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’.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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
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
Sunday, November 22, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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
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
Monday, November 9, 2009
We interupt your regularly scheduled post for this special note
This day I'm not going to blog about what everyone else is. Sure, we went to a conference that was really interesting with a lot of insight to be had. Sure we read the reading for class as well. But today is November 9, 2009.
Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall fell to the ground.Twenty years ago today millions were freed from the communist yoke. Twenty years ago today was the symbolic end to the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Twenty years ago today...
Saturday evening I sat in a massive auditorium in Philadelphia, at the Mid-Atlantic Students For Liberty Conference graciously hosted by the Drexel Student Liberty Front. I was surrounded by over a hundred peers, brothers in liberty from across the Mid-Atlantic. We entered that auditorium that morning running on nothing but passion and half an hour of sleep, only to leave that evening exhausted but burning, burning with a fire that no man could extinguish. Why? How do some kids from Philly and DC make it though a 12 hour day of sitting in a room without passing out? One final speech by little-known a UPenn professor by the name of Alan Charles Kors.
Kors gave speech entitled "Can there be an 'After Socialism'". It asks whether the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago today really was as significant as we think.
This speech was powerful, to say the least. More so when you consider one of the people in the room.
The coordinator of the conference was a young liberty-lover, Mid-Atlantic Director of Students For Liberty and AU student whom I've grown to know closely. She also happened to be born in Russia. The day she was born was the day before the Berlin Wall fell. After the speech ended was the moment scores of people realized what they were really living for. She walked up to the stage, tears streaming down her face and brought the conference to a close after struggling to pronounce the words of her two-minute speech.
Now that's what I call Cross Cultural Communication.
Nick Zaiac
Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall fell to the ground.Twenty years ago today millions were freed from the communist yoke. Twenty years ago today was the symbolic end to the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Twenty years ago today...
Saturday evening I sat in a massive auditorium in Philadelphia, at the Mid-Atlantic Students For Liberty Conference graciously hosted by the Drexel Student Liberty Front. I was surrounded by over a hundred peers, brothers in liberty from across the Mid-Atlantic. We entered that auditorium that morning running on nothing but passion and half an hour of sleep, only to leave that evening exhausted but burning, burning with a fire that no man could extinguish. Why? How do some kids from Philly and DC make it though a 12 hour day of sitting in a room without passing out? One final speech by little-known a UPenn professor by the name of Alan Charles Kors.
Kors gave speech entitled "Can there be an 'After Socialism'". It asks whether the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago today really was as significant as we think.
We are surrounded by slain innocents, and the scale is wholly new. This is not the thousands killed during the Inquisition; it is not the thousands of American lynching. This is not the six million dead from Nazi extermination. The best scholarship yields numbers that the mind must try to comprehend: scores, and scores, and scores, and scores of millions of bodies.1 All around us. If we count those who died of starvation during Communists' experiments with human interactions—twenty to forty million in three years in China alone2—we may add scores of millions more. Shot; dead by deliberate exposure; starved; and murdered in work camps and prisons meant to extract every last fiber of labor from human beings and then kill them. And all around us, widows and widowers and orphans.
This speech was powerful, to say the least. More so when you consider one of the people in the room.
The coordinator of the conference was a young liberty-lover, Mid-Atlantic Director of Students For Liberty and AU student whom I've grown to know closely. She also happened to be born in Russia. The day she was born was the day before the Berlin Wall fell. After the speech ended was the moment scores of people realized what they were really living for. She walked up to the stage, tears streaming down her face and brought the conference to a close after struggling to pronounce the words of her two-minute speech.
Now that's what I call Cross Cultural Communication.
Nick Zaiac
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Hands OFF!
