"Its Culture, Stupid" and More

After reading the class articles I wanted to focus on the “Its Culture, Stupid”. Some interesting points were brought up in that article; such as the one about narrative media having the capacity to reinforce negative stereotypes. Although this concept is relatively common sense, we do not realize how true it is until we bring forth examples. By constantly talking about something like war, the other side becomes a personal enemy not just nation wide. For example, to this day, to the majority of the people the German language is seen as “ugly”. Although many say it is because it sounds ugly, don’t you think that the narrative media all the way back during World War II brought this unconscious not liking to the German language?

Another interesting point that was made in this article is that minds can’t be changed through direct confrontation but through complex process involving emotion and empathy. Think about it, people are more prone to crying when watching a movie than in real life. We associate our emotions to that of the character which intensifies the scenario. So, if a movie portrays an idea that we are against, if we watch it, we might chew on the “other side of the argument” much more than if somebody came towards us and started arguing about it. 

One last interesting point is how creative expressions can help build bridges across cultures and facilitate understanding of cultural differences. Just by smiling we can learn so much about another culture or person. 

Besides the article, we had ethnography presentations in class. Ours was about the difference between Howard University and American. The second group presented on whether there was a culture to the “Dav”. I only went to the Dav once with my roomate and to be honest I was too nervous to order anything because I felt out of place. Listening to the presentation I learned more about the Dav and that although there is no “culture” there is a distinction between those who are regulars and the new comers. After learning about that, I probably will go back to the Dav and see whether I notice the things they did and if I would feel more comfortable ordering a dirty chai!

Cutural Diplomacy Faces As Today America's Foreign Policy!

In the article The Return of Cultural Diplomacy by Martha Bayles mentioned that the america's old popular culture of the entertainment as sexual movies should not export, because it is old idea and many countries in the world such as Rusia, India, Muslim countries, and ect... hate to watch it. So, instead of it, America should export the other entertainments that would have the richment of artistic and literarute heritage that the rest of the world unknown it such as the idea of exporting of the artist and writers tours, libraries, transportations and cuturally oriented international broadcasting. Those are should be exploding and exporting more serious forms of entertainment. THe "Dark Knight" and "Baywatch" which concerning more topersonal's spiritual life need to show the world how is such new investment in American of "smartpower" that challegnes to the world. It is addresing the main foreign policy that America today's facing.

International...Service???

To be perfectly honest, I found last week's conference rather dry and uninteresting. Listening to the panelists, I realized I have no interest in diplomacy and international politics/economics/business, like I once thought I did. This epiphany made me think back to when I first decided to attend American University, and I was planning on majoring in the School of International Service.

That got me thinking. Why the word "service"?

One of Webster's Dictionary's definitions for the term is "the duty or work of public servants", so it makes sense that out future diplomats and businessman and policymakers would study in a school of "service". Technically though, a student majoring in Law and Society might end up being a prosecutor, but his school is not called the "School of Public Service". No, the word "service" in SIS has a much deeper meaning.

Another one of Webster's definitions is "the act of a helpful activity". The idea that the United States needs to "help" other nations is becoming outdated, since many countries are catching up to us, power-wise. When I think of "community service", I think of cleaning and fixing up dirty areas, teaching uneducated children, giving to those who need it. The person/group doing the service tends to be better off than the person/group receiving it. If we use this definition, then negotiations and business deals and such should not be considered "service", but "relations" or something of a similar sort. If we reinforce this idea that the U.S. is all-powerful and needs to fix the world's problems, this might shift students' perceptions on the world they will eventually be controlling and changing.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I just think it's interesting to think about.

Significance of Disney Movies on Children

First of all, culture globalization in Joseph Chan’s view is Westernization. This is most prominent in Disney movies. Mulan was the first Asian story that Disney created basing on the a legend on Mulan, a young woman who for the obligatory love to her father dressed up as a man and went to war.  Yet, most of us have seen this movie, and fall for the trap. Believing that what is portrayed in Disney is what happened. 

Mulan, according to the Chinese is an unacceptable portrayal of who the true Mulan was. In the movie she is more Americanized, by being giving feministic and individualistic approaches. This leads to the point of this blog. As kids we already form stereotypes, but these stereotypes are not really ours, they are ingrained in us by what our culture thinks of others. Meaning, in this case, Walter Disney formed a subconscious stereotype about Asians. 

Most American children are first introduced to China when there mother sticks in that Mulan DVD.  The movie shows symbols that the Chinese take seriously (like dragons, or ancestors) and make them a joke (Mushu, the dragon who can never breathe fire until the very end, or the ancestors rocking the temple house when Mulan comes back with the Emperor’s sword). Also, landmark events in the movie such as the Tianamen Square or the Buddha caves are shown as part of the Chinese culture to these children. Although these movies are informative they also start as a base for what an American views of a Chinese culture for example. 

