd. Of course, I knew the charge Mr. West had in mind, that being the Founding Fathers’ tolerance of slavery. Being a professor of African-American studies, he has written and lectured extensively on race relations in the United States and around the world. Democracy Matters was a follow up to his previous book Race Matters, and if his intentions weren’t clear enough, he finishes the sentence by praising the modern hip-hop movement as “exuberant and brilliant”.
In my mind, however, his labeling of the Founding Fathers as “tragically schizophrenic”, and nothing more, seemed inappropriate. The fact that slavery was permitted in the fledgling United States was an undeniable mistake; however, to characterize the founders of the United States simply on the basis of their tolerance for slavery does not adequately convey the tremendous effect they have had on human history.
Each person’s view of history is filtered through the lens of their own life experiences. In Cornel West’s case, it is not only his African-American heritage, but also the many years he has spent researching African-American history, that leads him to characterize the American Revolution in such a dualistic manner. I, of course, see things differently; while I take the Founding Fathers’ supposed moral and ethical purity with a grain of salt, I nevertheless think that their net effect on world events was positive. The way in which we view the flow of history helps shape our opinions, and, in turn, affects the actions we may undertake to further our concept of global justice.
That all historical viewpoints are subjective cannot be denied; therefore, any “opinion” I might have on the matter would be largely irrelevant, since changing the way in which history is understood is effectively impossible. But if I had to state an opinion, I would contend that holding a subjective view of history is ultimately counterproductive. While Mr. West, as well as many others, will happily admit that their view of history is skewed towards a certain perspective, I firmly believe that humanity will not achieve true intercultural understanding unless history is presented and interpreted in an unbiased, truthful, and uniform manner. Even if it is a nominally-underrepresented viewpoint, any imbalance or half-truth in conceptual history does not do justice to the actual truth of the situation, and will ultimately distort our understanding of human nature.
Perry Landesberg
To hear the Founding Fathers described in such an unflattering manner actually surprised me at first glance. Throughout grade school, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had always been described to me as the epitome of positive idealism; they were, in effect, infallible. To hear them described as “tragically schizophrenic” without offering any praise to balance their reputations struck me as absurd. Of course, I knew the charge Mr. West had in mind, that being the Founding Fathers’ tolerance of slavery. Being a professor of African-American studies, he has written and lectured extensively on race relations in the United States and around the world. Democracy Matters was a follow up to his previous book Race Matters, and if his intentions weren’t clear enough, he finishes the sentence by praising the modern hip-hop movement as “exuberant and brilliant”.
In my mind, however, his labeling of the Founding Fathers as “tragically schizophrenic”, and nothing more, seemed inappropriate. The fact that slavery was permitted in the fledgling United States was an undeniable mistake; however, to characterize the founders of the United States simply on the basis of their tolerance for slavery does not adequately convey the tremendous effect they have had on human history.
Each person’s view of history is filtered through the lens of their own life experiences. In Cornel West’s case, it is not only his African-American heritage, but also the many years he has spent researching African-American history, that leads him to characterize the American Revolution in such a dualistic manner. I, of course, see things differently; while I take the Founding Fathers’ supposed moral and ethical purity with a grain of salt, I nevertheless think that their net effect on world events was positive. The way in which we view the flow of history helps shape our opinions, and, in turn, affects the actions we may undertake to further our concept of global justice.
That all historical viewpoints are subjective cannot be denied; therefore, any “opinion” I might have on the matter would be largely irrelevant, since changing the way in which history is understood is effectively impossible. But if I had to state an opinion, I would contend that holding a subjective view of history is ultimately counterproductive. While Mr. West, as well as many others, will happily admit that their view of history is skewed towards a certain perspective, I firmly believe that humanity will not achieve true intercultural understanding unless history is presented and interpreted in an unbiased, truthful, and uniform manner. Even if it is a nominally-underrepresented viewpoint, any imbalance or half-truth in conceptual history does not do justice to the actual truth of the situation, and will ultimately distort our understanding of human nature.
