International Communication Rears Its Ugly Head
“In order to discuss religion, people have a hard time being neutral.” Jen brings up an excellent point – I think part of the core of Inayatullah and Blaney’s “solution” to the problem of difference (see p. 220). In my final IC class meeting this semester, we discussed the ides of interpretation of communication – how the recipient of a message cannot come to it neutrally. They have a life worth of experiences, belief systems, personality, general disposition, and environment manipulating everything they hear. We got into such a volleying discussion on Tuesday because people have different backgrounds, and belief, as we discussed, is often non-negotiable.
In their “solution” I&B place responsibility on the oppressed to approach the oppressor in the oppressor’s language and with the oppressor’s self-interest in mind. I think this is a good way to go about it – the more clearly something is presented to the recipient of a message, and the more this recipient’s predisposition is considered in the communication of the message, the greater the chance that the recipient hears what the communicator is saying. However, approaching such a sensitive issue as religion, or development, or any imposition of one culture’s norms onto another’s is very difficult to consider neutrally at all.
I think it is good that ProfPTJ brought up development (as, you know, the book talks about it a lot). People talk about cultural imperialism like it is a horrible thing: OMG, there’re more McDonalds around the world than anyone could imagine, my Starbucks coffee in Paris tastes exactly like my Starbucks coffee in my hometown, everyone with a television on earth has a chance to know about the joy and wonder that is Friends, we need to make the world more democratic and consumerist so they can play the game of life on the same level as us (slight exaggerations, I know). Wait…isn’t making a country more democratic and giving them marketplaces and our forms of economic interactions…development? Yes, there are fundamentals in life – being alive is sometimes considered a good thing, animals (including humans) tend to need sustenance of some sort, hydration is also important, as is (more arguably) community. However, the bar that the dominant nations set as “developed” may not be the only way to survive happily and productively. I think I&B are right with their spatio-temporal difference observation following from Todorov’s assimilation idea: in order to be able to communicate effectively (including economic ties, intellectual exchange, humanitarian ideals, everything else that could be construed as a kind of communication), we need to make the “other” more like us so we can understand them. Their “solution” also presents what I see as a viable means for solving difference – NOT eliminating difference – but having difference be less of an issue. I think, however, there should be a role for the oppressing nations too – to listen and hear what those in difference are trying to say. IF (and this is the hopeful side in me talking) this could happen, then possibly we would know what other people want and need, and not have to assume that we’re all the same.
I think it is quite accurate that Ben and Jen bring up the parallel between high school and life: I present to you my own brief anecdote: I have spent 7 summers working at a residential summer camp (under the auspices of a religious organization, but not limited to those belonging to it). Every week, 16 kids show up. I’ve had groups with every high school stereotype imaginable: cheerleaders, jockish popped collar boys, introverted “I write poetry because it is the only way I can express my discontent with society” kids, really down to earth kids you’d think were 80 if you weren’t looking at them, kids who follow laguna beach more closely that current events, etc. They all initially look at each other like, “I’m supposed to spend a week with him?” The student council member or the class clown usually tries to take over for awhile, but it doesn’t really work. They seem to be entirely dysfunctional because of their differences, and none of them will compromise the person they were coming in to be able to get along with the rest. However, if you were to see the group at the end of a week of shared experiences, challenges, and disorientation with their surroundings, you would see the same kids with all their differences having something in common. Though they all go home, they all know that there are 15 other people from around the state with whom they get along.
Communication and hearing are the keys to what I think I&B are saying. Yes, there are many things about self and other and lines, but the key is how the lines are crossed and how self finds other in him and other finds self in him. I see no need for self or other to become same, or for either to not exist – I like how I&B present the third possibility of equal but not assimilated…I think it is a worthy goal to strive towards.
In their “solution” I&B place responsibility on the oppressed to approach the oppressor in the oppressor’s language and with the oppressor’s self-interest in mind. I think this is a good way to go about it – the more clearly something is presented to the recipient of a message, and the more this recipient’s predisposition is considered in the communication of the message, the greater the chance that the recipient hears what the communicator is saying. However, approaching such a sensitive issue as religion, or development, or any imposition of one culture’s norms onto another’s is very difficult to consider neutrally at all.
I think it is good that ProfPTJ brought up development (as, you know, the book talks about it a lot). People talk about cultural imperialism like it is a horrible thing: OMG, there’re more McDonalds around the world than anyone could imagine, my Starbucks coffee in Paris tastes exactly like my Starbucks coffee in my hometown, everyone with a television on earth has a chance to know about the joy and wonder that is Friends, we need to make the world more democratic and consumerist so they can play the game of life on the same level as us (slight exaggerations, I know). Wait…isn’t making a country more democratic and giving them marketplaces and our forms of economic interactions…development? Yes, there are fundamentals in life – being alive is sometimes considered a good thing, animals (including humans) tend to need sustenance of some sort, hydration is also important, as is (more arguably) community. However, the bar that the dominant nations set as “developed” may not be the only way to survive happily and productively. I think I&B are right with their spatio-temporal difference observation following from Todorov’s assimilation idea: in order to be able to communicate effectively (including economic ties, intellectual exchange, humanitarian ideals, everything else that could be construed as a kind of communication), we need to make the “other” more like us so we can understand them. Their “solution” also presents what I see as a viable means for solving difference – NOT eliminating difference – but having difference be less of an issue. I think, however, there should be a role for the oppressing nations too – to listen and hear what those in difference are trying to say. IF (and this is the hopeful side in me talking) this could happen, then possibly we would know what other people want and need, and not have to assume that we’re all the same.
I think it is quite accurate that Ben and Jen bring up the parallel between high school and life: I present to you my own brief anecdote: I have spent 7 summers working at a residential summer camp (under the auspices of a religious organization, but not limited to those belonging to it). Every week, 16 kids show up. I’ve had groups with every high school stereotype imaginable: cheerleaders, jockish popped collar boys, introverted “I write poetry because it is the only way I can express my discontent with society” kids, really down to earth kids you’d think were 80 if you weren’t looking at them, kids who follow laguna beach more closely that current events, etc. They all initially look at each other like, “I’m supposed to spend a week with him?” The student council member or the class clown usually tries to take over for awhile, but it doesn’t really work. They seem to be entirely dysfunctional because of their differences, and none of them will compromise the person they were coming in to be able to get along with the rest. However, if you were to see the group at the end of a week of shared experiences, challenges, and disorientation with their surroundings, you would see the same kids with all their differences having something in common. Though they all go home, they all know that there are 15 other people from around the state with whom they get along.
Communication and hearing are the keys to what I think I&B are saying. Yes, there are many things about self and other and lines, but the key is how the lines are crossed and how self finds other in him and other finds self in him. I see no need for self or other to become same, or for either to not exist – I like how I&B present the third possibility of equal but not assimilated…I think it is a worthy goal to strive towards.
posted by Rebecca at 8:10 AM
<< Home