Languages and Interpretations

I speak two languages, Arabic and English. I've been speaking them since I was very little and am fluent in both. However, depending on the situation or topic I sometimes prefer to use one over the other because I find it easy to express myself. Also, I was used to using both languages sometimes even in the same sentence. It’s a bad habit and coming here I learnt that I need to focus on just speaking English without throwing some Arabic words in there. The textbook talks about the relativist position which is the view that a particular language shapes our perception of reality and cultural patterns. I speak two languages and I don’t feel like one changes the way I view reality. So I definitely agree with the nominalist position that perception is not shaped by the particular language we speak.

I thought the discussion about President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt was very interesting. I am Arabic and a Muslim so I am the intended audience in his speech. I've seen it in both English and translated to Arabic by interpreter. I first saw parts of it on TV translated to Arabic but I later caught it online in English. The translation to Arabic was accurate but the speech becomes lacking in emotion therefore, you can get a different understanding. Since I speak both languages I understood what was being said in both but hearing it English is definitely more effective. I think translation and interpretations in any situation can cause this problem. The textbook describes this as high-context communication. It's a style of communication in which much of the information is contained in the contexts and nonverbal cues rather than the actual words. In this speech in particular, everything from pitch and tone to emphasis is important in order to understand how President Obama really feels about the topics he's discussing.

In addition, quoting the Quran was not a very big issue to me. I though it was appropriate and in context with his speech. In addition, not matter what his intentions about doing it were, he did it respectfully. So in my opinion, I did not think it was offensive in any way. However, I do think it is understandable that people may criticize him for it. Different people have different outlooks on their religion and politics and may take it offensively.

Language and International Relations

In the Martin and Nakayama text there is a quote from modern French philosopher Dominique Noguez that explains the animosity created by the lingua franca status of the English language that I found compelling, interesting, and personally relevant as I begin my first semester of Arabic.

Interested in the political, economic, and ideological fissures that divide the Near East,I started my college career with the intention of studying International Relations and conflict resolution. However, learning the Arabic language seemed far too daunting and non-essential for a career hopefully spent in academia. As my education has progressed, and I have realized that in order to enhance my studies and make me a pragmatic diplomat and peace advocate learning Arabic is certainly essential.

Although the world may be filled with English speakers, learning the language of the people that I aim to help is the responsible, reciprocal choice. Learning Arabic will in the future help me diffuse many Western animosities, and eliminate the problems inherit with interpreters and translators. Starting as a complete novice in the language, I can only assume that interlanguge will become a problem when I begin to apply my Arabic language skills, but I am willing to work on them and correct them for the benefit of knowing the language.

Language and Cultural Values

I was also intrigued by the article, "How does our Language Shape the way we Think," by Lera Boroditsky. I found her discussion of how language shapes people’s perceptions of direction and gender fascinating. However, I have to admit I was a bit disappointed by her lack of discussion of how these different perceptions actually affect how people act. She mentioned how the relationship between the word death and its gender affected how artists tended to portray this event in paintings. This is the only relationship that she shows to the reader that demonstrates the tangible effects of these differences in language. The rest is left to our imagination.

Unfortunately, my own experience with languages has similarly left me with examples of how words frame aspects in different ways, without necessarily showing how it affects people’s behavior. For example, (and I am not necessarily sure if this is true) I have been told that in Chinese the word for prosperity is constructed with the radical for house or home, and with the radical for woman. The actual structure of the character has the radical for house over the radical for woman, giving the connotation that when one has a woman in the home, one is prosperous. One could make the argument that such a connotation could influence how Chinese people view gender (women in particular) as well as marriage. However, looking at the Latin roots of many of the English words that I use every day, I would be hard-pressed to tell anyone what these roots are, what they mean, and how they affect my thinking. I am inclined to believe that the average Chinese person would be in the same boat as me.

