Ethnographies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is "American" culture?

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

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

Cultural Diplomacy as a Coverup

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

The United States=
Kanye West

Confused? Just hear me through…

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

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

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

The Purpose of the Practice

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

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

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

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

Perry Landesberg

Organic Cultural Diplomacy

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

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

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

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

For the last time,
Nick Zaiac

The United States as a Cultural Equal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perry Landesberg