Merskin Article Response

The article written by Merskin touched on some topics that I had never really thought of before. I am one of those people who are easily convinced (which is not a good think, I know). BUT when someone supports their point, I don't often think about and analyze their wording to see how they are swaying their argument. I am also quite incapable of hate, but, when I thought about the ways that I legitimize my dislike of others, the points that Merskin makes seem to be true. She speaks about the shadow archetype, which is the way to dehumanize the enemies.
The ways to do this are through:
Negative Anticipation
Putting Blame on the Enemy
Identification with Evil
Zero-Sum thinking
and the Refusal to Show Empathy
As humans, we are apt to forgive friends because we see that their intentions are good and we see that they are like us. We have things in common and things that bind us. Therefore, it is easy to label someone who does not have those traits as bad and not human. I tend to forget that the bus driver who was rude to me or the waitress who was snippy with me are people too. Since I am distanced from them, it is easy to hold a grudge against them or make assumptions about them. However, I need to make sure that I take as many factors into consideration as possible when labeling these people. They could be having a bad day or something dramatic and stressful could be holding them down. The article was very interesting with the way Bush used the words EVIL and FAITH so many times to make his point that 'they' are evil and 'we' must have faith.

Response to Stuart Hall

The first thing that I was struck by in this article was the very first discussion about the picture where Ben Johnson had just won the Olympic race and the caption was "Heroes or Villains." When I looked at the picture to create my own meaning, what I came up with had nothing to do with race. I think that our need to continuously address white vs. black and so on, only perpetuates stereotypes and doesn't help anyone. I understand that, this article is old and race may have been a little more obvious in the time, but, reading this now, I do not even see a reason to bring up race as any subject matter in the picture. As I continued to read, and absorb the images that were given, I did not understand the aspect of race in almost any of the images. The picture where Linford Christie was holding the British flag, said nothing to me except pride for the country he was representing. My thoughts do not turn to "he can't be british, he's black."

The only place where racial stereotyping was apparent to me was in the discussion of
race and sexuality in regard to Linford Christie. I think it is ridiculous that the day after he won a gold medal, the papers were not focusing on his win, but his spandex shorts but that does not have to do with an image.

I agree with the idea that pictures gain meaning when words are attached, but I also believe that pictures can be taken at face value to some extent. I think that text guides your thoughts but it can also skew your thoughts completely. You can give almost any picture incorrect meaning if you attach words to it that might not have any relation whatsoever.

The way this article started out really made me question the rest of Hall's article as I continued reading. I realize that this article was written 10 years ago and we have come a long way from then, but it made it difficult for me to really understand his point.

Hey guys,

So i was wondering if we might want to split up the different reading assignments between us to outline and the like so that we can all contribute and make studying easier?

Response to Week 1 of Presentations

I found the first presentation groups very interesting in the way that they went about their ethnographies. First of all, the group that went to Howard University seemed to put a lot of their own personal ideas and experiences into the observations. For example, they dressed differently in order to not stand out, which may have skewed observations that they could have made if they just dressed normally. This also shows that they had preconcieved stereotypes about their subjects that, in my opinion, were far too general. It was surprising to me that in such a diverse group as theirs, that they would consider students at Howard to be much lazier and studious than students at American just because it is a historically black school. The other presentation with the Dav was also very interesting, because I felt that they actually did show a certain culture that is found there. It turns out that in their case, most of their stereotypes were actually true. The difference I think between the two presentations is that for the first one, none of the students had been to Howard before and had no idea what to expect, while most students at American have either been to, have friends that have been to, or at least heard of the Dav.

Why Cultural Diplomacy?

I appreciated the previous class topic about public and cultural diplomacy because of its explanation and discussion of the importance of cultural diplomacy in conducting foreign policy. Frankly, before I took Cross Cultural Communication (and another class called Public Diplomacy) I had little interest in cultural diplomacy or even intercultural communication. The topic seemed to me at that time rife with a bunch of academics discussing largely theory about achieving "peace" and other "feel good" lofty goals without real-world or serious policy implications. I am glad to have been proven wrong. Although I still do feel intercultural communication involves many academics attempting to figure out how to "change the world" by changing cultures and their behavior, I now regard cultural/public diplomacy as subjects that do deserve much needed attention. I think these subjects especially hold relevance with regard to achieving America's soft/smart power objectives.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that cultural diplomacy seems to only act in an independent role with reference to a nation's foreign policy goals. Practitioners of public diplomacy should not simply practice it in the name of eventual cooperation, understanding, etc between the nations, but they should practice it also in concert with foreign policy planners to achieve U.S. objectives. There appears to be a lack of cohesion or set of strategic goals that public diplomacy practitioners seem to not have. Is the Korean Wave really helping achieve South Korea's foreign policy goals? Does Mulan actually lead us to a point where we accept Chinese policies? Is Pokemon doing all that much to convince U.S. leaders to change domestic policies to favor Japan? For all the above questions, I believe the answers are all "no." This is because there is some lack of coordination between the "do-good" culture of cultural diplomacy and government foreign policy planners. If cultural diplomacy was really considered a tool instead of an after-thought in the foreign policy toolbox, it would be more integrated and more strategic-goal oriented.

Admittedly, some cultural diplomacy programs are aimed at promoting long term interests of the U.S. But, not nearly enough is done by the government, which is unfortunate. And then there is the whole debate about "if they like us and are receptive to our culture, why aren't they receptive to our policies?" Again, that's another discussion that significantly challenges the entire premise of public diplomacy and its ultimate success.