Conversely, although it might be more difficult to show how language affects behavior, language can still inform us on how it is influenced by culture. The ‘prosperity’ example notwithstanding, another curious Chinese word is the word for teacher, or laoshi (老师). While I am not familiar with the individual meanings of the radicals that make up this character, I do remember from my study abroad trip to China that I always had to refer to my teachers as there last name first, and then the word laoshi. This is slightly different then in the United States, where we usually only give college instructors the title of professor (and even that title is only given sparingly). In China, all teachers are to be addressed like this, inside and outside the classroom, so as they are always given the respect and deference they deserve. This characteristic of Chinese culture and linguistics could be related to how Confucianism dictates how relationships are maintained between different people and different strata in society. So, although it might be more difficult to determine how language affects behavior, language and culture are so closely related that their correlation could inform scholars and others, how particular people behave.

You vs. you

I guess I never really focused on how language affects the way we interact with each other. Obviously, different languages make it harder for us to communicate with each other, but I didn’t realize the language plays such a significant role to cultures and perceptions of people. In one of our discussions in class, we spoke about the differences between foreign languages. Languages are not only structurally different, there is also an etiquette to some as well. We have to be culturally aware of our speech.

It is important to understand the significance of using language to address people. Contrary to English, in many different languages there is a formal and informal form of speech. In English, if I ask a professor, “how are you doing today” it is no different than if I ask my little sister the same question. I will still say to my little sister, “how are you?” Even though the professor is a figure of authority and my little sister clearly is not, I used the word “you” to address both of them. In Russian, and many other foreign languages, there is a formal way to address your superiors. I made the mistake of answering my Russian professor’s question of, “kak dela (how are you doing)” with “harasho, a ti (good, and you).” What I should have said was “harasho, a vi (the formal version of good, and you). I was firmly reprimanded for my mistake. Due to this incident, I was scared to address anyone in Russian for fear that I would mistakenly refer to them in the wrong case.

Even though English doesn’t have a clearly defined case between formal and informal language, we do have certain ways in which we address different people. For instance, if I am greeting my friends I might in a playful way say, “what up, yo.” I wouldn’t necessarily address my mother in the same way, and I certainly wouldn’t address my employer in that manner. It is important in every conversation, no matter who we are speaking with, to always be respectful and culturally sensitive to foreign languages and speech.

Thinking About How Language Shapes Thinking

I found the article “How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think?” very interesting because it asked if people who speak different languages think differently. I, like the author Lera Boroditsky, think that they do. This is evident to me both through the examples the author gives and from my own experiences in learning languages. Reading about the Aboriginal tribe who bases directions on the cardinal directions fascinated me, because I couldn’t fathom looking at the world that way and always having to be aware what direction you were facing. Because I was raised as an English speaker, I think it would be close to impossible for me to adapt to that way of thinking because that is just not the way I am programmed to think.

I have been studying French for 7 years, Spanish for 4 years and Latin for one year so I have a fair amount of personal experience in learning languages. It is definitely true that to learn a new language you are not just learning a new set of words, but a whole new way of thinking. This is illustrated by the failure of online translators, which can only translate word for word and cannot understand the complex thought process that goes into organizing a sentence or paragraph in another language. The formal and informal forms of you are a clear example of how people who speak different languages think differently. Generally in America people are less respectful of their elders and those in positions above them than are people from countries who have both a formal and informal “you” in their language, like France or Mexico. For example, in school America students often have a close relationship with their teachers and may argue or chat with them as they would with friends. In countries who have this formal and informal language there is a clear distinction about who should be treated with respect, and thus a student in France would not consider talking down to a teacher acceptable.

One final example that my language teachers over the years have told me about is that even after becoming fluent in a foreign language people revert back to their native language when doing math and working with numbers. Many languages have different ways of organizing numbers (for example “80” in French translates to “4 20’s”) and thus a specific way of thinking about math and numbers. The difficulty people have with doing math in different languages shows that different languages do indeed create a different way of looking at and thinking about the world.