Perry Landesberg
On History
If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx(hat tip libertarianquotes.com)
In response to the information presented in chapter 4 of the book, I'd like to address the significance of the idea of "absent history". This is the part of history that is not recorded or mission(as the book states). This history has important political implications. As Marx alludes in the above quote, when a group lacks history it is easily manipulated. Most would agree that when people are easily manipulated, they are weak and may be used as pawns in a game they know nothing about. Any rational man would see that this is dangerous. This leads one to the question: Why is so much history absent?
There are many reasons that histories are absent, but one of them can certainly be tied to the aforementioned quote. Rulers have known this concept for centuries. When one's subjects do not know their past they are easily ruled. Because of this, at times there was a systematic destruction of certain histories. Why is there little mention of Hatshepsut in the hieroglyphs of Egypt? We now know that she was erased from history(although not as thoroughly as someone had wished) in order to maintain her successor's political hegemony. The years are riddled with histories that were destroyed in order to hold power over the people.
Why is this important? One can see from the above that the great danger from the destruction of history by rulers is greater power in the hands of the ruling elite. When this happens, it inevitably leads to the loss of individual freedom to the benefit of those who come to power over them. This, in my not so humble opinion, is unacceptable.
Nick
In response to the information presented in chapter 4 of the book, I'd like to address the significance of the idea of "absent history". This is the part of history that is not recorded or mission(as the book states). This history has important political implications. As Marx alludes in the above quote, when a group lacks history it is easily manipulated. Most would agree that when people are easily manipulated, they are weak and may be used as pawns in a game they know nothing about. Any rational man would see that this is dangerous. This leads one to the question: Why is so much history absent?
There are many reasons that histories are absent, but one of them can certainly be tied to the aforementioned quote. Rulers have known this concept for centuries. When one's subjects do not know their past they are easily ruled. Because of this, at times there was a systematic destruction of certain histories. Why is there little mention of Hatshepsut in the hieroglyphs of Egypt? We now know that she was erased from history(although not as thoroughly as someone had wished) in order to maintain her successor's political hegemony. The years are riddled with histories that were destroyed in order to hold power over the people.
Why is this important? One can see from the above that the great danger from the destruction of history by rulers is greater power in the hands of the ruling elite. When this happens, it inevitably leads to the loss of individual freedom to the benefit of those who come to power over them. This, in my not so humble opinion, is unacceptable.
Nick
A Definition?
Obviously, being that we are studying Cross-cultural Communication, the topic of culture is relative to literally everything that we do in class. However, I feel that after the third class we still have yet to establish a concrete, common definition of what exactly culture is. The book and the Weaver readings both maintain that culture essentially is "learned patterns of behavior and attitude shared by a group of people." Interestingly, however, the book on the next page presents an essay by the scholar Wen Shu Lee in which six common or "traditional" definitions of culture are presented. By merely looking at the first word or phrase in each of the six definitions, one sees "unique human efforts", "refinement", "civilization" , "shared" , "dominant or hegemonic" , and "the shifting tensions."
For me, this says it all. Culture is far too vast and far-reaching to assign a laconic definition to. It is not something that can be placed in the sidebar of a text. The book seems to almost make a subtle acknowledgment of this; while Martin and Nakayama must obviously assign a concrete academic definition, they also point to the more abstract concepts by presenting the Lee essay.
While it is very easy to sit back and be critical of others and how they have failed in achieving a certain end, it is quite another to offer up a solution. In a sense, writing about something like culture in an academic manner is extremely difficult; one must avoid idealism and be as specific as possible. Regardless, here is my definition of culture: It is what makes us different. Culture need not be in reference to a race or country or even group of people. Here at AU, we have a culture. Right now, as I write this sitting in TDR, I am experiencing a culture firsthand just as much as I would were I studying at UNAM in Mexico City or Trinity College in Dublin. Culture is the sum of our parts; it takes the best and most unique aspects of individuals and projects them onto a larger scale. Then, just like Lee's preferred definition, it is shared.