I think it is safe to say cultural diplomacy is generally positive, especially in a business sense where markets are opened and more cultural products are consumed. But, if cultural diplomacy wants to truly succeed outside of business, it should directly coordinate with foreign policy planners when deciding strategic, long-term objectives for the U.S. or any other nation willing to use it in a government-directed foreign policy context.

- David Lindgren

Response to Cultural Diplomacy Conference

I thought that the conference was very interesting because of the way that the panel and speakers talked about culture. The way that they discussed culture was very much like a product. I think that the idea of culture is much too complex to put in a box like that. For example, the woman who was talking about the artwork displayed in the U.S embassay in a European country wasn't talking about the merits of the artwork to the U.S, but how the artwork was used to make the United States look better. I don't like the idea of the United States 'faking' culture in order to make our culture look better. I disagree with the fact that we will have a more favorable view in the country just because the people can see a work of art in our embassy. The way to spread good messages about our culture may be through the arts, but should be through interactions with people, not just display.

Hey,.. so any word yet on the ethnographie?... its two weeks from now so... I had to leave class early last week so i was not sure if you guys met or anything...

response

While the Korean way to promote their country may seem to far outshine the shout outs to the United States overall, to me, the southern culture does exhibit a lot of pride. This is especially apparent in the country music. The country radio stations often play patriotic music interspersed with the modern day country music that is filled with pride for our country.
With song titles such as:
"American Soldier" - Toby Keith
"Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" - Toby Keith
"Only In America" - Brooks & Dunn
"Have You Forgotten" - Darryl Worley
This list could go on. (I could also add Party in the USA by Miley Cyrus but I hate to even admit that I listen to this song...and no, i do not consider it country...it is just a side note)
Considering country music is really all I listen to, maybe my perspective is slightly different than many others. I am very much a Texan with a Texan mentality. My favorite holiday is the Fourth of July and I completely support and admire the soldiers.


On the other hand, it is true that many celebrities (not usually the country stars) become famous and find opportunities abroad to contribute their support and money to rather than using their fame to help our own country. But, there are more opportunities abroad that present a desperate need. Many celebrities do these things simply to help their image and not out of a desire to promote their own country.

Hey Guys, have we met or talked about the ethnography assignment yet?...

Response to October 29

The thing about the "Korean Wave" culture that struck me the most was the attitudes of the Korean Wave celebrities. There is such a large contrast between how they view their popularity and how many celebrities here in the United States view their popularity. In the video, as far as I can remember every time a Korean Wave star was interviewed, they always mentioned something about their country and their pride or love for their country. These Korean stars try to promote their country through their popularity, which is something that is not a familar concept in the United States. This contrast just continues to show that the Korean culture is much more of a collectivist culture, with the most emphasis on the country. In the United States, we are very much and individualistic culture, and our celebrities are a prime example of this. There is no attempt by them to try and promote America throughout the world-their motivation is purely for them as an individual. As the Korean Wave stars become more popular worldwide, however, I wonder how long they will retain this attitude of "country first" when they are being offered more jobs overseas.

Response to 10/29 Class

I found the discussion about the cross-cultural appeal of pop culture to be interesting. I would have liked to see something about the backlash against this phenomena, especially against Korean culture. The videos we watched made it seem like Korean culture was universally appealing in the rest of Asia, but there has been some hostility. I believe China made efforts to restrict the amount of Korean dramas playing on television so that they could support their own programming. As well, there was some comic released in Japan that was titled "Hating the Korean Wave". Even though South Korea is not a threat to either country, there is still lingering nationalism among people in Asia that will prevent Korean culture influencing other Asian countries to the same degree as American culture has influenced them. I also question the argument that this culture is an alternative to Western culture. Korea's industrialization has produced a society that isn't very different from the west. I also wonder if the "Korean wave" is sustainable. I was reminded of the "British invasion" in the 1960s where British musical acts became popular in America for a few years before losing popularity. Japanese culture used to have the position culturally that Korea has now, but its popularity has since waned. People in the rest of Asia may become interested in Korean culture because it is something new to them, but perhaps when it becomes familiar and ordinary to them, the wave will die down. This wouldn't mean the end of Korean culture abroad, but of where it is easily available but so mainstream that it becomes boring. We no longer think of Hong Kong kung fu movies as exciting anymore because Jackie Chan is in plenty of American films, for instance.

Response to Oct. 22 Class

Although it was discussed briefly, I would like to return to the Merskin reading and the points she made in that article because she made some strong claims that I disagreed with. The setup of how Arabs are portrayed in the media certainly is legitimate, as evidenced by the video we watched and how Arabs are unfairly portrayed as antagonists in film. But, my disagreement with her claims does not rest with this. It rests in how she attempts to paint President Bush as an individual who exploited these portrayals of Arabs in the media and attempted to use it for some sort of gain. It appears to me as though she wrote the title with the wrong word, instead of using Arabs because she should have used terrorists. President Bush clearly constructed terrorists as enemies of the United States. There is no denial of that fact. But, it is simply an unfair claim to suggest Bush constructed the entire Arab population as enemies of the U.S.
Merskin certainly went through all of the necessary procedures to make her claims appear as legitimate. First, she explained how the media perpetuates the negative image of Arabs. Then, she explained the different processes of how enemies are constructed in the minds of the public. Finally, she attempts to draw all of these together and tries to propose that the supposed "evil, war-monger" President Bush purposely used these negative portrayals of Arabs to his advantage. Of course, calling bin Laden "evil" and a "prime suspect" reflects his attitude toward the entire Arab population. Please, give me a break. Anyone who thinks otherwise is duping herself and, frankly, her motives should be examined.
I wholeheartedly agree President Bush constructed the Taliban and Al Qaeda as enemies, but to say that he did so for Arabs in general is foolish. It's unfortunate how something such as the continuing negative portrayal of Arabs in the media, which is a serious issue that should be addressed, can be construed to indict someone with an unfair claim.
-David Lindgren