U.S. Health Care Reform Response

Although I have not been following the health policy debate that closely, I still believe that identity plays a big role in how these discussions are framed. Since the central issue is how the government is going to dispense healthcare to Americans, this debate probably revolves around different identities because of the different ways this legislation would impact specific identity groups in America.

Health-care costs are a more serious concern for the elderly then for young students (who worry more about the costs of education) and so they might be more vocal on their views about this policy change. Although it is true that any changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will affect young people when they grow older, the effects of the legislation would be felt immediately by older Americans. Older Americans also do not have the option of adapting their incomes, ways of life, etc. in response to the legislation like younger Americans can, which is another reason why they will try to influence the debate more.

The Health-care debate is also probably affected by the disparity of wealth in this country. For example, those that have significant sources of income or money are not going to be worried about government insurance programs because they can afford their own private insurance. For poorer Americans living pay check to pay check this might not be the case, which probably gives them more of impetus to speak out on these issues. Since wealth in this country can also be traced along ethnic or racial lines, the health care debate can also be seen as affecting these areas of identity. Since a higher proportion of African-Americans live below the poverty line in the United States, this health care debate will most likely affect them more and so they might lobby their congressmen to support their views. On the other hand, Asian-Americans, who make (on average) some of the highest incomes in America, might be more apathetic towards this legislation because of their financial security.

How Insults Illuminate Gender Identity

In chapter 5 of the textbook, there was one section that talked about the differences between being a man and being a woman, being masculine and being feminine. This short discussion on gender identity sparked my interest because this has been a topic that I have always been somewhat fascinated with. So, in the hopes that I do not offend anyone, I want to talk about how men and women insult each other and how these insults reflect the traits that are associated with each gender that were highlighted in the book. For women, the trait I want to draw attention to is “appearance still counts,” and for men, the trait, “don’t be female.”

When one wants to insult a woman, there are several ways to go about it. For one, (and this insult usually comes from men) if it is known that the woman is a pro-active feminist, then when she is talking about an issue (usually related to gender) one can call her a ‘femi-nazi.’ However insulting as this may be, this insult is not all inclusive. Many women do not actively adhere to what some claim is an abrasive ideology, and some even go as far as saying they do not like other women who always bring up the gender issue, regardless of what feminists have done for women in general. If one wants to insult most women in America today, then one has to attack her image. This attack can take several forms. One can either insult her physical appearance and how it deviates from what is deemed attractive in today’s society, or one can attack her record in terms of sexual activity. These insults usually are very degrading and hurtful for women, but what I find interesting about them is that one can not readily apply these same insults towards men.

When insulting men, image is not so much the focus as is the perception of masculinity. If somebody calls me a “whore,” I very well might laugh at the ridiculousness of the concept. However, if other insults start being thrown at me, like calling me a “little girl,” then I might be put more on the defensive. Men are so keen on protecting their masculinity that small phrases like, “Come on, be a man” are enough to prod them into doing things they might not really want to do. Of course there are probably other insults that come to people’s minds when one wants to put a man down, but these gender specific insults are very illuminating when looking at how people construct their gender identity in America today.

Cultural Identities and US Health Care Reform (Discussion Question)

Debates over health care, and politics in general, often come from what the citizens of the country culturally identify with. Many times we are able to dissect demographics of the country and off of previous experience, estimate what they stand for. People of different racial groups, ages, genders, and classes will approach major decisions differently.

In this particular debate, I feel that identity plays a significant role in the way people approach health care. Many different factors and identities are present in the health care debate but in my opinion, class, race, and gender are the most prominent identities found in this dispute.