-Dylan Parker
For me, this says it all. Culture is far too vast and far-reaching to assign a laconic definition to. It is not something that can be placed in the sidebar of a text. The book seems to almost make a subtle acknowledgment of this; while Martin and Nakayama must obviously assign a concrete academic definition, they also point to the more abstract concepts by presenting the Lee essay.
While it is very easy to sit back and be critical of others and how they have failed in achieving a certain end, it is quite another to offer up a solution. In a sense, writing about something like culture in an academic manner is extremely difficult; one must avoid idealism and be as specific as possible. Regardless, here is my definition of culture: It is what makes us different. Culture need not be in reference to a race or country or even group of people. Here at AU, we have a culture. Right now, as I write this sitting in TDR, I am experiencing a culture firsthand just as much as I would were I studying at UNAM in Mexico City or Trinity College in Dublin. Culture is the sum of our parts; it takes the best and most unique aspects of individuals and projects them onto a larger scale. Then, just like Lee's preferred definition, it is shared.
-Dylan Parker
Sunday, September 13, 2009
our story? or was I only dreaming...
Towards the end of class last Tuesday we touched on a very interesting subtopic: History and its significance to our culture.
We discussed how histories have evolved to become a resource. But I never really stopped to think about the fact that our definition of ‘history’ is pretty much solely political history. We all know that the victors write the books and it makes me question how much we really ‘know’ about our past.
Now we all know about the disgusting treatment of the Native Americans on the Trail of Tears(and this is mainly because the Europeans like to keep reminding us)… But here’s a story I’m going to guess you’ve never heard before:
Black Elk was the leader of the Lakota people in South Dakota. He took a spiritual journey through the black hills and to the peak of a mountain. Following this journey, the Lakota people associated the mountain as sacred and it became a steadfast pillar of remembrance watching over their lands.
At least until the U.S. government decided it would be a great idea to carve the busts of the great presidents into the mountain, in order to attract tourists to South Dakota. Even today, there is no plaque or statue, that offers any regrets on this decision. Obviously there is not a whole lot we can do about the situation now (unless we see a drastic increase in acid rain ph), however our government should first recognize the error so that it can reconcile the error.
Our history, like just about every nation, hides events that do not push us towards progression. Our quaint anecdotes and witty political one-liners that we have grown up to reading in our textbooks have merely created an environment where start-up companies today have to lie and invent ‘cute’ out-of-the-garage stories to be taken seriously. Take Youtube for example. As Americans, it’s not enough that the creators made an incredible website that totally transformed accessibility to information, they needed a good starter story for the public.
The connection between history and politics and identity say a lot about our culture. And frankly, it says that our real past can be forgotten so long as we are moving forward.
We discussed how histories have evolved to become a resource. But I never really stopped to think about the fact that our definition of ‘history’ is pretty much solely political history. We all know that the victors write the books and it makes me question how much we really ‘know’ about our past.
Now we all know about the disgusting treatment of the Native Americans on the Trail of Tears(and this is mainly because the Europeans like to keep reminding us)… But here’s a story I’m going to guess you’ve never heard before:
Black Elk was the leader of the Lakota people in South Dakota. He took a spiritual journey through the black hills and to the peak of a mountain. Following this journey, the Lakota people associated the mountain as sacred and it became a steadfast pillar of remembrance watching over their lands.
At least until the U.S. government decided it would be a great idea to carve the busts of the great presidents into the mountain, in order to attract tourists to South Dakota. Even today, there is no plaque or statue, that offers any regrets on this decision. Obviously there is not a whole lot we can do about the situation now (unless we see a drastic increase in acid rain ph), however our government should first recognize the error so that it can reconcile the error.
Our history, like just about every nation, hides events that do not push us towards progression. Our quaint anecdotes and witty political one-liners that we have grown up to reading in our textbooks have merely created an environment where start-up companies today have to lie and invent ‘cute’ out-of-the-garage stories to be taken seriously. Take Youtube for example. As Americans, it’s not enough that the creators made an incredible website that totally transformed accessibility to information, they needed a good starter story for the public.
The connection between history and politics and identity say a lot about our culture. And frankly, it says that our real past can be forgotten so long as we are moving forward.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Culture Rock
I sit at my desk, combing my memories of Thursday’s class and the prior readings, attempting to formulate a position to take. Stimulating as the subject is, it’s not an easy task.