Media

Hollywood/television has one purpose... to make money. There are of course agendas and clear bias expressed in movies and the news, as these industries are owned by other corporations, each with their own corporate interests. What we discussed in class from the news only reporting certain things and clear racial connotations of Hollywood are due to both the need to make money as well as protect the interest of corporations who own news stations and studios. These corporations that own various news stations and papers also have interests in the automobile industry as well as political interests. This is why come news stations have fairly clear slants one way or another. Some thinkers would argue that there is a collaboration with the government and these consolidated corporations with far reaching interests to control the information we as citizens receive in order to sway public opinion. Our own form of manipulative censor ship. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this however it can be seen that there are about 6 blanket corporations that own a majority of the media outlets, all with other far reaching interests...
Another thing is that yet Hollywood portrays the Arabic world as one of conflict, violence and ignorance. I don’t think this creates our ignorance but is merely a refection of it. Movies really haven’t historically been meant to educate the masses and give them worldly perspective. They are meant to make money, and the way to do that is not to insult their ignorance but to play it up and perpetuate it
An interesting example comes to mind with all of this. In old movies people were always shown as smoking and it being suave and cool. Now in movies its generally the bad guys, the Russians, the criminals who are the ones smoking in the movies, no longer the protagonist as it used to be. This is not some campaign to take down the cigarette companies but a reflection of popular opinion today, now that our awareness of smoking and its ill effects.

Media

Hollywood/television has one purpose... to make money. There are of course agendas and clear bias expressed in movies and the news, as these industries are owned by other corporations, each with their own corporate interests. What we discussed in class from the news only reporting certain things and clear racial connotations of Hollywood are due to both the need to make money as well as protect the interest of corporations who own news stations and studios. These corporations that own various news stations and papers also have interests in the automobile industry as well as political interests. This is why come news stations have fairly clear slants one way or another. Some thinkers would argue that there is a collaboration with the government and these consolidated corporations with far reaching interests to control the information we as citizens receive in order to sway public opinion. Our own form of manipulative censor ship. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this however it can be seen that there are about 6 blanket corporations that own a majority of the media outlets, all with other far reaching interests...

Another thing is that yet Hollywood portrays the Arabic world as one of conflict, violence and ignorance. I don’t think this creates our ignorance but is merely a refection of it. Movies really haven’t historically been meant to educate the masses and give them worldly perspective. They are meant to make money, and the way to do that is not to insult their ignorance but to play it up and perpetuate it

An interesting example comes to mind with all of this. In old movies people were always shown as smoking and it being suave and cool. Now in movies its generally the bad guys, the Russians, the criminals who are the ones smoking in the movies, no longer the protagonist as it used to be. This is not some campaign to take down the cigarette companies but a reflection of popular opinion today, now that our awareness of smoking and its ill effects.

Reaction to 10/22/09 Class

Being from the Middle-East, I felt I had a different perspective on the videos about the stereotypes of Arabs in the class. The video we watched had some very good points, but I can't say for sure that the Hollywood stereotypes have affected the European-Americans I've met. I felt as if most of my friends weren't stupid enough to think that I was a terrorist, and that my other classmates weren't particularly racist against Muslims, at least not openly. I feel as if the problem was more that they were just ignorant of Islam and of Arabic culture. For example, they would think that people from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were all Arabs, which have very different cultures despite being Muslim. I feel as if more education about Islam to these students would ease the problem and prevent stereotypes from reaching them. At American University, the people here seem to be very informed and I haven't had any problems. The stereotypes in Hollywood are a concern, but as the video said, because of the War on Terror these stereotypes are being re-evaluated, and people are becoming less ignorant.

Globalization

One of the more interesting and controversial topics concerning globalization is that of world systems theory. This is the idea that the world economy is set up in such a way that through neocolonial practices and an interdependent economy, fully initiated at the end of WWII with the development and the world bank and the gold standard, that western nations maintain economic dominance through the abuse of these developing nations and their resources. These neocolonial practices can be said to have been furthered during the cold war where the US and USSR vied for world economic hegemony by gaining economic and political control in developing nations throughout the world using institutions such as the IMF (US) to use the states for their own political desires while gaining economic advantage in benefiting from the developing nations resources. This idea however implies that the western world, intentionally keeps third world countries in their “developing” state in order to benefit financial and/or politically. This is not necessarily the case. With the example of the Congo, we loaned to them irresponsibly allowing a dictator to rise, the consequences of which still ravage the Congo today. However this wasn’t to keep them in their place so that we could benefit, i think it comes more from a lack of foresight of the effects of our actions as well as a placement of our own political agendas over those of developing countries. The justification for these loans in the Congo’s as well as the allowance of the rise of this dictator is was to make sure the USSR did not gain resources, overthrowing a previous “socialist friendly” leader as well as having another strategic point in Africa for deployment etc, yet the effects that last today and our benefit from their resources would imply different intentions.

However at the same time these countries real issues stem from colonialism and the manner and state in which the colonial powers left these nations. Ultimately globalization in economic terms is the only way in which some of these states can be helped at all. Only through increased infrastructure, FDI and a place in the world economy can these developing states really have a chance of maintaining any level of stability. The world economy is just that, when the US has economic crisis so does the rest of the world. This does not seem to be able to be changed. Our economies are so interdependent at this point that instead of blaming the west for keeping the developing world down we need to figure out how to use the world economy to bring investors to these states and give them a stronger role in the economy.