The conference last Thursday focused on some interesting concepts regarding cultural diplomacy. But, one thing kind of made me tick. The panelist came to the conclusion that the US does not value a nationally defined culture. So, when trying to promote cultural diplomacy (aka trying to get money from the US government) it becomes tricky. But here’s the thing, the US culture is this idea that we don’t have a defined culture. That’s a part of what makes ‘us’ us. We are a hodge podge, a mix of just about everything. US culture varies hugely based on region, and even within each region culture is completely dependent on the group. And that’s a part of what makes our culture amazing. I think that it’s great that we don’t have a Ministry of Culture. I mean, can you imagine what implications such a ministry would have? It would formalize our culture and inevitably discriminate against certain subcultures that make up our country. Formal culture stagnates forward motion. And frankly, the US does enough to export our ‘culture’ without government intervention.
I used to be a firm believer in multi-track diplomacy. But, now I’m starting to have second thoughts. Before you peg me for a crazy, I guess I’m just thinking that it might be better to keep the government’s dirty hands away from our culture. It has a bad track record for putting up a nice front and distorting the realities of US lifestyle. Such distortions of life in the US could have the opposite effect of the intention.
I also find it interesting that when discussing cultural diplomacy, in general the panelists only discussed western countries. This type of discriminatory angle to cultural diplomacy only makes me less of a fan. They would most likely argue that government programs, such as Peace Corps, operate as mechanisms of cultural diplomacy in the global south. I just find the argument for cultural diplomacy to be a matter of ego. We don’t need to prove to the world that our culture is amazing. It comes across as ‘censorship’ of the negative stereotype Americans have in the world.
What makes our culture unique is that there is no one forcing it on us! We, the people, make our culture and that is what makes us different and beautifully distinct from the rest of the world.
I used to be a firm believer in multi-track diplomacy. But, now I’m starting to have second thoughts. Before you peg me for a crazy, I guess I’m just thinking that it might be better to keep the government’s dirty hands away from our culture. It has a bad track record for putting up a nice front and distorting the realities of US lifestyle. Such distortions of life in the US could have the opposite effect of the intention.
I also find it interesting that when discussing cultural diplomacy, in general the panelists only discussed western countries. This type of discriminatory angle to cultural diplomacy only makes me less of a fan. They would most likely argue that government programs, such as Peace Corps, operate as mechanisms of cultural diplomacy in the global south. I just find the argument for cultural diplomacy to be a matter of ego. We don’t need to prove to the world that our culture is amazing. It comes across as ‘censorship’ of the negative stereotype Americans have in the world.
What makes our culture unique is that there is no one forcing it on us! We, the people, make our culture and that is what makes us different and beautifully distinct from the rest of the world.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Allure of Familiarity
While studying the “Korean Wave” phenomenon in class last week, there was an element to it that I don’t believe was brought up. It appears, at least to me, that the focus of this cultural craze is essentially limited to East Asia. The "Hallyu" fad was shown to be strong in places such as Japan, China, and Thailand, but didn’t appear at all in India, the Muslim world, Europe, or the Americas. While I’m sure that there are Korea aficionados in all of these places, the culture wave appears not to have struck outside the East and Southeast Asian regions. It appears that there are powerful cultural boundaries that seal off these places from the rest of the world, creating an invisible divide through which few mass ideas can pass. While there have been instances in the past of Asian fads catching on in Western countries (read: Pokémon), large cultural movements never seem to advance past the continent. Yet, on the other hand, such movements receive wild popularity within East Asia, despite regional language and cultural barriers. Why is it that Asian nations have no trouble accepting each others’ cultures, while non-Asian nations are unable to? And can the same be said of non-Asian nations and their own cultures?
I think that at the heart of every society, there is a dualistic view on alien cultures. On one hand, the allure of the unknown draws people into experimenting with foreign ways of life. However, the part that always throws people off is the wholly different mindset and worldview that breeds such behavior. The process of viewing the world from an alternate perspective is too hard for most individuals to grasp, so instead, they search for inroads based on cultural values they can understand. Despite the conscious desire to encounter the exotic, the individual looks for familiar signs upon which to base their experience.