The biggest divide in the health care debate is between classes. People in the mid to upper class systems are most likely against health care reform. Why? Because they already pay for health insurance and feel that they will eventually be paying for universal health care for people that do not deserve it. This also divulges into racial identity as well. Many white people continue to hold onto the perception that many of the lazy, welfare-ridden people are black. In their eyes they think that black people are unfairly taking advantage of the health care system, and using their tax money to do so. It doesn’t surprise me that the picture that Professor Hayden used in correlation with this discussion question was of a health care reform protest, complete with white southerners yielding a confederate flag on their chest. Also, gender identities get involved in the debate, because according to Michelle Obama, “Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they're the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care” and “[w]omen are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender.” By hearing these statements, as a woman, I would of course take an interest in health care reform.

There are many different genres of what we identify with. In choosing a particular identity, we are affected in certain ways that other identities are not.

Social Networking

I thought the discussion about Facebook was very interesting. I used to have a Facebook account which I was devoted to, but deleted it because I began to have a privacy complex and felt people would always know what I'm up to.

A few issues were brought up in class regarding social networking. First, I feel profiles set a certain image about a person that may or may not be true. This can happen in two ways. Either someone would, for whatever reason, give false information about themselves, or people develop a certain impression about an individual based on his or her photos, wall posts, or number of friends. For example, like we discussed in class, if you have 1000 pictures in comparison to someone with 7 people will probably come to the conclusion that you are more popular. Second, meeting new people online is different than meeting someone in person. A lot of students, for instance, meet their roommates through Facebook and although you get along online doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be the same when you actually meet them.

I think that although it is a good way to contact people, we have become so dependant on it for that reason that we no longer care for one on one interaction. Also, the more we use Facebook, and other social network, the more we start to believe that a profile defines a person and could pretty much tell you what their like and that is not always the case. I believe social networking may be useful but I really hope it is not going to dominant our social lives. As a reformed Facebook junkie I urge you to step away from the computer!

Health Care Identities Discussion Question

The biggest divide in identities in the health care debate seems to be political identities (ie. Democrat vs. Republican). In today’s system of political parties most people strongly identify with one side of the political spectrum and will blindly follow their beliefs, possibly ignoring what they truly feel as an independent individual. This clear political divide can be seen in the health care debate as Republicans and Democrats sling insults back and forth rather than focusing on the issue in a nonbiased way. Republicans accuse Democrats of being socialists because they support health care reform, whereas Democrats call Republicans selfish elitists for opposing any reform. The truth is that many people may support or oppose health care reform for different reasons than these stereotyped ones, but these strong political identities make it hard to focus on the issue holistically.

Another way people identify themselves in this debate is by class. Many people in the lower and middle classes support this reform because these are the people without access to affordable health care, people who the result debate will affect directly and immediately. For many of these people the debate on health care could mean the difference between life and death or financial stability and bankruptcy, depending on if the health care bill is passed. On the other end of the spectrum there are upper class people, many of whom oppose the health care reform because they are worried they won’t be able to use their own doctor or the quality of their private health care will diminish. In this way, many people’s opinions on health care are influenced by the class that they identify with.

Finally, age is another way that people identify themselves in the arena of the health care debate. Many people who identify themselves as young support health care reform because they want to be guaranteed good care for the rest of their life no matter what, not depending on how financially successful they become. Many old people on the other hand, oppose the reform because they are afraid that the government will start cutting funding for end-of-life care and will deny them treatments that would extend their life. The age group one identifies with therefore significantly affects one’s opinions on health care reform.

Facebook vs Myspace (Response to Sept. 17 class)

What I found most interesting about last class was our discussion of how social networking affects our identity and the issue of class in Myspace vs. Facebook. I think the use of social networking sites can be either good or bad, because it can allow one to change and lie about their identity, but it can also allow people to be more open and to foster closer relationships.

There are countless examples of people who use Facebook or Myspace to create a new identity, probably because they are not happen with their true self. These people might post a provocative profile picture and make up interests and status postings to make themselves seem cooler. This can also be harmful because users can become dehumanized and may hurtful or inappropriate things to people that they would never say to their face.