Video Response

I actually really connected with the video from our last class. I guess, when I was young, I was in a hurry to grow up. I went to a private all girl school and was one of the most active members at my church, but I felt that was all too conservative for me. So, I turned to the internet. My parents never sat down with me to have a "sex" talk and maybe that is the reason...but I felt like I was so sheltered and I wanted to learn more so that when my friends were talking about something, I could at least understand what they were talking about. I am sure my parents tried to give me the talk, but I wanted to avoid that conversation so much, that I most likely ignored them or got mad at them before they could really start the discussion. I was in a hurry to grow up no matter what they said.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't create a new identity for myself online or get myself into trouble. BUT, I did use the internet as means to learn the things about sex and boys that I wasn't really taught. I would log on to my screen name and get into a chat room and mainly just watch the discussion going on. The topics were far beyond my maturity level but I was intrigued. People would try and start private chats with me and I would play along...always acting like i was older but never really saying much. Mainly letting them say what they wanted to say. I would eventually get creeped out and log off.

It is easy to get sucked in to the internet world that is out there. I wasn't a dumb kid, I would never meet up with anyone or anything close, HOWEVER, with the advancing technology out there, who is to say that the person you are chatting with couldn't find a way to find your address and stalk you or anything of the sort.

Reponse to Oct. 8 Class- Frontline Video discussion

I certainly found the Frontline video interesting, but I would like to expand upon a comment I made in response to jdoucette's post. The video, in my opinion, not only showed the story of how the internet is a powerful and sometimes dangerous tool in the lives of individuals, but touched upon this whole culture of predator/prey, aggressor/victim in our society. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to mitigate the crimes of online predators; simply, I would like to shed some light on this whole notion of victim hood in the context of online sexual abuse/harassment and the offline, real-world harm it creates.

For some reason, victims almost always seem to be completely absolved of any guilt they may have had in contributing to these crimes. The idea of the victim appears to overcome any feeling or thought that the victim somehow actively and willingly engaged in some activity to lead to the crime. Frankly, a 14 year old girl should know well enough to not go on sex chat rooms or other sites where predators loom. And, if she does and continues to converse with an unknown, offline 40 year old man, she should not be completely freed of any guilt. Yes, it's despicable a 40 year old man is trying to secretly and anonymously solicit sex from a young girl, but that girl has the power to end a conversation or any uncomfortable online situation with the click of a mouse.

I can see how my argument here can be taken down a slippery slope, but I stress that my argument should be considered in the context of online predators and their prey. I'm not advocating the whole line of thought of "If you wore a longer dress, you wouldn't have been raped." But, as individuals who use the internet, we all know the basic functions of operating in cyberspace. If an AIM screen pops up with a message "look at my pix!" or "hey cutie, wanna meet?" the person with common sense hopefully would know to simply close the dialogue box instead of engaging in a conversation with a complete and utter stranger. Unfortunately, the mother in the Frontline video placed too little faith in her children and their abilities to recognize a threat and avoid it with a simple movement of the hand-pointer over the "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the screen. She bought too much into this idea of the overwhelming power of the faceless online predator, without realizing her children had as much power in neutralizing in any threat. If she raised her children well, they probably are as or more wary of online threats as she is and they know how to deal with them.

The online victim needs to be removed from the sacrosanct pedestal it's placed upon, and the actions of both parties should be evaluated in this ever-increasing culture of online use where the power to start an online dialogue is equal to the power to end it.

-David Lindgren

Response to 10/8 Class

I didn't think that the frontline video was representative of the majority of young people who use the internet. While it was interesting to watch, and I do know people that are very similar to those on the video, most of the people do not use the internet in the same extreme way. For example the girl who created a new identity on myspace...while there are many people like her who use the internet as a personal escape from reality, they are such a small percentage of the whole population on the internet. Also, I couldn't believe the actions of the PTA mom. She tried to hard to shelter her children-I can understand monitoring their behavior online if they had been significantly younger but one of her kids was about to be in college, and the other two were high school age. The mom was worried about internet predators, but her kids were old enough so that they should be able to be experienced enough on the internet to avoid any possible bad situations...I feel like that is only a problem for younger kids or people who actively go looking to meet people online, not so much a problem for the average internet user.

Response to 10/8/09 Class

I found the debate about the changing identities of teenagers through the internet to be an interesting. I liked the Frontline video, but it seemed a bit too extreme and exaggerated. I didn't like the use of just one town's high school to be applied to all high schools in America. While I can see why they did that, to make the whole video a single narrative, I personally didn't like the limited setting. I don't think that looking at the impact of the internet at one high school is enough, I feel it could have been more cross-cultural by looking at other high schools across the country within different socioeconomic classes as well; or look at the impact of the internet on youth worldwide, to compare the rise of the internet in America with the situation in Europe or China. It might have worked better as a series of videos about different cultures or socioeconomic groups as opposed to a single town.
- Jon Raouf

Analysis Question Number 2

First of all,
I would suggest that the State Department do their research. If each person simply googles information about Iran, they will be able to hold their own in any conversation that might come up. Also, it takes a very little amount of time to look up business etiquette online. You should always veer to the conservative side of the rules. If they are more casual, they will tell you that you may take your jacket off or that you do not need to bring all material in both languages.
General Info
Some points that I pulled out from this information that would help them conduct business are:
-Business attire is formal and conservative
-Women should cover their hair
- Be sure to address the Iranian business associates by their title and their surname
"agha" (sir)
"khanoom" (madam)
-spend time cultivating a personal relationship before business is conducted
-Appointments are necessary and should be made 4 to 6 weeks in advance
-Written materials should be available in both Farsi and English
Other than the rules that you can find online, go with the flow, watch what the Iranian business people are doing, it is safe to assume that you are allowed to act in the manner that they are conducting themselves. Let them lead the meetings, then follow.