In 2006, the Asian nations experienced another such cultural fad when the young heir to the Bhutanese throne, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, arrived in Thailand to attend the Thai King’s 60th Anniversary. He had rarely been seen in public before, since he had spent most of his life in his native Bhutan, a small Himalayan state known for its beauty and seclusion. His sudden appearance and dashing good looks made him a superstar, and for weeks afterward, Asian tabloid papers and magazines would publish stories about him and life in Bhutan. By the end of the year, Khesar had been crowned King, and he was declared by Asian media sources to be the most eligible bachelor in Asia.
However, despite his popularity throughout Asia, Khesar has not achieved such notoriety in the West. Despite differences in media reporting, I would place the cause of this on differing images of beauty in the East and the West. In Asia, Khesar clearly fit the “Prince Charming” archetype; he was young, handsome, and heir to the throne of a foreign kingdom. However, I would contend that Asian audiences would more likely picture Bhutan as this foreign kingdom, while European and American audiences would more likely think of places like Monaco or Liechtenstein. This is not based on racism; rather, each audience subconsciously chooses a locale that seems different enough to be intrigued, yet familiar enough to understand. As an Asian country, Bhutan is presumed to have Asian values, despite its unique culture. It therefore appeals to Asians as unusual, but in a non-confusing manner. The same holds true for Westerners and nations like Monaco or Liechtenstein.
No matter where we come from, no matter how fascinated we may be by other cultures and peoples, we will always try at first to view them through our own lens of familiarity. Instances of this kind of thought range from Disney films to transnational political movements, and while they may be either harmful or benign, they are indicative of the challenges we face in effectively managing intercultural communication.
Perry Landesberg
I think that at the heart of every society, there is a dualistic view on alien cultures. On one hand, the allure of the unknown draws people into experimenting with foreign ways of life. However, the part that always throws people off is the wholly different mindset and worldview that breeds such behavior. The process of viewing the world from an alternate perspective is too hard for most individuals to grasp, so instead, they search for inroads based on cultural values they can understand. Despite the conscious desire to encounter the exotic, the individual looks for familiar signs upon which to base their experience.
In 2006, the Asian nations experienced another such cultural fad when the young heir to the Bhutanese throne, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, arrived in Thailand to attend the Thai King’s 60th Anniversary. He had rarely been seen in public before, since he had spent most of his life in his native Bhutan, a small Himalayan state known for its beauty and seclusion. His sudden appearance and dashing good looks made him a superstar, and for weeks afterward, Asian tabloid papers and magazines would publish stories about him and life in Bhutan. By the end of the year, Khesar had been crowned King, and he was declared by Asian media sources to be the most eligible bachelor in Asia.
However, despite his popularity throughout Asia, Khesar has not achieved such notoriety in the West. Despite differences in media reporting, I would place the cause of this on differing images of beauty in the East and the West. In Asia, Khesar clearly fit the “Prince Charming” archetype; he was young, handsome, and heir to the throne of a foreign kingdom. However, I would contend that Asian audiences would more likely picture Bhutan as this foreign kingdom, while European and American audiences would more likely think of places like Monaco or Liechtenstein. This is not based on racism; rather, each audience subconsciously chooses a locale that seems different enough to be intrigued, yet familiar enough to understand. As an Asian country, Bhutan is presumed to have Asian values, despite its unique culture. It therefore appeals to Asians as unusual, but in a non-confusing manner. The same holds true for Westerners and nations like Monaco or Liechtenstein.
No matter where we come from, no matter how fascinated we may be by other cultures and peoples, we will always try at first to view them through our own lens of familiarity. Instances of this kind of thought range from Disney films to transnational political movements, and while they may be either harmful or benign, they are indicative of the challenges we face in effectively managing intercultural communication.
Perry Landesberg
Monday, November 2, 2009
Why don't we just meet in the middle?
