After taking this class, I have learned several things that will help me in the future. The latter is especially the case because I plan on becoming a teacher. And teachers encounter several individuals from different cultures. Nonetheless, after taking this course, I am now more aware of a world existing outside of my world. For instance, even though I spend most of my days in relatively safe and harmless environments, other individuals from different cultures are migrating to different countries and regions either willingly or unwillingly. More to the point, I have learned that some cultures/individuals still face stereotypes and discrimination, such as people of different cultures facing discrimination in the workplace. The most important thing I have learned in this course, though, is that if I want to be able to communicate well with a person(s) of different culture(s), then I should at least understand the basic cultural habits/preferences of the cultures.
As far as my intercultural communication expertise, I would have to say that I’m a complete amateur. I am immature with intercultural communications primarily because I have never spent much time around other cultures. I have not done much traveling, and neither have I had many friends from cross-cultures. Furthermore, if I was to enter into the workforce sometime soon, I think I would have a tough time readying myself to handle the diversity of today’s world. For instance, I still wonder how I should behave in front of people of different cultures. I’m sure my anxiety in front of different cultures will diminish as I age, but I hope I can become a better intercultural communicator as soon as possible.
As I grow older, I hope to develop my intercultural communication skills. First of all, I hope to do more traveling than what I have been able to do thus far. I have always wanted to travel more often, so whenever I start making a living of my own, I hope to travel to different parts of the world. That way I will experience several different cultures.
Secondly, I plan on reading more international literature. As an English Major, I have only had to concentrate on American and British literature, so upon graduating I hope to be able to read more international writings. In doing so, I hope to become more aware of international issues, at least issues spreading through literature.
Thirdly, I want to watch television more carefully. As a kid, I don’t think I noticed some of the stereotypes that television has placed on some cultures or personalities. So, if I watch television with a more careful eye, I will be able to recognize when a person(s) are being treated unfairly.
Lastly, I would like to become more familiar with the politics of the whole world. Throughout most of my life I have been adamant about my disinterest with politics, but figuring the world is changing economically in exponential ways, I would like to familiarize myself with the global world.
Nonetheless, I am anxious to learn about different cultures because I think globalization is an overall good thing for everybody. Obviously people can disagree with the latter, but I hope that with so much diversity in the world we can learn from one another.
Question: Has your upbringing prepared you to be competent in intercultural communication? If so, in what ways? If not, what other than the media has influenced your opinion in regards to intercultural communication.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Activity #11
A few days ago, I watched an episode of Seinfeld that incorporated an intercultural conflict. In the episode, Jerry’s neighbor, Baboo, is jailed and eventually deported back to his home country (Pakistan I believe) because he did not complete his visa renewal form, a form that would have renewed his citizenship in the US. But the reason Baboo never filled out the paperwork is because his renewal form was accidentally placed in Jerry’s mailbox instead of his. So, after Jerry informs him about what happened, Baboo changes his attitude toward Jerry. Before this incident, Baboo had liked Jerry. But after assuming that Jerry withheld his mail on purpose (Jerry didn’t due to being out of town), Baboo starts thinking that Jerry is an immoral person. Thus, Baboo stops trusting Jerry and Jerry attempts to help Baboo by finding a lawyer, an act that he hopes can redeem Baboo’s misfortune.
In terms of the cultural styles incorporated into the sitcom in order to solve the issue between Baboo and Jerry, an integrating style and an avoiding style is structured into the screenplay. In regards to the former, Jerry is very open and direct in the way that he handles the situation. For instance, he willingly tells Baboo what happened as he is not afraid to take responsibility. In other words, Jerry expresses a high concern for Baboo’s situation, which is most evident in his eliciting the help of a lawyer to prevent Baboo from being deported.
On the other hand, the sitcom also incorporates an avoidance style of conflict resolution. For instance, the lawyer who is supposed to help Baboo fails to file the needed paperwork to do so, resulting in Baboo’s deportation. Thus, even though her non-actions do not reflect Jerry’s concern in Baboo’s situation, her non-actions do indirectly reflect upon Jerry as a person. And needles to say, Baboo dislikes Jerry even more after realizing that Jerry’s lawyer didn’t help him from being deported.
Obviously the intercultural problem between Jerry and Baboo didn’t get resolved. With that said, I believe that Jerry handled the conflict in a proper way. Besides, if the lawyer had done her job then Baboo wouldn’t have been deported. And I don’t think it was too much of Jerry to expect a lawyer to do her job duties. Thus, I believe the biggest problem in the conflict between Jerry and Baboo comes not from either of them, but rather the non-actions of the intermediary, the lawyer.
Once Baboo gets deported back to Pakistan, however, I do not envision that Jerry can help the situation very much. After all, he was unable to help Baboo in American, so how conceivable is it for him to attempt to help Baboo while living in a different country? With that said, Baboo can always migrate back to America, a difficult journey that he obviously completed on a prior occasion. Other than the possibility that Baboo may be able to migrate back to America, I don’t see any other possible solutions.
Question: Do you think gender influences a person’s conflict management style? Why or why not?
In terms of the cultural styles incorporated into the sitcom in order to solve the issue between Baboo and Jerry, an integrating style and an avoiding style is structured into the screenplay. In regards to the former, Jerry is very open and direct in the way that he handles the situation. For instance, he willingly tells Baboo what happened as he is not afraid to take responsibility. In other words, Jerry expresses a high concern for Baboo’s situation, which is most evident in his eliciting the help of a lawyer to prevent Baboo from being deported.
On the other hand, the sitcom also incorporates an avoidance style of conflict resolution. For instance, the lawyer who is supposed to help Baboo fails to file the needed paperwork to do so, resulting in Baboo’s deportation. Thus, even though her non-actions do not reflect Jerry’s concern in Baboo’s situation, her non-actions do indirectly reflect upon Jerry as a person. And needles to say, Baboo dislikes Jerry even more after realizing that Jerry’s lawyer didn’t help him from being deported.
Obviously the intercultural problem between Jerry and Baboo didn’t get resolved. With that said, I believe that Jerry handled the conflict in a proper way. Besides, if the lawyer had done her job then Baboo wouldn’t have been deported. And I don’t think it was too much of Jerry to expect a lawyer to do her job duties. Thus, I believe the biggest problem in the conflict between Jerry and Baboo comes not from either of them, but rather the non-actions of the intermediary, the lawyer.
Once Baboo gets deported back to Pakistan, however, I do not envision that Jerry can help the situation very much. After all, he was unable to help Baboo in American, so how conceivable is it for him to attempt to help Baboo while living in a different country? With that said, Baboo can always migrate back to America, a difficult journey that he obviously completed on a prior occasion. Other than the possibility that Baboo may be able to migrate back to America, I don’t see any other possible solutions.
Question: Do you think gender influences a person’s conflict management style? Why or why not?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Activity #10
Members of my American culture, I think, consider their immediate families when one asks them about their own families. For instance, when someone brings up the casual conversation of family, individuals in my culture immediately start talking about their kids, their wives, their husbands, their sisters, their brothers, or their mothers and fathers. But rarely do people start talking about grandparents or uncles or aunts or cousins or nephews, etc.
Inside this “immediate family,” however, common roles are set in place for each member. The father, for instance, is still looked upon as the dominant figure in the home. Even though more women in our society are working in the marketplace rather than merely at home, the most common ideal in our society is for men to support the families financially. The wife, on the other hand, generally holds the responsibilities of caring, nurturing, and tending to the needs of her immediate family. Of course these responsibilities may not hold true for each family—i.e. a woman working in the marketplace rather than at home—but for the most part women are still considered to be responsible for the health of the home. For instance, women still cook more than men, do the laundry more than men, and clean the home more than men. In contrast, men spend most of their free time at home playing catch with their sons, working in their home offices, or watching sporting events.
But even though women are still generally considered “homemakers,”—the primary cooks, laundry doers, and cleaners of the homes—their requirement to fit into such a role seems to be diminishing. For instance, more women are entering college, and furthermore, more women are furthering their education to graduate school. Because of that, more American women are entering the workforce and staying in the workforce. Thus, as women get older, they no longer feel the need to fit a prescribed role; a role that they probably thought probable as an adolescent.
In terms of the American culture’s norms in regards to dating habits, we generally date individuals for whom represent similar features, such as similar goals in life (raise a family, etc), or even people who are of the same ethnic background. For instance, very infrequently does one see an interracial couple, especially among dating adolescents. Thus, American society considers ones dating habits not necessarily taboo, but certainly slightly abnormal when a person dates another person who has dissimilar interests in life, or a person who doesn’t share similar physical features.