Non Verbal Communication

Nonverbal communication is actually something I notice a lot...especially in the girl world called sororities. I am definitely guilty of it myself. My friend used to always notice it even if I did not know I was doing it. A girl would walk by and apparently, I would look her up and down and he would immediately ask me what I did or did not like about that girls outfit. He was always right...whether I thought she looked cute in her vest or wondered why she was wearing a bag as a dress, I always had something to say about her. Now, this might make me look quite judgemental, but I know everyone is guilty of it at least a little bit. People watching has become practically a sport. In fact, I was talking to an 80 year old man (you can quote me on that, he told me he had just had his 80th birthday) on the metro bus the other day and he was telling me that he had just gotten back from Paris. I asked him how it was and what all he did. He proceeded to tell me that he had already been to Paris quite a few times and this time, merely spent his time people watching. Anyways..back to my point, nonverbal communication can be quite obvious to the people around you. So, next time a girl walks by in something you just do not like, pay attention to your facial expression- try not to show it.

Analysis Question #2

The exact way that American diplomats will have to communicate with their Iranian counterparts depends on the exact message that America wishes to convey. America can either try for a hard or soft diplomatic approach to solving the situation, and both must take Iranian culture into account. One can look at the diplomatic efforts during the First Gulf War, where our diplomats made calm statements wishing for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and we were very willing to go to war, whereas Saddam Hussein's statements were hostile and harshly worded, but he was actually unwilling to go to war. Saddam saw our statements as being evidence that we were unwilling to fight, as his culture took our statements as something not very serious because of our different style of diplomacy. The same thing will be the case here. We must convey a strong message using the right nonverbal signals and setting to get an effect. This could mean the meeting with the Iranians may not be within a conference room like in other diplomatic settings, but where you would take a person in Iranian culture when you wanted to give him a strong message. Nonverbal cues could be the use of certain hand gestures or etiquette, and we would also need to word our statements in the correct way, if Iranian culture is similar to Iraqi culture, then we would have to send harshly worded statements to the diplomats instead of calm ones. The choice of language will be an issue, it is possible that the Iranian diplomats have English knowledge and that the American diplomats may know Farsi, but there may also be a care where both sides are dependent on translators, and one slip-up in the translation could make the crisis larger. Our diplomats are still Americans, and even with guidelines on how to behave like an Iranian, they have been brought up with American traditions unconsciously and those may interfere with their diplomatic efforts. There is also the issue of overcompensation, if the Americans are acting like Iranians and talking in Farsi, the other side's reaction could possibly be negative. Confusion might occur if the Americans try to behave within Iranian culture while the Iranians may have gotten their own guidelines to behave within American culture. In short, the Americans need to be briefed on the behaviors of Iranian culture, but must be able to change their approach during the negotiations depending on the direction they go in.

- Jon Raouf

Response to Chapter 7: Nonverbal Communication

The chapter's topic of nonverbal communication brought up some interesting ideas. While I understood the fact that one is sending a signal based on how their body language or way of talking is, I didn't entirely realize the extent that it affects other people. When I have encountered people who have grown up in other cultures, I immediately judge their nonverbal behavior on American standards, which is the wrong thing to do, as I see now. I now realize that when I have had awkward encounters with people from another country, it may have been because of my manner of talking, clothing, or making eye contact that made them uncomfortable and in turn made me uncomfortable as got the feeling that I was doing something wrong. I also was not aware that different cultures perceive time differently. While I have noticed individual people who have different ideas of lateness, I haven't been within different cultures enough to see polychrometic attitudes toward time. Overall, the whole chapter made me see differently nonverbal communication.

- Jon Raouf

Response to 9/25 Class

After the discussion of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I am still trying to figure out whether I lean more towards the relativist position or the nominalist position regarding the impact of language on our perception of reality. It is frustrating to think about the idea of different realities and if the language we speak can change how we perceive "reality." I think there has to be a middle ground in this instance-I don't think that language can completely change how we perceive certain things because all human beings are inherently the same and I think we all see the world the same way, it is just that certain things have greater meaning in other languages, so they may be more important in one culture than in another based competely upon the language spoken. For example, the Inuit people have many words for snow because it is more important in their culture than it is in other cultures, but that does not mean that it is percieved differently.

Language- Sept 25 class

It is really difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that language shapes thought. While Lera Boroditsky does address the impact that culture has on the way we think, I remain unconvinced that it doesn't play a larger role in the language argument. Teaching people new languages does not change their cultural background and the way that they have grown up thinking. By teaching the greek usage of metaphors to english speakers might broaden their horizons and help them have another outlook on time, I do not believe that it changes the way they think about time overall. I wonder if the change would be the same or different if they were simply taught about these alternative views without bringing language into the lesson. To me, learning another language is also learning another culture. They really go hand in hand. So, it is hard for me to take them as completely separate entities.

As the United States has grown, our language has changed and so has our culture. Who is to say which one caused the other? We have become more casual people wearing t-shirts and jeans as has our language with our use of contractions and slang. Furthermore, the technological age with our use of shorthand through text messaging and email. In this case, the culture has changed the language. We have become a faster paced society because we overextend ourselves which has lead to shorthand, u in place of you and btw instead of by the way. The author has some valid points but I am just unsure that language and culture can be separated so easily.