Furthermore there are some American aspects that are included such as the fried eggs and sausage for breakfast that Mushu makes for Mulan before she heads out.  All in all,  most cultures in these movies are Americanized thus fundamentally creating a bias for children at a young age.  Another example would be Pochantas, its not until middle school when you realize that John Smith was not “that beautiful man who you wish was yours”.  In the movie the Native Americans are portrayed as savages, whilst the Whites are doing a favor to this nation. 

To sum up, my true question is, are these movies a great source of entertainment for children, or do they subconsciously create stereotypes about other cultures that could be dangerous?

Cultural Diplomacy Conference!

Yes, the conference last week was really help me to understand how cultural diplomacy important in the relationship between US and other countries. The conferences' goal, in which is really want to bring to audiences understanding that US needs offering and focusing on the diplomacy in the culture, so that the worldwides can get to know better about the US culture via humanity and the media. Overall, I think that culture is everything in our lives. It is important to have a good knowledge about the culture and its concerning. Also cultural diplomacy has a very significant in relations which can not lack in a global complex nowaday.

Cultural Diplomacy Conference

Last week, at the cultural diplomacy conference, one presentation that I found really interesting was the man who spoke about his experience in Russia. When he described the fact that Russians see culture in a completely different way than Americans do, I felt like that related to the core concepts of this class. i really enjoyed the fact that he gave a concrete example of something that we have discussed so much in class because I feel like I understand the importance of culture far more now.

Not only do differences in culture separate groups of people, but people assign different meanings to their collective culture. The example the panel gave was that Russia sees culture as their major contribution to the world. They believe that Russia shares one culture and that it is the same for everyone. In contrast, the United States believes itself to be made up of many different sub-cultures and places far more importance on ideas than culture anyway.

I thought that the example of the different meanings assigned to culture in Russia and the US gave me new insight into the definition of culture and makes me understand just how complex the subject really is.

U and W curves which ones affects us more?

First of all, Nakayama and Martin define the U-curve theory as: "A theory of cultural adaptation positing that migrants go through fairly predictable phases -- excitement/anticipation, shock/disorientation, adjustment -- in adapting a new cultural situation" (327). Yet, once one has experienced the U-curve there is the other half, known as the W-curve theory. This is defined as: "A theory of cultural adaptation that suggests that sojourners experience another U curve upon returning home" (331). 

Coming to the United States was not much of a culture shock to begin with. I sort of expected to feel different, after all, its not my hometown, nor am I in any way culturally the same. Just by sheer fact that I come from a relatively collectivistic country, I knew I had to not greet people by kissing them on the cheek. However, that does not mean other things shocked me. Anybody who is visiting a foreign country does expect to be shocked so, they enter with the knowledge of being more observant of their actions and those of others. As mentioned previously, people have a space bubble in the United States which does not exist in Morocco. By being aware of the small cues, its is easier to fit in. Also, when one travels to a foreign country, and after the shock/disorientation phase of the U-curve; one realizes how much home meant to them. For example, I wish I continued by belly dancing skills so that I could teach my friends more than just the basic hip movements. 

Yet, as a freshman, in December I am going to go back home and experience something that will not be expected which is the W-curve. This brings up the question about which one affects us more. Since we are prepared for a culture shock when we go to a foreign nation, the U-curve is not as steep. Whereas, when we think "I am going home" we are subconsciously believing that everything is going to be the exact way we have left it. Whilst staying in a foreign country, we learn more about our "homeland". We do not realize that when we go back we are going to go with an adjusted pair of eyes. 

Word of advice? Remember that although you are going home, prepare yourself as though going to a foreign country. That way, you do not have to live another, stronger, culture shock than you did upon entering the foreign country. 

Stereotyping in Popular Culture

In “Intercultural Communication in Contexts”, Martin and Nakayama discuss the importance of studying popular culture in an intercultural context. The last section of the chapter discusses stereotyping in popular culture, and I definitely agree that even in the simplest of entertainment, there are many hidden messages and reinforced cultural norms. As an avid movie fan, I decided to look at the ten films from 2008 with the highest worldwide box office and see how many cultural messages, obvious or subtle, I could find.

According to Box Office Mojo, the highest grossing films of 2008 were The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Kung Fu Panda, Hancock, Mamma Mia!, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, Quantum of Solace, Iron Man, Wall-E, and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.