More to the point, however, American society, for the most part, is against homosexual relationships. Of course the American harsh opinion in regards to homosexuality has lessened over the years, the general conception remains that homosexuality is abnormal and taboo. For instance, my culture finds conversations about homosexuality very uncomfortable.
Nonetheless, after individuals have dated for quite some time, the male suitor is generally the one who proposes his desire—directly himself and in person—to get married. Most times, I think, the man either kneels down and asks the girl or asks her over a nice arranged dinner. Either way, the man is generally the one who asks for his lady’s hand in marriage. And if a proposal is accepted, obviously a wedding is held. In the case of weddings in American culture, most weddings tend to be held in churches. With that said, an uprising of more outdoor weddings, such as on beaches or near beautifully skirted scenic areas, have entered our society. Nonetheless, along with their close friends, the family members belonging to soon-to-be husband and wife attend the ceremony. Depending on the preferences of the couple, especially preference of the lady, the number of family members on each side of the family attending the ceremony varies from a small amount to a large amount. Even so, most family members, even extended family members, are invited to the reception following the ceremony.
After marriage, however, divorce is very common in American culture. In fact, several marriages end in divorce even though divorce is not a preferred conclusion to a marriage. Thus, even though most of us Americans frown upon divorce, we clearly don’t write off such possible outcome to marriage.
When divorce occurs in American society, though, the majority of the legal rights side with the woman. The latter obviously is not the case if legal matters come into play, but for the most part, the legal process in America favors women during divorce proceedings. For instance, if the couple has children, the woman is generally given primary custody in favor of the husband. More to the point, since most men still make the majority of family incomes, many women in divorce courts are awarded monthly financial security from ex-husbands’ earnings.
When considering my culture’s characteristics and my role within society, my roles and opinions generally agree with the American norms. For instance, I believe, at the end of the day, that it will be my responsible as a man to support my family. Thus, even though I am certainly not against a woman working in the marketplace, I believe that my utmost responsibility as a man is to ensure the financial security of my family. Furthermore, I share the same feelings of my culture in terms of dating habits and homosexuality. For instance, even though I am accepting of homosexuality, the topic of homosexuality still makes me feel awkward. Also, I am more comfortable dating a girl whom shares similar traits with me, such as being of the same ethnic background (white), sharing future goals, or sharing a similar personality. With all this said, I do disagree with one component of my culture: divorce. I am personally not against the idea of “divorce,” but rather against my culture’s overwhelming carelessness with marriage; a carelessness that results many times in divorce. For instance, I don’t think many people in my culture get married for love. Instead, family pressure, money, and personal discontent seem to influence the desire to get married in my culture as much as one being in love does. Thus, even though I share many beliefs of my culture, I do believe that my culture is oftentimes very immature when deciding to get married or not.
Question: Would you be comfortable intermarrying into a different culture with different norms? Why or why not?
Inside this “immediate family,” however, common roles are set in place for each member. The father, for instance, is still looked upon as the dominant figure in the home. Even though more women in our society are working in the marketplace rather than merely at home, the most common ideal in our society is for men to support the families financially. The wife, on the other hand, generally holds the responsibilities of caring, nurturing, and tending to the needs of her immediate family. Of course these responsibilities may not hold true for each family—i.e. a woman working in the marketplace rather than at home—but for the most part women are still considered to be responsible for the health of the home. For instance, women still cook more than men, do the laundry more than men, and clean the home more than men. In contrast, men spend most of their free time at home playing catch with their sons, working in their home offices, or watching sporting events.
But even though women are still generally considered “homemakers,”—the primary cooks, laundry doers, and cleaners of the homes—their requirement to fit into such a role seems to be diminishing. For instance, more women are entering college, and furthermore, more women are furthering their education to graduate school. Because of that, more American women are entering the workforce and staying in the workforce. Thus, as women get older, they no longer feel the need to fit a prescribed role; a role that they probably thought probable as an adolescent.
In terms of the American culture’s norms in regards to dating habits, we generally date individuals for whom represent similar features, such as similar goals in life (raise a family, etc), or even people who are of the same ethnic background. For instance, very infrequently does one see an interracial couple, especially among dating adolescents. Thus, American society considers ones dating habits not necessarily taboo, but certainly slightly abnormal when a person dates another person who has dissimilar interests in life, or a person who doesn’t share similar physical features.
More to the point, however, American society, for the most part, is against homosexual relationships. Of course the American harsh opinion in regards to homosexuality has lessened over the years, the general conception remains that homosexuality is abnormal and taboo. For instance, my culture finds conversations about homosexuality very uncomfortable.
Nonetheless, after individuals have dated for quite some time, the male suitor is generally the one who proposes his desire—directly himself and in person—to get married. Most times, I think, the man either kneels down and asks the girl or asks her over a nice arranged dinner. Either way, the man is generally the one who asks for his lady’s hand in marriage. And if a proposal is accepted, obviously a wedding is held. In the case of weddings in American culture, most weddings tend to be held in churches. With that said, an uprising of more outdoor weddings, such as on beaches or near beautifully skirted scenic areas, have entered our society. Nonetheless, along with their close friends, the family members belonging to soon-to-be husband and wife attend the ceremony. Depending on the preferences of the couple, especially preference of the lady, the number of family members on each side of the family attending the ceremony varies from a small amount to a large amount. Even so, most family members, even extended family members, are invited to the reception following the ceremony.
After marriage, however, divorce is very common in American culture. In fact, several marriages end in divorce even though divorce is not a preferred conclusion to a marriage. Thus, even though most of us Americans frown upon divorce, we clearly don’t write off such possible outcome to marriage.
When divorce occurs in American society, though, the majority of the legal rights side with the woman. The latter obviously is not the case if legal matters come into play, but for the most part, the legal process in America favors women during divorce proceedings. For instance, if the couple has children, the woman is generally given primary custody in favor of the husband. More to the point, since most men still make the majority of family incomes, many women in divorce courts are awarded monthly financial security from ex-husbands’ earnings.
When considering my culture’s characteristics and my role within society, my roles and opinions generally agree with the American norms. For instance, I believe, at the end of the day, that it will be my responsible as a man to support my family. Thus, even though I am certainly not against a woman working in the marketplace, I believe that my utmost responsibility as a man is to ensure the financial security of my family. Furthermore, I share the same feelings of my culture in terms of dating habits and homosexuality. For instance, even though I am accepting of homosexuality, the topic of homosexuality still makes me feel awkward. Also, I am more comfortable dating a girl whom shares similar traits with me, such as being of the same ethnic background (white), sharing future goals, or sharing a similar personality. With all this said, I do disagree with one component of my culture: divorce. I am personally not against the idea of “divorce,” but rather against my culture’s overwhelming carelessness with marriage; a carelessness that results many times in divorce. For instance, I don’t think many people in my culture get married for love. Instead, family pressure, money, and personal discontent seem to influence the desire to get married in my culture as much as one being in love does. Thus, even though I share many beliefs of my culture, I do believe that my culture is oftentimes very immature when deciding to get married or not.
Question: Would you be comfortable intermarrying into a different culture with different norms? Why or why not?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Activity #9
Since I have admired the show Seinfeld for my entire life, I decided to complete this assignment by watching an episode last night. For the most part, Seinfeld has been famous for its relaxed, informal, and individualized American ideality. And the episode I viewed last night certainly didn’t sway from the preconceived notions of the show.
In regards to the episode that I viewed, the clothing worn by the characters certainly displayed a relaxed and informal American ideality—especially to a person with no prior viewing experience of the show. For instance, like most of Seinfeld, Jerry didn’t wear dress pants, but rather a pair of jeans. Kramer generally only wore cheap and old t-shirts. And in the cases of George and Elaine, even though they were sometimes seen in their business clothes,—business suits—they were generally shown as making their formal attire feel as comfortable as possible, such as George wearing loosened tie or Elaine entering Jerry’s apartment and plopping immediately on his couch.
So if one were to view this episode for the first time one would probably conclude from the clothing worn that the show lends a relaxed and informal American ideality. The latter is even emphasized when one realizes that the characters ate all of their meals—as they do in most episodes—in a café compared to a classier place.
Perhaps the most important component of show, however, is its portrayal of an individualized American Identity. The main plot of this particular episode, for instance, revolves around George’s concern that if his girlfriend, Susan, starts spending time with his own friends he will have lost control of his life. In other words, he will have lost the “space” between his private life (with Susan) and his personal life (with his friends). Clearly George values his own individual control and devalues the possibility of a collective existence.