Response to 10/25 Class

The main debate that we had in class today was whether or not you could "brand" a nation. Ultimately it depends on the overall power and influence of the nation that is branding itself. A country like the United States is simply too active in the international community that its actions will send much more of a message than any ad campaign. But a country like Thailand can put out an active advertisement machine showing the country as a great tropical vacation spot and be very successful. Of course, the country is a mess with its domestic politics, which has deterred tourism there. With today's media, nation branding is going to be a lot more difficult. Certainly in the past, where America had the classic image of the land of opportunity, it had a brand as a ideal place for immigrants. But now, anyone can see everything that America does. America could but any amount of money into an ad campaign to get more immigrants into the country, but if someone is able to read or see an event where Americans treated immigrants negatively or see a contradictory government policy, then they would be quickly turned off and would no longer want to come to America. In the past, an immigrant simply didn't have the outlet to find out that America isn't exactly a paradise or that it would not be welcoming as they expected. Therefore, in these times, America actions will determine what other countries think of them. It is too powerful and influential for anything otherwise.

- Jon Raouf

Response to Sept. 17 Class

The part of our class discussion on Thursday that I thought brought up an important question was the idea of whether we can truly create our own identity or if our identity is always somewhat shaped by our culture.
I think that no matter what we do, culture is always tied to identity is some form. Those who proudly accept the culture that they were born into often interweave their individual identity with their cultural roots. On the other hand, even those who may not identify as strongly with the culture of their heritage cannot ever really escape the identity that comes with their ethnicity or race. Even if they personally do not identify with the culture that they or their family comes from, that does not stop others from adopting preconcieved ideas of their identity. A common example of this that is discussed in the book is the idea of minority identity vs majority identity. There are more stereotypes and judgements that come from being in a minority group.
A personal example is that my grandmother is a hispanic woman who immigrated to the United States from Mexico. She was not accepted and was looked down upon when she immigrated to California as a young girl, and eventually she abandoned much of her previous cultural identity. She never taught my mom or any of her other children to speak Spanish, and integrated herself into the white majority culture. Looking back now she regrets not passing on her cultural heritage to her children, but at the time it was to her the only way to be accepted.

Health Care Reform Analysis Question

When speaking about healthcare reform, I do not believe that identity causes any extra concern. There are always going to be radical arguments that people do not want to associate with. Every issue, no matter what it is, is going to have some people completely opposed, some people in the middle and some people who want to go even further with the decision. A lot of what your identity is made of is formed within your own head. If you think something is an issue, it will be an issue and if not, it won't be. You might identify with a certain group of people but that does not necessarily have to impact your opinions. Also, if your opinions differ from what you identify yourself as, that does not necessarily mean that there has to be an internal identity crisis.

Sept. 17 Class

One of the points that really interested in me in our last class was about being taken seriously in the work place. I typically enjoy being the young and vivacious intern or employee, but sometimes it does not work for my benefit. First, I used to work at the Gap. My manager was a grumpy woman who clearly had to put on a face to help customers. Sometimes, I felt she resented me because I was always so happy to be there and usually seemed like I was having more fun at work than I was supposed to. Therefore, my manager and I continuously had conflicts and she didn't take me seriously even though I was a great salesperson (if I might say so myself).

Secondly, the issue that I will simply have to get used to, is being a young (and social) female in the world of Information Technology. The last two summers I have had internships with a company called VHA and Fidelity Investments in the IT departments. Fidelity was where being a young female really posed a few problems in the workplace. I have come to find out that I am a completely different breed of person than almost all IT people. When I went into the interview, there were four men interviewing me and the look on their faces was priceless. After making them laugh for the entire interview by telling them that my hobbies were riding my purple bike with my best friend, driving my big red pickup with black rims and a flow master, and playing volleyball, I was instantly hired due to my ability to stand out in IT. In this case, my identity helped me to get a well paid internship. However, as the summer went on, my chipper attitude and young face made things complicated. I worked on a team of thirteen guys (all of whom were married). One of my coworkers (age 49, married with 2 girls MY AGE) would actually suggest to me that I shouldn't wear tank tops underneath my low cut shirts and ask me why I wasn't cold when it was cold in the building. While luckily, I am able to ignore the passes, it did make it difficult to be taken seriously.

Throughout the summer, my boss and I became friends and eventually told me that he would probably never have another female intern, not because I didn't do a good job, but because I caused him to worry about his employees getting in trouble. If I wasn't as laid back as I was, some of my coworkers would definitely have gotten in trouble and their jobs would be jeopardized. In the future, I am definitely going to have to really manage my identity so that I can have some legitimacy in my job. Although Fidelity went smoothly, it could have gone very wrong. That means that I can't be completely myself in the workplace, I have to be careful and really manage the way I come across to other people.

Response to Sept 17 Class

I truly enjoyed the reading assigned for this class and the investigation as to how identity affects communication and how communication can reinforce identity. It was fascinating to examine how many different identities can coexist and form one identity in an individual, or how an individual can grasp to one specific identity and "interpellate" his self to manage that identity. Although I found the readings to be fascinating and quite interesting, especially the ethnography, and useful for evaluating intercultural communication, I did disagree with a number of points made in the text book.

Largely, I am concerned with the minority/majority identity development "stages." This is not to say I do not see the value in attempting to scientifically denote different phases a person may go through when her identity/identities are challenged. I simply want to narrow my criticism to specific elements in each model. Regarding the minority identity development stage number four, it seems a little too hopeful and idealistic that the resistance/separatism feelings would not linger into the achieved identity. If these feelings of separatism lingered, I doubt the individual, for most of the time, would seek social justice and redirect their anger. The individual's education, economic status, and personal life experiences could drastically alter the phases she is supposed to go through. I feel this development model is insufficient in explaining the complex facets of human behavior, and like much of the other reading in the textbook, overgeneralizes to truly be worthy of use.

