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...