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
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
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
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
Monday, October 26, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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?
Monday, October 19, 2009
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"
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.
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.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
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.
“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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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
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
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
Monday, October 5, 2009
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
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.
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
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
Sunday, October 4, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