Another problem I have with the reading concerns the majority identity development model. Frankly, I do not wish to be considered a conscious or unconscious follower of racist ideology, which stage two supposes I am. I understand the message that is trying to be conveyed in this portion of the model, but I believe the term racist is uncalled for and unfairly and automatically associates a highly controversial term with the majority race. From this same section of reading, I am also led to believe that a belief in the equality of all is also racist. Additionally, further comments on affirmative action as reverse discrimination, assimilation, and "folk" versus "classical" works highly offend me. The authors automatically assume any "majority" opinion on these points is incorrect because they are either racially insensitive or are a result from a lack of misunderstanding of other cultures and races. Again, sweeping generalizations and assumptions are made by the authors that I find contestable.

I stress my interest and fascination with this concept of different identities and how one views oneself and how others view the same individual. It is all very interesting, but there are major disagreements I have with these minority/majority development models and the assumptions/generalizations that are made along with them. In my opinion, if they are going to be useful in explaining the growth of identity, they need a serious overhaul with respect to acknowledging the vastly different variables that factor into an individual's life.

-David Lindgren

Week 3 Analysis

In the debate over health care, one identity conflict that I have witnessed is political identity. Health care is a very divisive issue, I witnessed the 9/12 anti-health care rally on the National Mall and noticed that people were very angry. One can look at the signs saying "Obama is Hitler" or "Obama is Stalin" and notice the strong backlash among the right-wing. Having talked to some of the people there, however, some of them weren't all that radical. Many weren't concerned with the healthcare bill on the "socialist" aspect but simply they questioned whether we could afford reforming the system at this time, others wanted to implement reforms at a slower pace. The identity crisis comes at the individual's attitude vs the group one. As we can see, the overall group mentality among conservatives is moving more extremely to the right. The crisis occurs when the group's views move out of the range of some members, and the conflict is whether they stay in the group or not. For example, a conservative may be opposed to healthcare on fiscal grounds and is angry enough to go to protests, but is offended upon seeing increasing numbers of "Obama is Hitler" signs. The crisis is whether to remain with this group, form a more moderate group and risk splitting the opposition, or giving up because the other people in the group are too crazy. Identity plays a role in the sense of people protesting the issue because of the groupthink mentality, ex: "I'm a Republican and other Republicans are protesting this issue so I should too". But I don't think an identity issues created the debate.

Response to 9/17/09 Class

The most interesting part of the debate we had in class today was about how due to technology the nature of "identity" is changing very much. While one can argue about Facebook shows that people are willing giving up their privacy and personal information for others to harvest, I see it more as a way for people to try and advertise themselves and get attention. I remember reading once about kids using Facebook who would put up statuses about how they were "getting drunk" or "getting high" when the actual case turns that during the times they put those status they were out with their families and lying about their statuses just to look cool. Of course, there are lots of people that actually do those things and put up their statuses about it, but for the same reason. Use of the internet can make it a lot easier to lie about yourself and create a false identity than ever before, as opposed to when you talk to someone in real life, Facebook isn't as fast-paced, Facebook Chat notwithstanding, you can plan out what you say to other people or put as your status in order to put yourself in the light you want. You can re-word what you right so that i makes you seem "happy" or "edgy", or put up a particularly picture of yourself where you're dressed a certain way or with dark lighting. As we discussed in class, the counting up of friends makes them more trivial like you're constantly battling others for the most. Facebook isn't necessarily bad, I think it's a product of the direction that our culture has been taking as opposed to something that is "corrupting" our culture. Ultimately, Facebook has the benefit of being able to keep in touch with people who move away, something I've been very glad to have as it lets me keep in touch with old friends. But real-life encounters are the way to go if you really want to talk to people and make friends.

-Jon Raouf

Response

In continuation on Jon's point, I have always found that history in America has been shaped more by the people who write it than the events that took place. A good example of this is the Vietnam war. Go to any american library and try to find a book on the Vietnam war that was written from the perspective of a vietnamese soldier. You can't. How is it reasonable to believe that we are learning an accurate history of the war when we only have literature from one side of the war. That's like asking a rapist if the sex was consensual without asking the victim. It was only recently that I learned that the Vietnam war is referred to as the American War in Vietnam and i've learned about it several times throughout my academic career. Unfortunately I only learned about it from american text. Another obvious example, which is finally beginning to right itself, is the perpetration of slavery. FIlm was a major industry after the civil war and during the Jim Crow laws and film even more than literature can at times be confused for reality. One of the first and more famous silent films was called "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915. It was famous for its innovative camera techniques and also its controversial promotion of white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. The movie was a hit in the box office as well as a portrayal for many already racist americans of history in the eyes of the Klan. On the reverse side in 1977 the controversial and graphic depiction of the slave trade, "Roots" played eight episodes on ABC and stunned the nation with the realistic and malicious debotury that took place on the journey slaves took from Africa to America. It is almost impossible to expect someone to be passionate and intelligent enough about a subject to write about it without being bias, but that doesn't excuse the one sided history lessons that are the pillar of american education and film. For a country with a melting pot of cultures we certainly lack a sense of equality or variety in our history. Or was history just that one sided?