I glance across the desk at my roommate, who sits opposite me. He has his headphones on, connected to his iPod, and sits nodding his head and mouthing the lyrics to a faintly-audible rock song. We glance at each other, and he starts to exaggerate his own actions, mocking a real-life rock star. I respond with a silent, concentrated glare, hoping to convey my lack of enthusiasm without appearing too indignant. Seeing this, he slips off his left headphone and says, “Aww, come on, man! It’s Coldplay! Get into it!”
I can’t hear the song he’s listening to. I can’t determine from the words he’s mouthing what song it might be, nor do I feel any urge to “get into it”. I don’t even like Coldplay.
This brief vignette illustrates how ubiquitous cross-cultural communication errors can be. Consciously, my roommate is aware that I can’t hear his music. So why does he expect me to share in his excitement?
At that moment, in his world, rocking out is the only natural thing to do. He hears his favorite music, and lets the familiar flow dictate his actions. Yet, when he faces someone under a totally different mindset, he’s thrown for a loop; surely if he feels so good, the rest of the world must feel so as well, right? If that were case, my response, or lack thereof, would seem naturally odd.
Though we don’t like to admit it, it’s a common human tendency to misidentify our current surroundings as the global norm. We may tell ourselves that the outside world is very different, but to understand this concept is an entirely different matter. It requires the suspension of many deeply-held beliefs, things that may seem completely logical, things that everyone you’ve ever encountered agreed upon. For a first-time communicator, identifying and shedding deeply-rooted beliefs can be a shocking reminder of just how trapped in the cultural quicksand we are.
For the college sophomore, cross-cultural communication issues may start and end at music preferences. But for the career diplomat, as well as anyone else pursuing an international relations profession, the issues are greater in magnitude and importance, yet are just as easy to run afoul of.
The belief in universal values is an outmoded concept; the only value shared by all humans is that we walk on two feet. Though having a basic code of human rights helps to create a sense of transnational order, the code will never properly fit all societies. The two examples brought up in class, honor killings and female genital mutilation, are points where Western value systems collide with the systems of certain other societies. An overarching judgment on the rightfulness of these practices is entirely theoretical; in fact, most people of the West are more likely to assume such societies are “naturally barbaric”, rather than attempt to understand how infidelity can be seen as tantamount to murder.
With that in mind, what should the response of those in Western societies be when confronted with such a moral and ethical dilemma? A final answer is hard, perhaps impossible to formulate. At the very least, they can provide an “out”, so to speak, to any individual in these societies who wants to live by Western standards. Provide them with an opportunity for resettlement, and a chance to live according to Western ideals. However, attempting to enforce new cultural ideals across borders should only be done after close and careful consideration of the situation.
It is a fallacy to think that all people operate in the same way, towards the same purpose. Our worldviews are molded by our own unique experiences, and attempting to enforce them on others, even in a passive sense, can lead to great discord. The fact that there are countless people around the world willing to take up arms for countless causes illustrates just how varied one’s view of the world can be, and how stubbornly we act when we lack understanding of this reality.
Perry Landesberg
I glance across the desk at my roommate, who sits opposite me. He has his headphones on, connected to his iPod, and sits nodding his head and mouthing the lyrics to a faintly-audible rock song. We glance at each other, and he starts to exaggerate his own actions, mocking a real-life rock star. I respond with a silent, concentrated glare, hoping to convey my lack of enthusiasm without appearing too indignant. Seeing this, he slips off his left headphone and says, “Aww, come on, man! It’s Coldplay! Get into it!”
I can’t hear the song he’s listening to. I can’t determine from the words he’s mouthing what song it might be, nor do I feel any urge to “get into it”. I don’t even like Coldplay.
This brief vignette illustrates how ubiquitous cross-cultural communication errors can be. Consciously, my roommate is aware that I can’t hear his music. So why does he expect me to share in his excitement?