Of everything we learned this week I found the piece on convergence culture to be the most eye-opening. In that piece Deuze argues that the concept of "convergence culture" is becoming far more prevalent in the modern era. One of the primary reasons for this is that the rise of the internet has allowed a more bottom-up method of information dissemination. Whats more, it plays significantly into the concept of the decentralization of information. I would argue that these interrelated concepts are far more prevalent than most understand. With information we don't just meet in the middle, with half of the information coming from to-down sources and the other coming from decentralized information sources.
The key to understanding these concepts is to simply think about how much you learn and know and how much you don't. How much time do you spend consuming mass information? Now stop and compare that to what you learn as an individual. Now let's cover the underlying concept here of the decentralization of knowledge.
Leonard Read wrote probably the most prominent and well known piece on the decentralization of knowledge. I, Pencil explains the concept that no individual has all the information necessary for the creation of our favorite yellow writing utensil. No matter how well read you are, nobody knows all the various jobs that go into it, from the graphite miner to the waitress who serves the coffee to a trucker hauling the lumber which makes him not fall asleep and drive off the road.
Now what role does all this play in cross cultural communication? By understanding that information itself is almost entirely decentralized it gives us a new perspective on where that delicate point of informational equilibrium lies. This information would lead one to think that the balance leans toward decentralized, consumer driven information, with it shifting toward even more decentralization with the advent of the publications that Deuze writes about.
Nick
The key to understanding these concepts is to simply think about how much you learn and know and how much you don't. How much time do you spend consuming mass information? Now stop and compare that to what you learn as an individual. Now let's cover the underlying concept here of the decentralization of knowledge.
Leonard Read wrote probably the most prominent and well known piece on the decentralization of knowledge. I, Pencil explains the concept that no individual has all the information necessary for the creation of our favorite yellow writing utensil. No matter how well read you are, nobody knows all the various jobs that go into it, from the graphite miner to the waitress who serves the coffee to a trucker hauling the lumber which makes him not fall asleep and drive off the road.
Now what role does all this play in cross cultural communication? By understanding that information itself is almost entirely decentralized it gives us a new perspective on where that delicate point of informational equilibrium lies. This information would lead one to think that the balance leans toward decentralized, consumer driven information, with it shifting toward even more decentralization with the advent of the publications that Deuze writes about.
Nick
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Mistake on the Lake
I'm a Clevelander. Born and raised on the east side, it took me a while to understand and love the city I'm from. Cleveland has taught me about resilliance: to factories shutting down, lake effect blizzards and most of all, sports team dissappointment.
It's a part of life. Sundays, my family would go to church and come home, eat lunch and watch the Browns get beat. But every once in a while, we get lucky. And Cleveland comes alive. That's what LeBron James has done. But now that LeBron is gearing up to leave beloved Cleveland, the Indians are front and center.
The Cleveleand Indians (aka the Tribe) are not normally very good. About one season per decade, they might 'accomplish' something. But, the Indians are a staple represented by none other than good old Cheif Wahoo.
Now, in class we touched on the stereotypes that play into team mascots. But there was one major point that we didn't make in regards to the Indians. On top of the symbolic representation of Cheif Wahoo, the Indians are on the same level as the Marlins, the Orioles, the Cubs, the Cardinals, and even 'Sox'. It's not bad enough that we've continued to allow such a stereotype to exist, but we've degraded it to comparisons with fish and birds. Yikes.
This type of representation creates a breeding ground for the 'third person effect'. I guess I just don't understand why 'we' don't try to change the names of stereotypical mascots. One would think that 'we' would like to forget the woes of our culturally dominant history over marginalized groups such as the Native Americans.
It's time to let it go and start fresh. I mean, what would it say about our country if the 'Indians' were to win the world series? The rest of the world would laugh at our hypocricy and racism.
One day perhaps we'll have had enough of subconcious misrepresentation. But most Clevelanders would just say that the name's unlucky and it's time for a change...