Response

In response to the last class discussion, I found it very interesting that there are so many different perspectives of what defines culture, and how there are so many different forms of communication. Examining in particular the relationship between culture and communication, I think that culture influences the way that we communicate more significantly than communication influences culture.
As we talked about in class, the different values established within seperate cultures are the basis for what people view as acceptable forms of communication. The textbook points out the different values regarding human relationships and how this influences how people in different cultures communicate with others. For instance, in some societies more emphasis is put on the importance of the individual and in other cultures the collective group is more important.
In the U.S we tend to be more individualistic, and that has a great influence on our communication with more collectivistic societies. Some of these collectivistic societies value the group so much more than individuals that it is difficult for us to communicate due to the difference in our values. The individualistic societies tend to be more straightforward and low context while the collectivistic societies tend to be more high context. One example of this that we discussed in class was with the Japanese businessmen and the American businessmen-the Japanese come from a more group-oriented culture, and therefore do not have the same straightforward communication style that we have in the U.S. and what one culture group percieved as the outcome of the meeting was vastly different from what the other group believed was the outcome.
This just shows how important it is to understand the connection between culture and communication. Especially when dealing with issues regarding international business and international conficts, these kind of cultural backgrounds should be studied in depth so as to avoid mistakes such as the ones we read about/discussed in class.

Response to Sept 10 Class

In response to the topics discussed in class, I would like to discuss the notion of history and its relationship to culture. I find this topic extremely interesting because I love studying history and observing the progression of mankind. I believe history is essential in understanding culture because, as mentioned class, history serves as a tool for describing how a culture arrived at its current state, while its also provides culture with a reminder, or reinforcement, of what it was and what it was not. Through "memorialization" and other reminders of the past a culture can see how far along it has come from its past success and past tragedies.

Contrary to the authors of this book, I still believe there is a grand narrative of humankind. The authors may seek to throw "monkey wrenches" into the notion of the grand narrative, but there is no denying the fact that humanity, along with the differences amongst it, has steadily progressed in many regards to emancipation, human rights, etc. The authors seem to take a "zero sum" view of history, arguing that since many different histories exist there is no observable grand history. I heartily contest this view. These different histories simply wouldn't exist if they existed in and of themselves. The authors seem to be taking these histories and viewing them alone, without assessing the impact other histories have had upon them. It is important to recognize history, or histories, does not occur in a bubble and to acknowledge everything can be attributed to something else. Therefore, my view is the grand narrative is a woven fabric of many different histories that still provide proof of a natural and evident progression of mankind. Without acknowledging the leaps and bounds made in science, mathematics, social science, and the general enlightenment of man, I believe the authors are erroneously casting aside an important concept and observable trend.

-David Lindgren

Response to 9/10/09 Class

The most interesting thing about the debate we had today in class was the view about how certain societies had different orientations toward history and how hard it is for us as Americans to understand why they have such strong feelings about their history. What I have noticed is that cultures that have very strong roots and that have had a strong historical emphasis on education seem to be more past-oriented. For example, the Jewish and Chinese culture groups; during WW2 both were persecuted and victims in the Holocaust and the Sino-Japanese war respectively. Both cultures feel very strongly about these events and put a lot of effort into making sure that stories and information about these events are spread. When someone publicly denies the Holocaust or the Nanjing Massacre, their is a very vocal response by people of these cultures, not to say that everyone in each culture is like this, but it is clear. Meanwhile, after having talked about these things with some European-American peers, they don't seem to understand why people are so oriented in the past. Americans are a future-oriented people, which makes sense considering our recent origins as a people, with only about 300 years of history, and the settling of immigrants who had a "can-do" attitude. I once talked to a person that stated something similar to: "well, these things happened 60 years ago, can't they get over it already?" Some of us just can't seem to understand why people have these strong opinions on the past or what it means to them due to our different cultural histories. Perhaps this orientation will shift over the coming centuries as our society and history evolves, or maybe we will always remain a future oriented society. I sort of rambled here, but I hope my point is clear.

-Jon Raouf

Response to Sept 3 Class

Since this is the first post on this blog, I guess I will be setting the tone and discourse for this week's responses. I was truly intrigued concerning the relativity vs. universality debate we had in class. Although I enjoyed the discussion, it was largely "academic" and I think many of those who participated did not understand the "real world" implications of the side they were advocating. I suppose I can ascribe my preference to universality to what I believe to be common sense and my instincts.

Whenever I enter any discussion with the terms "relativist" or "relativity" I tend to shy away from that side of the discussion because I believe anything truly relative would lack a baseline for determining right and wrong, etc. Yes, relativity, in the sense in which we discussed the term, does possess merit in understanding behavior and actions with reference to the cultural context. But, I believe relativity can be taken too far. I mentioned earlier in the same class the instances of domestic violence in certain European Muslim communities and how police in those countries were hesitant to act to prevent such crimes. I said, "the police were concerned about sensitivity," when Prof. Hayden argued there is a difference between sensitivity and concessions. This, I believe, is the crux of the debate. At what point must relativity be defined as concessions? Would a true relativist view anything as "concessions" so long as behavior was viewed through cultural context? Again, I refer to the "real world" implications of this debate. Concessions from one culture toward another must be faced, and appear to be politically insurmountable. There must be a point at which a line can be drawn to say "enough is enough."

I'm not saying where the line should be drawn, how it should be drawn, or when it should be drawn and against whom. I simply want to take this debate to a level where not only are the academic aspects understood to promote world peace, etc etc etc, but to a level where the implications behind each side are fleshed out. I'm not a strict universalist and, as I said, relativity does have its merits. We simply need to understand what we are saying and how our positions we take in debates do have consequences outside of the classroom. I would appreciate any other thoughts on this topic and would like to engage you in a more in-depth discussion.

-David Lindgren

test 2