On the other hand, many people present their Facebook as a true representation of themselves and use it to share and learn information about both old and new friends. These people post truthful updates about what is going on in their lives, share pictures with friends and family and communicate with and befriend people with common interests. In this way, Facebook can help solidify one’s identity rather than alter it.

Lastly, I think the book brought up a very interesting point about how Myspace and Facebook are associated with different class distinctions. I admit, I have often thought this myself, although I think it is likely an unfair stereotype. I generally associate Facebook with academic connections, such as connecting and reconnecting with new and old classmates. Also, Facebook was originally established for college and high school students to connect (although it has since been opened up to everyone). Myspace, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and makes it much easier to alter one’s identity since the user can choose their own username (rather than your real name, which Facebook uses) and customize their page however they want. Also, I generally think of Facebook as being used to communicate with people you already know, whereas on Myspace it is common to “friend” random people you have never met. For these reasons, Myspace is often seen as lower class and “trashy”. Although I’m sure there are many exceptions and users who do not fit these stereotypes, there seems to be a general opinion that Myspace is of a lower class than Facebook.

Cultural Norms in Crisis

During last class someone in class brought up the recent study that found Britons suffered a strikingly large percentage of the fatalities during the Titanic sinking. Intrigued, I found an article on the study and learned more about this claim. Though there is no way to truly explain the phenomenon, the prevailing theory is that British 'queued up' and waited to board life-boats while American's were more prone to jump right on.

What strikes me is not that American's would act savagely, but that cultural norms could still prevail in a crisis situation. The impassibility of these norms and traditions, deeply embedded in our psyche, govern our rationality even during the irrational. Most of the passenger's on the Titanic had probably never been on a sinking ship before, yet they all (well, the British anyway) collectively decided on the norms of behavior and conformed to such. I would have thought irrationality would have prevailed in such a circumstance, however one man is quoted saying "be British, boys!"

If our cultural norms and biases are present even in our final moments, it makes wonder how we might overcome them to maintain good diplomacy, international relations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/more-britons-than-americans-died-on-titanic-because-they-queued-1452299.html

Collective Forgetting

As a history major, I am acutely aware of how different governments and people twist history for their own ends. Governments, in particular, constantly revise and rewrite history textbooks and other mediums that are used in public classrooms to effect how future citizens will view different issues. No where was this practice more apparent to me then when I was studying abroad in China last semester.

Although my experience in China gave me a deeper appreciation for Chinese culture, I have to admit I was often disturbed by how the Chinese government affected the flow of information to its citizens. Beyond just censoring material that was critical of the CCP, the government also banned a host of other information, including documents and videos pertaining to the Tienanmen Square incident in 1989. Even trying to access videos on You-tube about the event would lead to a short interruption of one’s internet. More than just irritating (especially if one is trying to do a project on that event), I found these restrictions morally troubling. Many Chinese people that I talked to were either unaware of the significance of the event or had not heard of it at all. Coupled with the endless censoring on the part of the government, one could also make an argument that for the Chinese, it was like Tienanmen had never happened.

Now, I know that the textbook mentioned how in Chinese culture, riots and political strife were not as serious issues as in Western culture. And, given that many in the West tend to demonize whatever the Chinese government does, especially here in America given the government’s Communist history, I also know that my own view of China must be skewed to some degree. However, going back to the issue of universalist versus relative values that I was talking about last week, I have to admit I was having trouble swallowing what the Chinese government was/is doing. When I was walking around my Chinese campus, talking with different students, I could not help but question their views or opinions on different issues because of the restrictions placed on public knowledge and written publications. I do not know if I am being ethno-centric or just a good critic.

Crimes of the Past Affecting Today

It is interesting the different histories that shape culture and intercultural communication. The things that happened in the past shape our current and future perceptions of events and even people. For instance, in the Martin and Nakayama textbook there are two students’ voices that talk about different perspectives involving the Holocaust.