It's a part of life. Sundays, my family would go to church and come home, eat lunch and watch the Browns get beat. But every once in a while, we get lucky. And Cleveland comes alive. That's what LeBron James has done. But now that LeBron is gearing up to leave beloved Cleveland, the Indians are front and center.
The Cleveleand Indians (aka the Tribe) are not normally very good. About one season per decade, they might 'accomplish' something. But, the Indians are a staple represented by none other than good old Cheif Wahoo.
Now, in class we touched on the stereotypes that play into team mascots. But there was one major point that we didn't make in regards to the Indians. On top of the symbolic representation of Cheif Wahoo, the Indians are on the same level as the Marlins, the Orioles, the Cubs, the Cardinals, and even 'Sox'. It's not bad enough that we've continued to allow such a stereotype to exist, but we've degraded it to comparisons with fish and birds. Yikes.
This type of representation creates a breeding ground for the 'third person effect'. I guess I just don't understand why 'we' don't try to change the names of stereotypical mascots. One would think that 'we' would like to forget the woes of our culturally dominant history over marginalized groups such as the Native Americans.
It's time to let it go and start fresh. I mean, what would it say about our country if the 'Indians' were to win the world series? The rest of the world would laugh at our hypocricy and racism.
One day perhaps we'll have had enough of subconcious misrepresentation. But most Clevelanders would just say that the name's unlucky and it's time for a change...
Digital Convergence: A New Frontier
While the internet has been in use for the better part of twenty years, its true effect on the spectrum of daily transgressions has only been tangible since roughly 2003. The impetus, so to speak, behind this newfound prominence can be almost directly attributed to one medium: social networking. Since the advent of networking sites such as MySpace, Friendster, and later Facebook and Twitter, society as a whole has become far more "plugged in." While in the past the go-to means of technological communication were limited mostly to e-mail and instant messengers, the paradigm has shifted tangibly. The reason for this is that these new networking venues essentially provide an individual with a combination of the sources that came before it. Facebook, for instance, allows people to send both e-mail type and instant messages in one place. The level of convenience it affords is unprecedented.
However, there is another very significant aspect of social networking that remains somewhat of a wild card: exposure. The ability to upload personal pictures and post status updates that convey people's moods, actions, and opinions has opened up the floodgates for what is considered "private." By looking at one's Facebook or Twitter page, an observer can essentially learn how someone dresses, who their friends are, and what they have been or will be doing. This is a concept that was altogether foreign even ten years ago; now it is relatively mundane. It has really made its mark in popular culture as well. Famous athletes, music artists, and actors routinely employ Facebook and Twitter as a means of communicating with their fans and keeping them posted on near every aspect of their personal lives. Effectively, if someone has a social networking account, their privacy no longer really exists. It has become a popular adage that once something about someone is posted online, it is there forever. Granted, there are certain steps one can take to attempt to rectify this situation, but those steps are becoming less and less easy to take. Society in general has become so interconnected that we really all now live in the "public eye."
-Dylan Parker
However, there is another very significant aspect of social networking that remains somewhat of a wild card: exposure. The ability to upload personal pictures and post status updates that convey people's moods, actions, and opinions has opened up the floodgates for what is considered "private." By looking at one's Facebook or Twitter page, an observer can essentially learn how someone dresses, who their friends are, and what they have been or will be doing. This is a concept that was altogether foreign even ten years ago; now it is relatively mundane. It has really made its mark in popular culture as well. Famous athletes, music artists, and actors routinely employ Facebook and Twitter as a means of communicating with their fans and keeping them posted on near every aspect of their personal lives. Effectively, if someone has a social networking account, their privacy no longer really exists. It has become a popular adage that once something about someone is posted online, it is there forever. Granted, there are certain steps one can take to attempt to rectify this situation, but those steps are becoming less and less easy to take. Society in general has become so interconnected that we really all now live in the "public eye."
-Dylan Parker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