But the plot involving George is not the only aspect of the episode that lends an individualized American identity. For instance, the show takes place in New York, a city that has historically been home to individualized citizens. Also, the characters of the episode lived by their own individual interests compared to any collective responsibilities. For example, rather than showing the characters at work, the episode presented the characters conversing in Jerry’s apartment or at the café. In other words, the episode presented the characters as people who are not bound by societal responsibilities, such as work or laundry or cleaning or marriage.
Besides, if a person were to turn on this episode for the first time, one would also notice a unique/individualistic feature in regards to one of its most popular characters, Kramer. Once Kramer enters his scenes, one immediately notices his wacky, jumpy hair. Not only does his hair lend a relaxed and informal quality, but also an individualistic quality in that Kramer does not feel bound to conform to normality. Indeed, he doesn’t mind looking different, looking like a true individual. And needless to say, his actions certainly echo his appearance, such as him bursting into rooms or him speaking as much with his body as his mouth.
Evidently, this particular episode resonates what the entire Seinfeld sit-com says in terms of its portrayal of American ideality. Not only does the episode display a relaxed an informal American identity, but it simultaneously shows Americans who value their individual lives, individual appearances, and individual behaviors over any possibility of a collective or conformed existence.
Question: Would you be fine if persons of different cultures base their opinions of Americans from our television shows (assuming they watch more than one show and more than one episode)? Why or why not?
In regards to the episode that I viewed, the clothing worn by the characters certainly displayed a relaxed and informal American ideality—especially to a person with no prior viewing experience of the show. For instance, like most of Seinfeld, Jerry didn’t wear dress pants, but rather a pair of jeans. Kramer generally only wore cheap and old t-shirts. And in the cases of George and Elaine, even though they were sometimes seen in their business clothes,—business suits—they were generally shown as making their formal attire feel as comfortable as possible, such as George wearing loosened tie or Elaine entering Jerry’s apartment and plopping immediately on his couch.
So if one were to view this episode for the first time one would probably conclude from the clothing worn that the show lends a relaxed and informal American ideality. The latter is even emphasized when one realizes that the characters ate all of their meals—as they do in most episodes—in a café compared to a classier place.
Perhaps the most important component of show, however, is its portrayal of an individualized American Identity. The main plot of this particular episode, for instance, revolves around George’s concern that if his girlfriend, Susan, starts spending time with his own friends he will have lost control of his life. In other words, he will have lost the “space” between his private life (with Susan) and his personal life (with his friends). Clearly George values his own individual control and devalues the possibility of a collective existence.
But the plot involving George is not the only aspect of the episode that lends an individualized American identity. For instance, the show takes place in New York, a city that has historically been home to individualized citizens. Also, the characters of the episode lived by their own individual interests compared to any collective responsibilities. For example, rather than showing the characters at work, the episode presented the characters conversing in Jerry’s apartment or at the café. In other words, the episode presented the characters as people who are not bound by societal responsibilities, such as work or laundry or cleaning or marriage.
Besides, if a person were to turn on this episode for the first time, one would also notice a unique/individualistic feature in regards to one of its most popular characters, Kramer. Once Kramer enters his scenes, one immediately notices his wacky, jumpy hair. Not only does his hair lend a relaxed and informal quality, but also an individualistic quality in that Kramer does not feel bound to conform to normality. Indeed, he doesn’t mind looking different, looking like a true individual. And needless to say, his actions certainly echo his appearance, such as him bursting into rooms or him speaking as much with his body as his mouth.
Evidently, this particular episode resonates what the entire Seinfeld sit-com says in terms of its portrayal of American ideality. Not only does the episode display a relaxed an informal American identity, but it simultaneously shows Americans who value their individual lives, individual appearances, and individual behaviors over any possibility of a collective or conformed existence.
Question: Would you be fine if persons of different cultures base their opinions of Americans from our television shows (assuming they watch more than one show and more than one episode)? Why or why not?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Activity #8
When I transitioned from high school to college, my personality and attitude toward the educational system drastically changed. I never struggled with the differing atmosphere of college compared to high school, but rather the politics in regards to the academics of college. Before I entered into college, for example, I felt that when I entered into college I could finally study what I wanted to study. Yet, when I entered college, I realized that I still had to fulfill several general education requirements.
As a result, I developed a very bitter and cynical attitude towards the power of the educational system. For instance, I couldn’t understand that I only needed one history course to graduate from the University of Minnesota whereas I needed four semesters of a foreign language. The latter is just one example that exemplifies my original disappointment while in college. Nonetheless, I eventually became frustrated when my university decided against compromising with me. For instance, I was not allowed to take more classes from within my major to make-up for the foreign language requirement, and nor could I take a combination of other classes, such as history or communication classes to substitute for the language requirement.
So when I first witnessed the politics involved in college, I clearly developed a bitter attitude toward the power of the post-secondary educational system. In short, when I entered college for the first time I discovered that the world is not a compromising place, especially if you’re one student up against a conglomerate of board members, a conglomerate consisting of not one person fluent in a second language.
Question: Have you ever traveled anywhere that influenced you to change your behaviors, attitudes, personality, etc? Or, have you ever felt like a stranger in your own country? If so, how did that make you feel? If not, how do you think that would make you feel?
As a result, I developed a very bitter and cynical attitude towards the power of the educational system. For instance, I couldn’t understand that I only needed one history course to graduate from the University of Minnesota whereas I needed four semesters of a foreign language. The latter is just one example that exemplifies my original disappointment while in college. Nonetheless, I eventually became frustrated when my university decided against compromising with me. For instance, I was not allowed to take more classes from within my major to make-up for the foreign language requirement, and nor could I take a combination of other classes, such as history or communication classes to substitute for the language requirement.
So when I first witnessed the politics involved in college, I clearly developed a bitter attitude toward the power of the post-secondary educational system. In short, when I entered college for the first time I discovered that the world is not a compromising place, especially if you’re one student up against a conglomerate of board members, a conglomerate consisting of not one person fluent in a second language.
Question: Have you ever traveled anywhere that influenced you to change your behaviors, attitudes, personality, etc? Or, have you ever felt like a stranger in your own country? If so, how did that make you feel? If not, how do you think that would make you feel?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Activity #7
I thought that the “eye contact” experiment was very interesting. It reminded me of something that might happen in a sit-com. But to get to the point, this morning I stared at my girlfriend, not breaking eye contact for about two nonstop minutes. At first she thought I was just being silly because she offered a quick smirk when I cut in front of her in order to keep eye contact when she turned suddenly to get a soda out of the fridge. After that incident, though, she started to get annoyed with me. For instance, while we continued our conversation at the kitchen counter, she eventually asked me in her sassy voice “What are you doing?” Also, she soon said that I was making her feel uncomfortable. After she told me that she was feeling uncomfortable I decided to debrief her.
Even though I found the previous experiment interesting and fun, I found the “No Eye Contact” experiment even more interesting and fun. For instance, soon after I performed the first experiment on my girlfriend, I performed the second one on her as well. When we were eating lunch this afternoon at Perkins, I decided to keep my eyes fixated only on my club sandwich and fries. Even when I took a bite, I kept my head slanted downward so that my eyes wouldn’t catch her eyes. I don’t think she really realized anything until the server came to our table and asked us how everything was. Needless to say, I decided to keep my eyes on my plate. Upon doing so, my girlfriend kicked me in the leg under the table while commenting “Would it kill you to show some manners?” After she commented the latter, however, I couldn’t help but start smirk and laugh. Upon doing so, I had to debrief her because I think she was beginning to think that I suddenly transformed into a rude person. Even so, she forced me to give the server an extra nice tip for acting rudely. If I didn’t have to give a big tip I would have enjoyed the experiment more so, but I did, however, enjoy annoying my girlfriend again.
For the third experiment I had planned to perform on someone other than my girlfriend, but because she made me give a substantial tip, I decided to perform it on her instead. After we exited the booth to leave, I calmly closed in on her. In doing so, I realized that this third experiment was much tougher than the previous ones. I think it was tougher because I felt more awkward performing an unusual action with my body rather than my eyes. More to the point, the act of closing in on another person can be interpreted in several ways—aggressively, sexually, romantic, etc. And frankly, I didn’t want my girlfriend to interpret any of the before mentioned characteristics.
Nonetheless, she felt comfortable to let me move her nearer a cornered wall. I think she was expecting a hug or a kiss on the cheek, but I wasn’t about to be a “romantic” in public. Not a chance! So I instead closed near her and told her what I was instructed to do. After that, she scoffed, rolled her eyes, and while turning around said “let’s go.”