One student is German and of typical Aryan description. Even though he was obviously not a Nazi, because of his ethnic history he was persecuted by people for being linked to a particularly bad period of German history. The other student was living in Germany and dating a Jewish boy. She characterized all the Germans in this day and age as having Nazi tendencies. There is no doubt that the Holocaust was a terrible and tragic period in Germany's history, but just because German's share the same ethnicity as the Nazis does not mean that they should continually be persecuted for what their ancestors did. I have also been affected by this history. Even though I am American and most of my family is, my ancestors were German. When I was younger I had a friend that was Jewish. When I was learning about the Holocaust in school, I remember being really upset about what my ancestors did to hers.

I feel like the same thing applies to Americans and slavery. Because of our history with the enslavement of black people and the awful things that we put our fellow human beings through in the past, we are still sometimes held accountable for those misdeeds today. There are still huge racial tensions between the different ethnicities of this country. Last fall I took a class on African American Experiences in the Performing Arts and the class turned out to be more about race relations than about the arts. The professor seemed to be still really angry about the racial history of America's past. She was still looking for the white kids in the class to apologize for what their ancestors did over 200 years ago.

I also have a friend who is Serbian. I met her when we were studying abroad in Prague last spring. For some reason many people kept getting in fights with her over the Bosnian genocide and the conflict over Kosovo that people of her ethnicity committed. Both her parents are from Serbia, but she was born and raised in the United States. She is held accountable for the awful things that happened in her ethnic history. It may not be fair, but we equate ethnic histories to the same ethnicities today.

It is hard to break away from stereotyping ethnicities today with crimes that they have committed in the past. We have to remember that, yes, the people may share the same ideas and sentiments as their ethnic predecessors, but that is usually not the case. History plays an important part in shaping our cultural beliefs about other ethnicities, but that is not all that we should focus on.

The Cultural Iceberg

I really liked Weaver's analogy that culture is like an iceberg and that only a small part of our culture (our external culture) can be seen although most of the conflicts occur between the unseen parts of culture (internal culture). I think this is very true. For example, when we see someone who is wearing a burka, we may feel uncomfortable because it is different from what women in America wear, but any true conflict of culture will occur when values or beliefs that are under the surface are revealed.

Also I agree with the idea that we are often unaware of our internal culture, because at home we are surrounded by those who share a very similar internal culture. When I went to Japan five years ago, seeing the different ways the Japanese students lived and the different things they valued, made me more aware of my culture and my own self in general. I learned how much the Japanese value both family and history, which made me more aware that I might not value these things enough.

This hidden internal culture can also lead to ethnocentrism. When one spends most of their life surrounded by people with a similar culture, it is easy to believe that their culture is the only culture or the best culture. When meeting someone of another culture, one may be blinded by the difference in external culture rather than seeing through to the internal culture of the other person, which may not actually be that different.

In the past when I have learned about ethnocentrism it was presented as a bad thing, but I think it is almost always inevitable to have a sense of ethnocentrism, because our culture is such a large part of who we are. Especially when in a new or strange situation, it is always more comfortable to gravitate to people who share similar lifestyles and values. The key is not to let your ethnocentrism get in the way of appreciating and respecting the value of a culture that is different than your own.

Embodied Ethnocentrism

I am from Bahrain a small island in the Middle East and I'm sure most of you have never heard of it! I've been studying in the US for the past two years and every time I meet new people they ask me if being here is a culture shock. I had the advantage of visiting the US a couple of times before college so I had a first hand understanding of the people and way of living here. As a result, I do not feel uncomfortable or out of place.

As we discussed in class, there is the idea that when you are in a foreign country you tend to stick with people of the same background as yourself. It was interesting to me when we started talking about this since it’s a situation I'm going through. I do believe this is somewhat true. Most of my friends here are from the same area as me and with similar cultural backgrounds. The textbook explains this calling it embodied ethnocentrism. Embodied ethnocentrism is the notion that when we are in our own cultural surroundings we feel a sense of familiarity and comfort. I think that makes sense since it is what you are generally used to. However, I believe this idea is prevailing to those who have a strong identification with their own cultural conditions.