At that moment, in his world, rocking out is the only natural thing to do. He hears his favorite music, and lets the familiar flow dictate his actions. Yet, when he faces someone under a totally different mindset, he’s thrown for a loop; surely if he feels so good, the rest of the world must feel so as well, right? If that were case, my response, or lack thereof, would seem naturally odd.
Though we don’t like to admit it, it’s a common human tendency to misidentify our current surroundings as the global norm. We may tell ourselves that the outside world is very different, but to understand this concept is an entirely different matter. It requires the suspension of many deeply-held beliefs, things that may seem completely logical, things that everyone you’ve ever encountered agreed upon. For a first-time communicator, identifying and shedding deeply-rooted beliefs can be a shocking reminder of just how trapped in the cultural quicksand we are.
For the college sophomore, cross-cultural communication issues may start and end at music preferences. But for the career diplomat, as well as anyone else pursuing an international relations profession, the issues are greater in magnitude and importance, yet are just as easy to run afoul of.
The belief in universal values is an outmoded concept; the only value shared by all humans is that we walk on two feet. Though having a basic code of human rights helps to create a sense of transnational order, the code will never properly fit all societies. The two examples brought up in class, honor killings and female genital mutilation, are points where Western value systems collide with the systems of certain other societies. An overarching judgment on the rightfulness of these practices is entirely theoretical; in fact, most people of the West are more likely to assume such societies are “naturally barbaric”, rather than attempt to understand how infidelity can be seen as tantamount to murder.
With that in mind, what should the response of those in Western societies be when confronted with such a moral and ethical dilemma? A final answer is hard, perhaps impossible to formulate. At the very least, they can provide an “out”, so to speak, to any individual in these societies who wants to live by Western standards. Provide them with an opportunity for resettlement, and a chance to live according to Western ideals. However, attempting to enforce new cultural ideals across borders should only be done after close and careful consideration of the situation.
It is a fallacy to think that all people operate in the same way, towards the same purpose. Our worldviews are molded by our own unique experiences, and attempting to enforce them on others, even in a passive sense, can lead to great discord. The fact that there are countless people around the world willing to take up arms for countless causes illustrates just how varied one’s view of the world can be, and how stubbornly we act when we lack understanding of this reality.
Perry Landesberg
Monday, September 7, 2009
Getting pushed into the pool
Week One: Why do we study this thing?
Starting Cross Cultural is like getting into a pool. It looks kind big, wet and cold and you just kind of want to step in in the shallow end and slowly acclimate yourself. Well, that's what your natural instincts are at least. Your natural instincts are wrong and here's why: Cross cultural is not something you can just slowly learn, it's far easier(and most likely better) to throw your predispositions aside and show everyone your best cannonball. For those who won't agree with everything we're learning, it will at least make things a bit easier.
Let me explain: Cross Cultural, from what we've learned so far, is anti-universalist. It comforts people to think that there are universal truths and universal values shared through all people. When something comes along to challenge that, no matter how clearly factual the information, we will resist. It takes more effort to learn this "bad" than to ignore the new information and continue in our ignorance. This is the idea, in economics jargon, of rational ignorance.
So why is this a problem? Being rationally ignorant makes you feel good, isn't that a good thing? No. Rational ignorance has a broad range of implications. The fact of rational ignorance is that you're ignoring facts to help feelings. Writ large, this can hurt everyone. Things like protective tariffs, aid to Africa, and the minimum wage exist in part because of this idea. All three make us feel good, while there are solid facts that prove none are beneficial. I'm going to plug Brian Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter here, which explains the broad implications I'm talking about.
The other problem with Universalist ideology is the fact that it brings a person ever closer to a universal theory of value. When you think that there are absolute universal personal values, you're more likely to accept that objects also have a universal value. If that happens, you're spitting in the face of anyone who doesn't share how much you value things from a loaf of bread to a Walter Payton rookie card. Simply, if you can't accept that people value things differently, then the cause is lost and you shouldn't be in the class in the first place.