In doing these experiments, I now realize that one of the most aggravating components in life is not being able to interpret someone else’s nonverbal behavior. For instance, I don’t think I would enjoy myself very much while visiting a different culture if I was unaware of their nonverbal queues.
Question: In terms of chronemics, have you ever come across a time when you were unwilling to wait for someone or something—an appointment to start, a meeting with a person, etc? Or, have you ever come across a time when you found yourself not wanting to wait for someone or something, but decided to anyway? How do you think the latter or former reflect you in relation to the nonverbal communicator of chronemics?
Even though I found the previous experiment interesting and fun, I found the “No Eye Contact” experiment even more interesting and fun. For instance, soon after I performed the first experiment on my girlfriend, I performed the second one on her as well. When we were eating lunch this afternoon at Perkins, I decided to keep my eyes fixated only on my club sandwich and fries. Even when I took a bite, I kept my head slanted downward so that my eyes wouldn’t catch her eyes. I don’t think she really realized anything until the server came to our table and asked us how everything was. Needless to say, I decided to keep my eyes on my plate. Upon doing so, my girlfriend kicked me in the leg under the table while commenting “Would it kill you to show some manners?” After she commented the latter, however, I couldn’t help but start smirk and laugh. Upon doing so, I had to debrief her because I think she was beginning to think that I suddenly transformed into a rude person. Even so, she forced me to give the server an extra nice tip for acting rudely. If I didn’t have to give a big tip I would have enjoyed the experiment more so, but I did, however, enjoy annoying my girlfriend again.
For the third experiment I had planned to perform on someone other than my girlfriend, but because she made me give a substantial tip, I decided to perform it on her instead. After we exited the booth to leave, I calmly closed in on her. In doing so, I realized that this third experiment was much tougher than the previous ones. I think it was tougher because I felt more awkward performing an unusual action with my body rather than my eyes. More to the point, the act of closing in on another person can be interpreted in several ways—aggressively, sexually, romantic, etc. And frankly, I didn’t want my girlfriend to interpret any of the before mentioned characteristics.
Nonetheless, she felt comfortable to let me move her nearer a cornered wall. I think she was expecting a hug or a kiss on the cheek, but I wasn’t about to be a “romantic” in public. Not a chance! So I instead closed near her and told her what I was instructed to do. After that, she scoffed, rolled her eyes, and while turning around said “let’s go.”
In doing these experiments, I now realize that one of the most aggravating components in life is not being able to interpret someone else’s nonverbal behavior. For instance, I don’t think I would enjoy myself very much while visiting a different culture if I was unaware of their nonverbal queues.
Question: In terms of chronemics, have you ever come across a time when you were unwilling to wait for someone or something—an appointment to start, a meeting with a person, etc? Or, have you ever come across a time when you found yourself not wanting to wait for someone or something, but decided to anyway? How do you think the latter or former reflect you in relation to the nonverbal communicator of chronemics?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Activity #6 (Online Quizzes)
I found the quiz “Where is the Speaker From?” very interesting. First of all, I find it fascinating that although individuals across the world can speak the same language they speak the language subtly different. More to the point, this exercise makes me understand that being aware of how individuals speak is important in several aspects of my area of education interest—English. For instance, in my Writing seminar class last semester one of my fellow classmates wrote a story with an English protagonist with a heavy English accent. Nonetheless, this exercise reemphasized for me the importance to always be aware of the different dialects within the same language.
But even though I found the latter activity interesting, and even though I understand the importance of understanding the differences in dialectical speeches, I was awful at discerning where the voices were located. If I studied more linguistics I would probably do a better job, but to be very good at the exercise I think one needs to be an acute listener. After all, for the Mid-Atlantic female voice, the exercise says that one should pay attention to the /o/ sound when the lady says “chocolate.” Needless to say, I am not very good at hearing slightly different dialectical sounds. One reason for this is probably because I have not heard many different dialects or languages in my life. Perhaps if I encounter a greater variety of speakers, I will be able to discern between slightly different sound systems from within the same language.
As for the quiz “Test Your Vowel Power” I surprised myself by doing relatively well. Mathematically I still did poorely on the quiz, only answering correct three out of five times, but even on the ones that I missed, I was not wrong by much. The words that I answered correctly—desk, grade, and block—didn't present me with much difficultly. I especially didn’t find them too difficult after listening to them a few times.
In contrast,though, I guessed wrong with the words “socks” and “busses.” Instead of “socks” I guessed “sacks,” and instead of “busses” I guessed “watches.” Obviously the latter is the one that I found most challenging. I am predicting that I confused my Midwestern English sound /w/ for a /b/ sound. Nonetheless, at least “busses” and “watches” ends with similar /z/ sounds. Because of that, I don’t feel so awful for guessing “watches” when the word was actually “busses.”
Even so, much like the first quiz, I found the “Test Your Vowel Power” quiz very interesting. I found the activity interesting, especially the essay regarding vowel shifting located below the quiz, because I have always been interested in the development of linguistics in the English language—from early British literature to the present. I happen to be more interested in the reasons, external or internal, why sounds change over the course of time, but the exercise nonetheless gave me a practical example of the diversity of the English language. And because of this diversity, I am interested to see how the language will transform.
Question: Have you ever bumped into somebody who has commented about your specific English speech (example: someone commenting on your Minnesotan accent)? If so, how did that make you feel? If not, how do you think it would make you feel?
But even though I found the latter activity interesting, and even though I understand the importance of understanding the differences in dialectical speeches, I was awful at discerning where the voices were located. If I studied more linguistics I would probably do a better job, but to be very good at the exercise I think one needs to be an acute listener. After all, for the Mid-Atlantic female voice, the exercise says that one should pay attention to the /o/ sound when the lady says “chocolate.” Needless to say, I am not very good at hearing slightly different dialectical sounds. One reason for this is probably because I have not heard many different dialects or languages in my life. Perhaps if I encounter a greater variety of speakers, I will be able to discern between slightly different sound systems from within the same language.
As for the quiz “Test Your Vowel Power” I surprised myself by doing relatively well. Mathematically I still did poorely on the quiz, only answering correct three out of five times, but even on the ones that I missed, I was not wrong by much. The words that I answered correctly—desk, grade, and block—didn't present me with much difficultly. I especially didn’t find them too difficult after listening to them a few times.
In contrast,though, I guessed wrong with the words “socks” and “busses.” Instead of “socks” I guessed “sacks,” and instead of “busses” I guessed “watches.” Obviously the latter is the one that I found most challenging. I am predicting that I confused my Midwestern English sound /w/ for a /b/ sound. Nonetheless, at least “busses” and “watches” ends with similar /z/ sounds. Because of that, I don’t feel so awful for guessing “watches” when the word was actually “busses.”
Even so, much like the first quiz, I found the “Test Your Vowel Power” quiz very interesting. I found the activity interesting, especially the essay regarding vowel shifting located below the quiz, because I have always been interested in the development of linguistics in the English language—from early British literature to the present. I happen to be more interested in the reasons, external or internal, why sounds change over the course of time, but the exercise nonetheless gave me a practical example of the diversity of the English language. And because of this diversity, I am interested to see how the language will transform.
Question: Have you ever bumped into somebody who has commented about your specific English speech (example: someone commenting on your Minnesotan accent)? If so, how did that make you feel? If not, how do you think it would make you feel?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Activity #5
Avowed Identities: Reserved, young adult, stubborn, hardworking, procrastinator, mature, and frugal.
Ascribed Identities: Shy, adolescent, stubborn, lazy, procrastinator, mature, and frugal.
The majority of my ascribed identities derive from individuals for whom I have spent much of my time around—family, friends, and coworkers. For instance, even though I consider myself a young adult, my parents—more my mother than my father however—treat me more like an adolescent. During fall and spring semesters, for example, she continuously left me phone messages if I failed to return her phone calls.
The latter example brings me to another ascribed identity: individuals thinking that I am a procrastinator. My mother thinks I am a procrastinator in regards to returning her phone calls, my brothers and friends think I put-off my school work to the last minute, and my dad thinks I am procrastinating my life away. In short, he thinks I should have a job by now—5 ½ years after I started postsecondary school. Nonetheless, I admit to being a procrastinator. I put-off returning phone calls, I despise schoolwork (unless I get to write my own short story), and because I failed to “push” myself as a student with slightly more substantial credit loads, I still don’t have a degree.