As for myself, even though I come from an Arabic culture, we are a pretty 'open-minded' society. It was funny when Professor Hayden brought up how Saudi Arabian boys behave pretty much like people here. Despite being from different ends of the world, surprisingly, we all go through the same problems and lifestyles as everyone else here. As a result, I do not feel so out of place.

High-Context versus Low-Context Cultures and How Relative Should One's Values be?

There are two pieces of the discussion that was held last week that I would like to touch upon in my blog. The first piece deals with the article by Edward and Elizabeth Hall entitled, “Why Cultures Collide?” and the second deals with the discussion on universalist values versus ones that are more relative.
In regards to the article by Edward and Elizabeth Hall, I found his discussion about high-context cultures particularly interesting. Although this is not something that was explicitly touched upon in class to my memory, nonetheless, I believe it was one of the more important notions that we read about for that particular class. The reason why I found this whole notion of contextual situations so interesting is because I am an SIS student who is focusing his studies on a rising China. Looking at the potential for conflict with the U.S. in the coming years, it behooves me to better understand Chinese culture so as to better understand Chinese foreign policy.
China, as described by the Halls, falls into the category of a high-context society, which they describe as a society that has less mobility, that is harder to reform, and that has a lot of other characteristics. In contrast, the United States as well as many other Western nations falls under the category of a low-context society, which is mostly opposite. This is an interesting dichotomy to draw because this argument does accurately explain both the U.S. and China’s current political climate in which the former handles change much more fluidly than the latter. With this knowledge in mind, one can expect China to continue to be slow in adopting change which, in my mind, alters perceptions about the possibility of China being a revisionist power if it rises to pre-eminence.
The other interesting point that I wanted to bring up in this week’s blog pertains to the heated discussion about judging different cultures and whether one should look at these different societies through a universalist lens or a more relative lens. During the discussion, the debate evolved to the point in which people were talking about whether or not international aid organizations (that are mostly Western) have the right to challenge certain cultural practices in countries which appear to be gross violations of human rights. However, this debate does not only touch upon what should be considered good and what should be considered wrong, but also on how much value people should place on any particular culture. It seems to me that people have gotten it into their head that foreigners should be prudent in the ways they go about engaging other cultures so as not to disrupt or even damage the distinct cultural practices of different regions.
My own feelings could not be further from this point of view. I think cultures, like political or economical ideologies, should be open to challenges and if people who are introduced to new and foreign ideas want to change, they should be able to. I think that cultures are constantly in flux, that historically cultures have clashed before and left imprints on each other, and that this should not be shied away from. So, if an international aid organization wants to try to impose a certain kind of view on the world, I would say let them, and let the inhabitants of the area that is receiving the aid decide for themselves what is best for them. I think in our efforts to treat these people like human beings with distinct cultures, we, more or less, end up treating them like children who do not have the intellectual capacity to make their own choices.

Between Dead Soldiers and the Amish

Surprisingly, coming to AU was a big culture shock for me. I grew up in York, Pennsylvania, and many people have no idea where that is. Therefore, some friends and I always end up saying that we're from a place in between dead soldiers (Gettysburg, PA—home of the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg of 1863) and the Amish (Lancaster, PA—which has a large Amish population). We use those 2 places to give people a general idea of the location of where I'm from. Makes York sound like a great place, I know.

Until coming to AU, I had no idea how sheltered and lacking in diversity York, PA was. I generally thought that most communities were like my own. Now, I knew that outside of the US, life was very different from my own but I would have never thought that there were so many cultural differences within the United States. My town is generally all white, Christian, and Republican, so needless to say, the makeup of my high school was basically of the same demographics. I never really got the chance to interact with people outside my culture until I came to American.