Nick
Starting Cross Cultural is like getting into a pool. It looks kind big, wet and cold and you just kind of want to step in in the shallow end and slowly acclimate yourself. Well, that's what your natural instincts are at least. Your natural instincts are wrong and here's why: Cross cultural is not something you can just slowly learn, it's far easier(and most likely better) to throw your predispositions aside and show everyone your best cannonball. For those who won't agree with everything we're learning, it will at least make things a bit easier.
Let me explain: Cross Cultural, from what we've learned so far, is anti-universalist. It comforts people to think that there are universal truths and universal values shared through all people. When something comes along to challenge that, no matter how clearly factual the information, we will resist. It takes more effort to learn this "bad" than to ignore the new information and continue in our ignorance. This is the idea, in economics jargon, of rational ignorance.
So why is this a problem? Being rationally ignorant makes you feel good, isn't that a good thing? No. Rational ignorance has a broad range of implications. The fact of rational ignorance is that you're ignoring facts to help feelings. Writ large, this can hurt everyone. Things like protective tariffs, aid to Africa, and the minimum wage exist in part because of this idea. All three make us feel good, while there are solid facts that prove none are beneficial. I'm going to plug Brian Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter here, which explains the broad implications I'm talking about.
The other problem with Universalist ideology is the fact that it brings a person ever closer to a universal theory of value. When you think that there are absolute universal personal values, you're more likely to accept that objects also have a universal value. If that happens, you're spitting in the face of anyone who doesn't share how much you value things from a loaf of bread to a Walter Payton rookie card. Simply, if you can't accept that people value things differently, then the cause is lost and you shouldn't be in the class in the first place.
Nick
"Universal" is universally irrelevant
I must admit, last Thursday was a very engaging and interesting session during which many great ideas were shared. While I certainly took note of several things mentioned, what struck me the most were the underlying themes, so to speak, present in our discussion. The topics that we spoke so strongly about were clearly motivated by far more than the texts we were assigned to read. Essentially, I feel that what the issues we were addressing were motivated by our sociological, political, and spiritual beliefs more than anything else. They are far outside the realm of cut-and-dry fact and there is no real right or wrong answer to what any of us said.
However, I believe that this point is exactly what drove such enthusiastic debate. Everyone, regardless of where it is they actually stand, believes how they feel is absolutely true and right. This is a microcosm of the universal vs. relative monger that we discussed particularly in relation to female genital mutilation (FGM). While most of us clearly view it as a heinous and morbid practice, at the same time we cannot simply call it wrong and denigrate it unconditionally. Instead, we must look deeper and observe the factors that motivate things of this nature. In almost every instance of FGM, it is done because of deep-seated and strong cultural ties and traditions that have been carried on for centuries. In Africa, for instance, where FGM is a rampant and widespread issue, it is viewed as a means to an end for women to be faithful to their husbands. Obviously, this is no justification in our eyes; in our common culture such an idea is almost unspeakable. However, the fact that it IS done for a reason is significant; while it is senseless and cruel, it is not done randomly or in cold blood, which certainly changes the dynamic of what takes place.
Bottom line: it is not our job to play world police on every single human rights issue that arises. Sure, when a ruthless dictator is mindlessly murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people in a genocide, we are obligated. However, in a case like this where it is slightly more esoteric and motivated by often thousands of years of culture and practice, we have no place. What is right for me is not necessarily right for a counterpart in Ghana or even my roommate. :Universal" is universally irrelevant.
-Dylan Parker
However, I believe that this point is exactly what drove such enthusiastic debate. Everyone, regardless of where it is they actually stand, believes how they feel is absolutely true and right. This is a microcosm of the universal vs. relative monger that we discussed particularly in relation to female genital mutilation (FGM). While most of us clearly view it as a heinous and morbid practice, at the same time we cannot simply call it wrong and denigrate it unconditionally. Instead, we must look deeper and observe the factors that motivate things of this nature. In almost every instance of FGM, it is done because of deep-seated and strong cultural ties and traditions that have been carried on for centuries. In Africa, for instance, where FGM is a rampant and widespread issue, it is viewed as a means to an end for women to be faithful to their husbands. Obviously, this is no justification in our eyes; in our common culture such an idea is almost unspeakable. However, the fact that it IS done for a reason is significant; while it is senseless and cruel, it is not done randomly or in cold blood, which certainly changes the dynamic of what takes place.