At this moment, I would like to comment on my ascribed identity of “lazy.” To me, I no longer agree with the ascribed identity despite, in retrospect, I would agree with the labeling a few years ago. For instance, I have really transformed myself from a “what is the point” student to a student who has finally become a hardworking learner. But it seems that my former education record has resulted in a negative stigma. For instance, even though I struggled through 36 credits in the past two semesters, my family made ignorant remarks about my presumed laziness—“I’m sure you aren’t going to study all weekend, Anthony.” As a result of my family’s continuing belief that I’m lazy, I have found myself attempting to resist their comments. For instance, sometimes I remarked to my mother that she has no idea how difficult it is to take six upper-level classes. More to the point, sometimes I even rejected my brothers’ invitation to go golfing with him because I didn’t want to put-up with what I would’ve considered an ignorant comment on his behalf.
But whereas I might ultimately be to blame for my “lazy” ascribed identity, my ascribed identity of “shy” has been hovering over me because of the American individualistic society. For instance, I believe that American culture prefers a verbal society compared to a non-verbal society. Because of that, my peers at a very young age labeled my “shy.” Like I hinted to in a previous post of mine, however, I have never enjoyed the label of “shy.” I believe the word has grown to embody a negative quality, a quality that describes a deficiency. Because of the negative quality that now defines the word I have found myself resisting the label more and more often as my beliefs in the matter have strengthened with passing years. For instance, I always make excuses to not see my dad’s relatives because I don’t appreciate some of their comments. Also, about two years ago when I was eating dinner at Applebees with a few members of my family, I calmly rose from my seat, left the restaurant, and drove off after my aunt had commented “Sorry, he’s the shy one” to the waitress because my meal order was not heard in full detail.
To bring this discussion to a close, I am glad to say that a few ascribed identities I agree with are my being mature, frugal, and stubborn. Ever since my sophomore year of high school, for example, I worked in banquets—setting and serving banquet meetings and wedding receptions—and because of that I had to act mature due to the formal surroundings. One of my catering directors, for example, once guessed that I was 26 years old when I was only 19 years old. Nonetheless, to move on, I suppose my frugality derives from my family never having much free money to spend. I certainly attempt to resist this frugal quality of mine during holidays by spending more money, but more often than not, I am very stingy with my money. And lastly, my favorite quality: my stubbornness. I believe my stubbornness comes from my belief that in order to be a principled person one must also be a stubborn person. For instance, my favorite basketball coach since a young child has been the stubborn Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo. Also, several films portray memorable stubborn characters, such as William Wallace. Due to the latter and former, I have developed a stubborn personality.
In the end, I don’t mind some of my ascribed identities whereas others poke my nerves every day. I suspect that my avowed and ascribed identities will change slightly throughout my life, but I don’t suspect that they will ever match entirely.
Question: If you could convince every person in your life to discontinue labeling you with one ascribed identity that you internally or externally resist, what would you choose? Why?
Ascribed Identities: Shy, adolescent, stubborn, lazy, procrastinator, mature, and frugal.
The majority of my ascribed identities derive from individuals for whom I have spent much of my time around—family, friends, and coworkers. For instance, even though I consider myself a young adult, my parents—more my mother than my father however—treat me more like an adolescent. During fall and spring semesters, for example, she continuously left me phone messages if I failed to return her phone calls.
The latter example brings me to another ascribed identity: individuals thinking that I am a procrastinator. My mother thinks I am a procrastinator in regards to returning her phone calls, my brothers and friends think I put-off my school work to the last minute, and my dad thinks I am procrastinating my life away. In short, he thinks I should have a job by now—5 ½ years after I started postsecondary school. Nonetheless, I admit to being a procrastinator. I put-off returning phone calls, I despise schoolwork (unless I get to write my own short story), and because I failed to “push” myself as a student with slightly more substantial credit loads, I still don’t have a degree.
At this moment, I would like to comment on my ascribed identity of “lazy.” To me, I no longer agree with the ascribed identity despite, in retrospect, I would agree with the labeling a few years ago. For instance, I have really transformed myself from a “what is the point” student to a student who has finally become a hardworking learner. But it seems that my former education record has resulted in a negative stigma. For instance, even though I struggled through 36 credits in the past two semesters, my family made ignorant remarks about my presumed laziness—“I’m sure you aren’t going to study all weekend, Anthony.” As a result of my family’s continuing belief that I’m lazy, I have found myself attempting to resist their comments. For instance, sometimes I remarked to my mother that she has no idea how difficult it is to take six upper-level classes. More to the point, sometimes I even rejected my brothers’ invitation to go golfing with him because I didn’t want to put-up with what I would’ve considered an ignorant comment on his behalf.
But whereas I might ultimately be to blame for my “lazy” ascribed identity, my ascribed identity of “shy” has been hovering over me because of the American individualistic society. For instance, I believe that American culture prefers a verbal society compared to a non-verbal society. Because of that, my peers at a very young age labeled my “shy.” Like I hinted to in a previous post of mine, however, I have never enjoyed the label of “shy.” I believe the word has grown to embody a negative quality, a quality that describes a deficiency. Because of the negative quality that now defines the word I have found myself resisting the label more and more often as my beliefs in the matter have strengthened with passing years. For instance, I always make excuses to not see my dad’s relatives because I don’t appreciate some of their comments. Also, about two years ago when I was eating dinner at Applebees with a few members of my family, I calmly rose from my seat, left the restaurant, and drove off after my aunt had commented “Sorry, he’s the shy one” to the waitress because my meal order was not heard in full detail.
To bring this discussion to a close, I am glad to say that a few ascribed identities I agree with are my being mature, frugal, and stubborn. Ever since my sophomore year of high school, for example, I worked in banquets—setting and serving banquet meetings and wedding receptions—and because of that I had to act mature due to the formal surroundings. One of my catering directors, for example, once guessed that I was 26 years old when I was only 19 years old. Nonetheless, to move on, I suppose my frugality derives from my family never having much free money to spend. I certainly attempt to resist this frugal quality of mine during holidays by spending more money, but more often than not, I am very stingy with my money. And lastly, my favorite quality: my stubbornness. I believe my stubbornness comes from my belief that in order to be a principled person one must also be a stubborn person. For instance, my favorite basketball coach since a young child has been the stubborn Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo. Also, several films portray memorable stubborn characters, such as William Wallace. Due to the latter and former, I have developed a stubborn personality.
In the end, I don’t mind some of my ascribed identities whereas others poke my nerves every day. I suspect that my avowed and ascribed identities will change slightly throughout my life, but I don’t suspect that they will ever match entirely.
Question: If you could convince every person in your life to discontinue labeling you with one ascribed identity that you internally or externally resist, what would you choose? Why?
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Activity #4
After completing the assignment, I now feel that I am very ignorant of other ethnic backgrounds. More to the point, I feel that I am ignorant of the histories of ethnic backgrounds different from mine.
To begin, I found that answering questions about white males was the easiest for me in regards to ethnicity as well as gender. Actually, I think this was the only easy category for me. I think this was the easiest ethnic group for me to answer for because much of my upbringing incorporated the histories of white Americans, white Englishmen, or more briefly white Europeans. For instance, in social studies classrooms my classes focused primarily on the United States’ history and perspectives, especially during the Civil War and the World Wars. And obviously white authority figures generally dominated the previously mentioned eras. Besides, my English classrooms almost never incorporated very little international fiction or creative non-fiction.
It seems clear to me that I better understand the ethnic history of whites because the histories that I was taught in schools emphasized it very much. Thus, even though the history of white ethnicity is easier for me to understand because of the history that I have learned in regards to it, I am equally at a disadvantage when considering the ethnic backgrounds that my courses in school rarely emphasized.
For instance, after the question on the quiz about white males, I found that I had a tougher time with the remaining ethnic backgrounds. I even had a tough time with white females. Once I needed to recall a white female before the 1800s I had a very tough time. I think I had a tough time because white women have historically been a minority to white men. Because of that, I think it is harder to find key white female figures to stand alongside the white male. Thus, I think white females are talked about less, especially in schools, because more influential persons in history are white males and not white females.
Also, I had a tougher time with black males and black females. The former seemed easier for me to answer because of the general inclusion of blacks in sports, but nonetheless, both were much harder for me compared to answering questions about white males. As in the case of white females, I think the ethnic background of black males and black females tend to be spoken about less frequently than white males. For example, when I was in high school, my history teacher spent about one or two days talking about the importance of rock and roll music. But in his discussions he never mentioned the person for who many classic rock fans consider the first rocker of all-time, Robert Johnson, who happened to be black. Thus, when my teacher spoke about Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan, he skipped over Robert Johnson. I don’t know why exactly this happened, but it seems to me that many people nowadays don’t even know who Robert Johnson was, or even how he influenced music. After all, Elvis is a national figure, but Robert Johnson is nearly unknown. In short, he stands as an illustration of how one example of black history has, in a way, faded away, for no clear reason, in our American culture.