First semester; I am roomed in a triple with a Mexican-American and a Haitian-American. My first class was World Politics, in which I had classmates from Mongolia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Japan, and other countries from all over the world. Despite not being exposed to these cultures that were vastly different from my own, I loved every minute of being immersed in a pool of multiculturalism. Taking the US cultural quiz in the Martin and Nakayama book was a real eye-opener in the fact that the US is so diverse. I knew maybe one or two answers to the ten questions. Also, it wasn’t until I read the Hall article that I realized that cultural perceptions could be offensive. Just the way I live my life and my normal mannerisms could be misconstrued by people outside of my culture. This knowledge has made me aware that people judge everything I do and my most benign of intentions could mean a variety of things to them.

Communication Technology and the Digital Divide

I thought it was really interesting when we began talking about the digital divide and how globalization is dependent on technology because it related perfectly to an assignment I recently did for my English class. For the assignment I had to give up all forms of E-media (Facebook, cellphone, TV, etc.) for 48 hours and then write a paper about my experience. Without the use of E-media I felt disconnected from my friends and what was going on in the world. There was no instant gratification, if I wanted to know what was going on my only source of information was the newspaper. Providing such a contrast from my normal daily routine I was able to see how much we really do depend on communication technology. Without access to E-media I missed out on several events on campus and had a lot of difficulty doing my French homework, which required me to research the French school system.

When an entire country or region (such as a developing country) experiences this separation from modern technology, I can understand why it becomes basically impossible for them to be a part of the global economy, which relies so heavily on communication technology. In this modern age, if a country wants to be part of this global sphere they must be able to instantaneously communicate with people around the world and keep themselves updated minute-by-minute with what is going on in the world.

We also discussed how some cultures are resistant to new communication technology because they believe it will negatively change their culture and way of life. In some ways this new technology does take away our personal connections to family and friends, culture and possibly religion. Rather than talking to a friend face to face, you might email them or post something on their Facebook wall. Although this communication technology does take some things away, I think what it gives outweighs these subtractions. With Facebook, email and text messaging I feel like I am more in touch with friends and what is going on around the world. Facebook allows me to see what is going on in the lives of my friends in France and Qatar who I otherwise would not be able to talk to on a regular basis. For example, last week when I was doing research on the French school system and I was having trouble finding good information, I quickly and conveniently sent my French friend a message on Facebook asking her about it. This way I was able to get the information from a direct source, rather than some article on Wikipedia. I never would have been able to do this if it weren't for communication technology. In this way, E-media brings people from across the world closer together.

New Jersey (In Context)

If you’re from New Jersey, you know what pride comes with identifying the region of the state you you’re from—Central, Southern, Shore, or Northern. No one really knows why, and me being from South Jersey (born and raised!) I was especially puzzled. Having driven up and down the parkway thousands of times, and traveled all across the state, I could make no sense of what was so important about the region of New Jersey I was from, and why I would always be required to take a bullet for its good name. That was, of course!, until I learned about Edward Hall’s theory of context culture.

If you look at the populations density’s of all of New Jersey congressional district, South Jersey—the 2^nd-- has the smallest. We are the largest congressional district, and most of our contribution to the state GDP comes by the way of farming and agriculture. Most other district ally themselves with either the Philadelphia area (central,) New York area (northern,) or the weekenders from both (shore.) However, we South Jerseyans tend to be autonomous, with very few of us commuting into the metropolis for work. Instead we own businesses, man our small towns, and live like Joe-six packs. (Well, since Jersey is a blue state, let’s just say John or Jane box-of-wines)

I realize we are stereotyped because we have little involvement with ultra-low context city cultures. This is not to say that we South Jerseyans are like an Inuit fishing community, but we are unified by an ignorance of fast-paced city lives. We know about trees, nature, and what a real beach is (Ocean City, whaddup!)Northern or Central Jerseyans might laugh us off for not knowing how to ride metros or take buses at five, or not going to the theater in the city every weekend, but we love where we are from, and consider ourselves to have the best of both worlds. Going to the city is drivable, but we might still have to ask a few extra questions once were there.