Even though all of these films were funded and produced by American studios, I was amazed at how most of the popular films from last year featured non-American characters as villains. During the entire beginning of “The Dark Knight”, the main antagonist is a gang from Hong Kong involved in a plethora of criminal activities. In “Indiana Jones”, Harrison Ford and company battle a group of malicious Soviets bent on destroying the world. In “Quantum of Solace”, Daniel Craig fights a corrupt businessman trying to take over Bolivia’s water supply, who happens to be French. “Iron Man” is especially egregious in the way it paints Middle Easterners as cruel, weapons-loving savages who can only be put in check by American intelligence.

Are there implications for an American society in which so much media paints people of other cultures and countries as evil? From the ancient civilizations to modern day, there has always been an “us versus them” sentiment. The events of September 11, 2001 perpetuated these ideals, and were reinforced in the books we read, the websites we visited, and the movies we watched. Before 9/11, there were definitely films that painted foreigners as bad guys (“Die Hard” comes to mind), but the number of international bad guys has dramatically increased in the 21st century. While I believe the average person is able to distinguish truth from fiction, I must reiterate my point from my last blog entry about representation of Asians in the media. When we see something often enough, we are more likely to believe it to be true. As young adults, we might brush off Spielberg’s portrayal of the Soviets in “Indiana Jones” as harmless, but what about the influences it might have on a young child? What about films that are much more culturally insensitive (like “Aladdin” and its portrayal of Arabs)? I am not a huge proponent of the idea that media exposure destroys children, but it definitely has a strong influence.

On the list of the 2008 films, there are three films aimed for kids. I found it intriguing that two of them, “Kung Fu Panda” and “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”, take place in foreign countries yet make their settings as American as possible. Many of the characters in these films have qualities that are typically considered to be “American”. Po, the main character in “Kung Fu Panda”, is a lazy, clumsy glutton who accidentally finds fame and glory. The “Madagascar” characters are neurotic, sassy, proud—all traits attached mainly to Americans. Obviously, the characters are all courageous and loyal and warm-hearted, but I was amazed at how even when a children’s film takes place in somewhere other than America, the film is still as American as it can get. From the voice actors to the dialogue to the plotlines in general, these films’ locations never ring true. It seems as if the animators are always attempting to project the American way of life, even in something as simple as a children’s movie.

American cinema has a long-standing history of imposing American values, morals and beliefs; not just in cartoons, but in comedies, westerns, thrillers, musicals etc. This sentiment is expressed most eloquently and poetically in the film “Team America: World Police”:

AMERICAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! F**K YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Up to them, right?

I realize that this is probably an unpopular position to take, but while everyone is complaining about the US and its domination of pop culture in other societies, we should take a look back and remember, it's all up to them.

People in other societies make their own decisions when they decide to consume media from the United States. I have heard a lot of people say that the US should stop being so domineering and stop shoving our culture into other countries, but those countries have apparently accepted our media. I think that it is pretty obvious that, in the US, where there is a profit to be made, someone is willing to step up and make it. Therefore, when other countries offer to pay for pop culture from our country, someone is always going to be willing to sell it to them. That's not domineering, that's just business.

I also hear a lot of people say that the US pop culture is destroying the culture of other countries and we should just let them keep their own culture. The problem with that is that obviously consumers in other countries are asking for US products. It is their own decision to consume the US pop culture if they want to. I don't think that it is the place of the United States to act as a censor for what people from other countries can and cannot consume,

Another important thing to remember is that culture isn't static. While the pop culture that the US is putting out right now may be exclusively US culture, if it becomes widespread enough, maybe it will someday become a global culture.

Why should the US limit or stop the exporting of its pop culture? If other countries want to consume it, it should be up to them, right?

Pop-Culture in Encoding as Transimittion

Pop-Culture is common people of which excellent in arts. It is in particular stage of civilization and its beliefs of the charcteristic of an exacting of social, ethnic or age group. The Pop-up advertises new daily as madness, senseless folly, intense excitment or passion. Therefore, Pop-culture madness is one-stop information location for Pop-culture, Pop music, trivia, jokes and bunch of other stuff and it is entire of ins and outs resource. And one of the top rated basic is cable television networks, the pulse code of modulation which is the peak to peak amplitutude range of the signal to be transmitted to be divided into a number of standard value, each having own code. After that each sample of the signal is transmitted as the code for the nearest standard amplitude. The Pulse code can either become zero of telecommunication signals or the binary signal is encoded using rectangular pulse amplitude with polar non return to zero code. This NTZ system to be sychronized using in band information. There must not be long sequences of identical symbols, such as ones or zeroes. For binary PCM system, the density of one symbols is called ones density. This density often controlled using precoding techniques such as line coding (encoding), where the PCM code is expanded into a slightly longer code with guaranteed bound one sdensity before modulation into the chanel. In other cases, extra framing bits are added into the stream which guarantee at least occasional symbol transitions.