Most of all, however, I found that the remaining ethnic categories were rather impossible for me to answer. I realized that I know next-to-nothing with regards to Latino backgrounds or Asian backgrounds. This makes me think that these groups are rarely studied in America. In fact, when I was in high school, I don’t remember studying important figureheads or events in Latin America or Asia. The latter obviously has to do with my junior high and senior high concentrating on our Nation’s history. I suppose their reasoning stemmed from the fact that the majority of students were Americans. Thus, why not center the curriculum on American history?
But now that I am in college I wish I knew more about ethnic backgrounds that are different than mine. If I knew more about the ethnic backgrounds of people in the Congo, for instance, I could then better understand the writings of Joseph Conrad. If I knew more about the treatment of women before the 1900s, I could better appreciate the importance of Virginia Woolf transforming literature and the role of women in literature during the 1900s. Needles to say, I wish the histories of other ethnic backgrounds were made more accessible when I was in school. Because of that, I feel that much of the world is unknown to me.
Question: Do you think that high school curriculum is too narrow in regards to its historical focus? Why or why not?
To begin, I found that answering questions about white males was the easiest for me in regards to ethnicity as well as gender. Actually, I think this was the only easy category for me. I think this was the easiest ethnic group for me to answer for because much of my upbringing incorporated the histories of white Americans, white Englishmen, or more briefly white Europeans. For instance, in social studies classrooms my classes focused primarily on the United States’ history and perspectives, especially during the Civil War and the World Wars. And obviously white authority figures generally dominated the previously mentioned eras. Besides, my English classrooms almost never incorporated very little international fiction or creative non-fiction.
It seems clear to me that I better understand the ethnic history of whites because the histories that I was taught in schools emphasized it very much. Thus, even though the history of white ethnicity is easier for me to understand because of the history that I have learned in regards to it, I am equally at a disadvantage when considering the ethnic backgrounds that my courses in school rarely emphasized.
For instance, after the question on the quiz about white males, I found that I had a tougher time with the remaining ethnic backgrounds. I even had a tough time with white females. Once I needed to recall a white female before the 1800s I had a very tough time. I think I had a tough time because white women have historically been a minority to white men. Because of that, I think it is harder to find key white female figures to stand alongside the white male. Thus, I think white females are talked about less, especially in schools, because more influential persons in history are white males and not white females.
Also, I had a tougher time with black males and black females. The former seemed easier for me to answer because of the general inclusion of blacks in sports, but nonetheless, both were much harder for me compared to answering questions about white males. As in the case of white females, I think the ethnic background of black males and black females tend to be spoken about less frequently than white males. For example, when I was in high school, my history teacher spent about one or two days talking about the importance of rock and roll music. But in his discussions he never mentioned the person for who many classic rock fans consider the first rocker of all-time, Robert Johnson, who happened to be black. Thus, when my teacher spoke about Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan, he skipped over Robert Johnson. I don’t know why exactly this happened, but it seems to me that many people nowadays don’t even know who Robert Johnson was, or even how he influenced music. After all, Elvis is a national figure, but Robert Johnson is nearly unknown. In short, he stands as an illustration of how one example of black history has, in a way, faded away, for no clear reason, in our American culture.
Most of all, however, I found that the remaining ethnic categories were rather impossible for me to answer. I realized that I know next-to-nothing with regards to Latino backgrounds or Asian backgrounds. This makes me think that these groups are rarely studied in America. In fact, when I was in high school, I don’t remember studying important figureheads or events in Latin America or Asia. The latter obviously has to do with my junior high and senior high concentrating on our Nation’s history. I suppose their reasoning stemmed from the fact that the majority of students were Americans. Thus, why not center the curriculum on American history?
But now that I am in college I wish I knew more about ethnic backgrounds that are different than mine. If I knew more about the ethnic backgrounds of people in the Congo, for instance, I could then better understand the writings of Joseph Conrad. If I knew more about the treatment of women before the 1900s, I could better appreciate the importance of Virginia Woolf transforming literature and the role of women in literature during the 1900s. Needles to say, I wish the histories of other ethnic backgrounds were made more accessible when I was in school. Because of that, I feel that much of the world is unknown to me.
Question: Do you think that high school curriculum is too narrow in regards to its historical focus? Why or why not?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Activity #3
Even though my ethnic background consists of German, Swedish, and Dutch descent, not one person has ever asked or wondered about my ethnicity. When people look at me they presume me to be American and nothing else. For that reason, nobody knows how my ethnic background has slightly influenced me as an American.
A point in case rests with how my German background (my primary ethnic background) has negatively and positively influenced who I am today. To exemplify the former, when my literature class last semester was reading Maus I and Maus II, two books portraying factual accounts of the Holocaust, I felt uncomfortable during class discussions. My discomfort derived from the general stigma associated with German history. Needless to say, I am often embarrassed about my German descent; embarrassed even though my great-grandparents and great-uncles and great-aunts became migrants in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota in the early 1900s, nearly forty years before World War II.
Despite my inner embarrassment, however, my German descent has interested me, as a literature student, to take an interest in early Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman literature. I am unsure if my family extends to the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, or Frisians, but I am proud to be loosely connected with works such as Beowulf, Lanval, Dream of the Rood, and my personal favorite, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Upon my graduation next fall, I foresee myself studying Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman history and literature more closely, mainly because Modern English literature derives from their works. In this respect, my German descent has influenced a specific literature passion for me. And I am very happy for that.
But, as I said before, when most people look at me they don’t notice a young adult with an ethnic background. Therefore, people understand or misunderstand me in other ways. Most people, I think, focus their attention to my reserved personality. In doing so, most individuals label me as a “shy” person. For my whole life I have disliked people labeling me as a “shy” person because a shy personality has grown to represent a derogatory description in American culture. After all, I have never been labeled a “reserved” person, and whenever I have been labeled “quiet,” people precede the description with “so quiet.” In a way, I have grown to understand that the word “shy” doesn’t correlate to “quiet” but rather “so quiet.”
As a result, the label “shy” has influenced who I am very much, even possibly more than my ethnic background has, and possibly more than anything else in the world. For instance, because of the label I have studied more dutifully the etymology of words, the personalities of words, and the uniqueness of how words altar in meaning over the course of time. And considering that many words derive from Old English, the language from Germanic settlers in England, I have only become more interested due to my Germanic descent. More to the point, since I enjoy writing my own stories, I consider very carefully how words are gradually changing meanings in our own culture—“shy” obviously being one of them. For that reason, I strongly believe that I have become a better Creative Writing student. And hopefully my passion for words will help positively influence my future in English studies as well.
Question: What do you think it would be like to presently live in a place that has very violent ethnic conflicts? For instance, only 16 years ago, one ethnic group in Rwanda (the Hutus) committed genocide, killing nearly 1 million of another ethnic group (the Tutsis).
A point in case rests with how my German background (my primary ethnic background) has negatively and positively influenced who I am today. To exemplify the former, when my literature class last semester was reading Maus I and Maus II, two books portraying factual accounts of the Holocaust, I felt uncomfortable during class discussions. My discomfort derived from the general stigma associated with German history. Needless to say, I am often embarrassed about my German descent; embarrassed even though my great-grandparents and great-uncles and great-aunts became migrants in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota in the early 1900s, nearly forty years before World War II.
Despite my inner embarrassment, however, my German descent has interested me, as a literature student, to take an interest in early Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman literature. I am unsure if my family extends to the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, or Frisians, but I am proud to be loosely connected with works such as Beowulf, Lanval, Dream of the Rood, and my personal favorite, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Upon my graduation next fall, I foresee myself studying Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman history and literature more closely, mainly because Modern English literature derives from their works. In this respect, my German descent has influenced a specific literature passion for me. And I am very happy for that.
But, as I said before, when most people look at me they don’t notice a young adult with an ethnic background. Therefore, people understand or misunderstand me in other ways. Most people, I think, focus their attention to my reserved personality. In doing so, most individuals label me as a “shy” person. For my whole life I have disliked people labeling me as a “shy” person because a shy personality has grown to represent a derogatory description in American culture. After all, I have never been labeled a “reserved” person, and whenever I have been labeled “quiet,” people precede the description with “so quiet.” In a way, I have grown to understand that the word “shy” doesn’t correlate to “quiet” but rather “so quiet.”