Bottom line: it is not our job to play world police on every single human rights issue that arises. Sure, when a ruthless dictator is mindlessly murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people in a genocide, we are obligated. However, in a case like this where it is slightly more esoteric and motivated by often thousands of years of culture and practice, we have no place. What is right for me is not necessarily right for a counterpart in Ghana or even my roommate. :Universal" is universally irrelevant.
-Dylan Parker
Saturday, September 5, 2009
forget universal... the mold doesn't work
So, I must admit that I came out of last class pretty frustrated—
That being said, I’d like to readdress the topic of the universality of human rights.
In December 1948, the United Nations voted to pass The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document “recognizes the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (UDHR). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes thirty articles that stipulate specifically what ‘human rights’ in fact are. Following the global devastation of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations took the protection of the rights of humanity as a very significant goal. This declaration was voted on over 1,400 times and was finally agreed to by the fifty member states. The creation of this ‘universal’ charter sent a global message proclaiming that no matter nationality, no matter ethnicity, no matter age, no matter gender, that all humans are entitled to some rights irrespective.
Globalization has led to a loss of identity and culture, by simply expanding a western cultural influence over the rest of the globe.
Is the adoption of ‘universal human rights’ another misnomer courtesy of one-sided globalization that manages to neglect individual state’s cultural personality?
Yes.
As for me, this question has taken a long time to answer assuredly. But after a semester in rural Nigeria and Argentina, I can firmly state that the actions of Western human rights advocacy groups have merely managed to judge and produce propaganda against non-western practices.
There may in fact be some universal human rights, but there are not meant to be written into some declaration, they are meant to be on the conscious and heart of each human being. It is not for one culture to critique another. Cultures naturally change and some practices die and new ones form. If the west continues with its human rights ‘campaigns’ against specific practices then we will only see those ‘forbidden’ practices embraced as a way to spite the West.
For those who wish to end violations of human rights, I would suggest starting with a careful examination of the western companies who supposedly adhere to our same culturally-relative definitions of human rights such as Shell Oil in the Niger Delta…
If you are interested, please watch the trailer of Sweet Crude: A Documentary Film
http://www.sweetcrudemovie.com/videoGallery.php
-Sam Boss
That being said, I’d like to readdress the topic of the universality of human rights.
In December 1948, the United Nations voted to pass The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document “recognizes the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (UDHR). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes thirty articles that stipulate specifically what ‘human rights’ in fact are. Following the global devastation of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations took the protection of the rights of humanity as a very significant goal. This declaration was voted on over 1,400 times and was finally agreed to by the fifty member states. The creation of this ‘universal’ charter sent a global message proclaiming that no matter nationality, no matter ethnicity, no matter age, no matter gender, that all humans are entitled to some rights irrespective.
Globalization has led to a loss of identity and culture, by simply expanding a western cultural influence over the rest of the globe.
Is the adoption of ‘universal human rights’ another misnomer courtesy of one-sided globalization that manages to neglect individual state’s cultural personality?
Yes.
As for me, this question has taken a long time to answer assuredly. But after a semester in rural Nigeria and Argentina, I can firmly state that the actions of Western human rights advocacy groups have merely managed to judge and produce propaganda against non-western practices.
There may in fact be some universal human rights, but there are not meant to be written into some declaration, they are meant to be on the conscious and heart of each human being. It is not for one culture to critique another. Cultures naturally change and some practices die and new ones form. If the west continues with its human rights ‘campaigns’ against specific practices then we will only see those ‘forbidden’ practices embraced as a way to spite the West.
For those who wish to end violations of human rights, I would suggest starting with a careful examination of the western companies who supposedly adhere to our same culturally-relative definitions of human rights such as Shell Oil in the Niger Delta…
If you are interested, please watch the trailer of Sweet Crude: A Documentary Film
http://www.sweetcrudemovie.com/videoGallery.php
-Sam Boss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