As a result, the label “shy” has influenced who I am very much, even possibly more than my ethnic background has, and possibly more than anything else in the world. For instance, because of the label I have studied more dutifully the etymology of words, the personalities of words, and the uniqueness of how words altar in meaning over the course of time. And considering that many words derive from Old English, the language from Germanic settlers in England, I have only become more interested due to my Germanic descent. More to the point, since I enjoy writing my own stories, I consider very carefully how words are gradually changing meanings in our own culture—“shy” obviously being one of them. For that reason, I strongly believe that I have become a better Creative Writing student. And hopefully my passion for words will help positively influence my future in English studies as well.
Question: What do you think it would be like to presently live in a place that has very violent ethnic conflicts? For instance, only 16 years ago, one ethnic group in Rwanda (the Hutus) committed genocide, killing nearly 1 million of another ethnic group (the Tutsis).
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Activity #2
While standing or sitting, we stare at the bricks of a parking ramp, the pebbles near our shoes, or even the elegance or coolness or awfulness of our clothing. But we do not look at one another. Not really anyway. Only sporadically will we sneak an eye(s) in a stranger’s direction. And we tend to hold onto these peaks, hold onto them like a boy mesmerized by a graceful girl, all until the subject of our attention turns and spots our spying. Immediately our eyes run away, embarrassed of our ignoring the “No Wandering Eyes” rule of adult passengers.
A few mornings ago I took the metro transit Light Rail from the 28th avenue station, located a few minutes away from the Mall of America, to downtown Minneapolis. Before I boarded the train, however, I noticed some unique cultural habits from all waiting passengers, including myself.
First of all, as already narrated, we rarely looked at one another. For instance, while waiting on the platform, one gentleman in a business suit was staring into the 28th avenue parking ramp, one woman was glancing at herself in a hand-held mirror, and three other single riders were staring at the ground. As for myself, even when I snuck my attention away from counting the bricks of the platform to the business lady spotting herself in her mirror, I twisted away once she intuitively shifted her eyes to my intrusion. Immediately I knew that I had broken a passenger rule—No Wandering Eyes.
Secondly, we expressed our collective disconnection from not just our reluctance to look at one another, but also in the way that we stood separate from one another. As one might predict, we didn’t nonverbally communicate with intimate proxemics, personal proxemics, or social proxemics. Instead, we communicated with public proxemics. Thus, the space that which we put between each other was substantial. Instead of pinning ourselves near each other, we strung ourselves away from one another. The gentleman in the business suit, for example, stood a solid ten or fifteen paces away from his closest neighbor. Even when the business lady with the hand-held mirror arrived (she was the last arriving passenger) she intentionally scrolled past each waiting passenger—the business man, several other passengers, and finally myself—to occupy her own space at the far end of the platform. More to the point, three other passengers—one man and two women—each waited within separate partitions. Rather than sharing a partition, they required separate partitions. And no other waiting passenger, about fifteen or twenty in total, disturbed their partitions either. I imagine that if I sauntered into one of their partitions, they would have scrambled away to another partition,—a literal or figurative one—or would’ve scoffed under their breaths.
The final unwritten rule I would like to discuss is in regards to the general agreement to not verbally speak to one another. I waited for roughly ten minutes for the train to arrive and not one conversation or brief dialogue was conducted. In fact, only one sentence was muttered. Before one lady entered into her partition, she asked the business gentleman if he knew the time. But, instead of verbally replying to her question, he gestured to a screen located underneath the canopy for which displayed the time. This gentleman, however, wasn’t the only person who didn’t wish to speak. For instance, the majority of us were listening to our iPods. Thus, rather than participating in an external conversation we consumed ourselves in an internal world, a world where no other person can penetrate.
Perhaps these rules might not apply as distinctly to children or close friends. Perhaps children might feel free to look at whomever they please, and perhaps close friends might feel free to converse openly. But on this particular morning no children were present, and no friends, if there were any, distinguished themselves. Instead, all persons boarding the train were disconnected adults; strangers who, for the most part, intuitively understood the key unwritten passenger rules. I imagine that if an adult similar to myself sauntered onto this platform possessing zero or little prior knowledge of the unwritten rules that he or she would catch-on rather quickly. After all, on this platform, no external personalities exist. Every single rider is expected act in an introverted way.
Question: The book talks about culture differences a lot. For instance, it mentions that in some cultures eating dogs is normal. If you were forced to live in a different culture do you think you would willingly/unconsciously adapt to their behaviors and beliefs? Or do you think you would stick with your own?
A few mornings ago I took the metro transit Light Rail from the 28th avenue station, located a few minutes away from the Mall of America, to downtown Minneapolis. Before I boarded the train, however, I noticed some unique cultural habits from all waiting passengers, including myself.
First of all, as already narrated, we rarely looked at one another. For instance, while waiting on the platform, one gentleman in a business suit was staring into the 28th avenue parking ramp, one woman was glancing at herself in a hand-held mirror, and three other single riders were staring at the ground. As for myself, even when I snuck my attention away from counting the bricks of the platform to the business lady spotting herself in her mirror, I twisted away once she intuitively shifted her eyes to my intrusion. Immediately I knew that I had broken a passenger rule—No Wandering Eyes.
Secondly, we expressed our collective disconnection from not just our reluctance to look at one another, but also in the way that we stood separate from one another. As one might predict, we didn’t nonverbally communicate with intimate proxemics, personal proxemics, or social proxemics. Instead, we communicated with public proxemics. Thus, the space that which we put between each other was substantial. Instead of pinning ourselves near each other, we strung ourselves away from one another. The gentleman in the business suit, for example, stood a solid ten or fifteen paces away from his closest neighbor. Even when the business lady with the hand-held mirror arrived (she was the last arriving passenger) she intentionally scrolled past each waiting passenger—the business man, several other passengers, and finally myself—to occupy her own space at the far end of the platform. More to the point, three other passengers—one man and two women—each waited within separate partitions. Rather than sharing a partition, they required separate partitions. And no other waiting passenger, about fifteen or twenty in total, disturbed their partitions either. I imagine that if I sauntered into one of their partitions, they would have scrambled away to another partition,—a literal or figurative one—or would’ve scoffed under their breaths.
The final unwritten rule I would like to discuss is in regards to the general agreement to not verbally speak to one another. I waited for roughly ten minutes for the train to arrive and not one conversation or brief dialogue was conducted. In fact, only one sentence was muttered. Before one lady entered into her partition, she asked the business gentleman if he knew the time. But, instead of verbally replying to her question, he gestured to a screen located underneath the canopy for which displayed the time. This gentleman, however, wasn’t the only person who didn’t wish to speak. For instance, the majority of us were listening to our iPods. Thus, rather than participating in an external conversation we consumed ourselves in an internal world, a world where no other person can penetrate.
Perhaps these rules might not apply as distinctly to children or close friends. Perhaps children might feel free to look at whomever they please, and perhaps close friends might feel free to converse openly. But on this particular morning no children were present, and no friends, if there were any, distinguished themselves. Instead, all persons boarding the train were disconnected adults; strangers who, for the most part, intuitively understood the key unwritten passenger rules. I imagine that if an adult similar to myself sauntered onto this platform possessing zero or little prior knowledge of the unwritten rules that he or she would catch-on rather quickly. After all, on this platform, no external personalities exist. Every single rider is expected act in an introverted way.
Question: The book talks about culture differences a lot. For instance, it mentions that in some cultures eating dogs is normal. If you were forced to live in a different culture do you think you would willingly/unconsciously adapt to their behaviors and beliefs? Or do you think you would stick with your own?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
"Far and Away" Analysis
The dream to live a life of one’s own and not a life pre-scripted by others consumes Joseph Donnelly (played by Tom Cruise) and Shannon Christie (played by Nicole Kidman) in the movie Far and Away. In the case of Donnelly, he dreams of working a land of his own whereas Shannon desires to escape her predictable and slow-moving aristocratic pleasantries. But even though they share similar passions to emigrate to America they both face a few individual challenges when the blue-collar and indiscreet Modern America hits them in the face.
From the onset, the viewer realizes Donnelly’s dreamy personality. For instance, before his father breathes his last breath, and upon his father advising him to renounce his immature dreams, Joseph holds fast to his dreams by foretelling to his father that someday he will work his own land. More to the point, one even sees that not being able to work his own land infuriates Donnelly. First of all, he sets out to murder his landowner, Mr. Daniel Christie, who had raised rent money on Donnelly’s land, and who was the figurehead behind Stephen Chase, Christie’s first-in-command, in burning down Donnelly’s home due to overdue rents. And secondly, in a fit of rage, Donnelly knocks Chase onto the ground, steps on his throat, and proclaims in unwavering fashion that he wants his land. Thus, Donnelly’s dream to work his own land influenced his desire to leave Ireland for a freer America.
At this point one might argue that Donnelly didn’t initially flee with Shannon to America because of his disbelief in her claim about the Oklahoma land rush. But considering Donnelly’s determination to achieve his dream—his willingness to kill, to assault—it seems unlikely that his dream didn’t influence him riding off with Shannon instead of, most likely, dying in his duel with Stephen Chase.
Like Donnelly, Shannon Christie’s deep desire to live her own life influences her decision to run away to America. Her dislike for her life in Ireland unfolds with her visual obsession with what she considers different and exciting. For instance, because of her duty as a young lady to maintain her virginity, she cannot stop staring at Donnelly’s naked wounded body. Nonetheless, The best example of the former occurs when she is playing classical music for her mother’s friends and suddenly breaks into a faster and louder modern tune. And even though Shannon notices the stunned faces, especially her mother’s bewildered look, she doesn’t stop. Instead, she continues playing, thus expressing her fearlessness and wish to be different, to act modern. The latter is especially true when she declares happily to her audience that her new style of music is modern music from America. Clearly, Shannon’s wish for a different and more exciting life she emigrates to America with Joseph Donnelly.
But once Donnelly and Shannon reach America they both face a few individual challenges offered to them. For Shannon, for example, after her silver spoons are stolen, she finds difficulty adjusting to a lower status lifestyle—the same blue-collar lifestyle that Joseph Donnelly represents. For instance, she cringes after realizing that her and Donnelly must live in a small room with only one bed. Donnelly, on the other hand, is unbothered by the matter. In fact, while Shannon pouts on her bed when they are getting ready for bed, Donnelly comments that he enjoys America thus far.
Shannon’s dislike for America is shown clearly when her internal struggle with her class change convinces her to become a dancer at Mike Kelly’s place in order to prove to Donnelly that she can make as much money as him. More to the point, Shannon’s internal struggle with her lower societal status reaches a climax when Donnelly tosses her into a bathtub and asks her why she cannot compliment him for his recent economic success. In a way, Donnelly is asking Shannon why she cannot accept the possibility that a lower status man like himself can be as successful, or in this case more successful, than her.
On the other hand, Donnelly doesn’t struggle internally with his lower status, but rather struggles to accept that his new acquaintances do not respect him, but rather are using his fighting skills to make more money for themselves. For instance, when Shannon tells Donnelly that Mike Kelly and every other person for whom has acquainted themselves with him because of his success as a fighter, do not respect him, but rather are using him in order to capitalize off his success, he shrugs his shoulders and offers a smile. From his reaction, the viewer interprets that Donnelly agrees with Shannon’s opinion but doesn’t want to accept her theory. Thus, Donnelly struggles with his hope that the average person likes him for who he truly is—an Irishman named Joseph Donnelly.
Shannon’s internal struggle to accept a lower status lifestyle and Donnelly’s struggle to see clearly who respects him and who doesn’t, clearly illustrate a few of their many individual challenges in modern America before they both reach the Oklahoma land rush in the end; the moment where Donnelly achieves his dream to work his own land, and where Shannon can begin a new modern life.
Questions:
1. I’ve seen this movie a few times now and I still would’ve liked to see Joseph’s inability to read to be highlighted more as a struggle for him in America. How do you think his inability to read (possibly write too, even though that remains unclear in the film) could’ve impacted him in America?
2. Did you find it interesting that Joseph started the movie as Shannon’s companion but as the movie progressed Shannon, especially after Mike Kelly banishes them, becomes his companion? Why or why not?
From the onset, the viewer realizes Donnelly’s dreamy personality. For instance, before his father breathes his last breath, and upon his father advising him to renounce his immature dreams, Joseph holds fast to his dreams by foretelling to his father that someday he will work his own land. More to the point, one even sees that not being able to work his own land infuriates Donnelly. First of all, he sets out to murder his landowner, Mr. Daniel Christie, who had raised rent money on Donnelly’s land, and who was the figurehead behind Stephen Chase, Christie’s first-in-command, in burning down Donnelly’s home due to overdue rents. And secondly, in a fit of rage, Donnelly knocks Chase onto the ground, steps on his throat, and proclaims in unwavering fashion that he wants his land. Thus, Donnelly’s dream to work his own land influenced his desire to leave Ireland for a freer America.
At this point one might argue that Donnelly didn’t initially flee with Shannon to America because of his disbelief in her claim about the Oklahoma land rush. But considering Donnelly’s determination to achieve his dream—his willingness to kill, to assault—it seems unlikely that his dream didn’t influence him riding off with Shannon instead of, most likely, dying in his duel with Stephen Chase.
Like Donnelly, Shannon Christie’s deep desire to live her own life influences her decision to run away to America. Her dislike for her life in Ireland unfolds with her visual obsession with what she considers different and exciting. For instance, because of her duty as a young lady to maintain her virginity, she cannot stop staring at Donnelly’s naked wounded body. Nonetheless, The best example of the former occurs when she is playing classical music for her mother’s friends and suddenly breaks into a faster and louder modern tune. And even though Shannon notices the stunned faces, especially her mother’s bewildered look, she doesn’t stop. Instead, she continues playing, thus expressing her fearlessness and wish to be different, to act modern. The latter is especially true when she declares happily to her audience that her new style of music is modern music from America. Clearly, Shannon’s wish for a different and more exciting life she emigrates to America with Joseph Donnelly.
But once Donnelly and Shannon reach America they both face a few individual challenges offered to them. For Shannon, for example, after her silver spoons are stolen, she finds difficulty adjusting to a lower status lifestyle—the same blue-collar lifestyle that Joseph Donnelly represents. For instance, she cringes after realizing that her and Donnelly must live in a small room with only one bed. Donnelly, on the other hand, is unbothered by the matter. In fact, while Shannon pouts on her bed when they are getting ready for bed, Donnelly comments that he enjoys America thus far.
Shannon’s dislike for America is shown clearly when her internal struggle with her class change convinces her to become a dancer at Mike Kelly’s place in order to prove to Donnelly that she can make as much money as him. More to the point, Shannon’s internal struggle with her lower societal status reaches a climax when Donnelly tosses her into a bathtub and asks her why she cannot compliment him for his recent economic success. In a way, Donnelly is asking Shannon why she cannot accept the possibility that a lower status man like himself can be as successful, or in this case more successful, than her.
On the other hand, Donnelly doesn’t struggle internally with his lower status, but rather struggles to accept that his new acquaintances do not respect him, but rather are using his fighting skills to make more money for themselves. For instance, when Shannon tells Donnelly that Mike Kelly and every other person for whom has acquainted themselves with him because of his success as a fighter, do not respect him, but rather are using him in order to capitalize off his success, he shrugs his shoulders and offers a smile. From his reaction, the viewer interprets that Donnelly agrees with Shannon’s opinion but doesn’t want to accept her theory. Thus, Donnelly struggles with his hope that the average person likes him for who he truly is—an Irishman named Joseph Donnelly.
Shannon’s internal struggle to accept a lower status lifestyle and Donnelly’s struggle to see clearly who respects him and who doesn’t, clearly illustrate a few of their many individual challenges in modern America before they both reach the Oklahoma land rush in the end; the moment where Donnelly achieves his dream to work his own land, and where Shannon can begin a new modern life.
Questions:
1. I’ve seen this movie a few times now and I still would’ve liked to see Joseph’s inability to read to be highlighted more as a struggle for him in America. How do you think his inability to read (possibly write too, even though that remains unclear in the film) could’ve impacted him in America?
2. Did you find it interesting that Joseph started the movie as Shannon’s companion but as the movie progressed Shannon, especially after Mike Kelly banishes them, becomes his companion? Why or why not?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Two Truths and One Lie
1. I love basketball but hate the NBA
2. I have a paranoia of stepping on worms
3. I am related to Shoeless Joe Jackson, the former outfielder for the White Sox during the 1919 Black Sox scandal.
2. I have a paranoia of stepping on worms
3. I am related to Shoeless Joe Jackson, the former outfielder for the White Sox during the 1919 Black Sox scandal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)