China the new ‘glam’ country?
A few days ago, my mother’s China student proudly declared to her, “Very soon the entire world will be learning Chinese because China is the superpower of the 21st century! There won’t be any need for the Chinese to learn English; the world will have to learn Chinese if they want to work with China!”
My mother, previously an English teacher at a private school, then asked her, “If that’s the case, why are you learning English?”
“Because I want to go to America and live there,” the student replied. Needless to say, her final destination was either California (Los Angeles) or New York City. Most of my mother’s China students, despite professing China to be the best country in the world, have intentions of heading to the United States once they have the relevant qualifications to find work there. To them, the United States is the land of glamour, Hollywood, movie stars, freedom, and Donald Trump’s apprentices striding around Wall Street in imposing business suits.
This little episode made me think about the cultural imperialism debate. When one speaks of cultural imperialism, the dominant ‘culture’ in question here would most probably be the United States. Ever since the rise in technology and media forty to fifty years ago, the culture of the United States has flooded the world. I recall someone being quoted once as saying that “the biggest export of the United States is its entertainment and culture.” Certainly the world has embraced the U.S.’ culture with wide open arms. Singaporean youths in particular have adopted many of the American views towards behaviour and expression; American slang has also crept into our youth language. It’s cool to be as ‘Western’ as possible (speaking in an American accent, behaving like a Western (or what we view as Western), liking Western entertainment), while our own Asian culture takes a very small backseat.
There are many reasons for the United States’ cultural dominance in our lives, but I shall only highlight a few. U.S. has the richest and most advanced filmmaking industry; its movies and television dramas are aired in most parts of the world and, as discussed in a previous lecture, less developed countries depend on the U.S. to fill up their local airtime. Same goes to the music industry; the U.S. has the power to push forward its musical genres like jazz, blues, country, R&B, etc. The U.S. also has the benefit of its main language being English. As English is recognized as ‘the international language’, more countries would readily purchase programmes from the U.S. as compared to, say, Japan or India. Besides, the U.S. is in general viewed favourably by the world as a rich, glamourous, free and open-minded country.
Knowing all these reasons, I shall now refer back to what my mother’s China student said about China’s coming dominance in the 21st century. China may be the up and coming economic superpower, but will it ever be able to achieve worldwide cultural imperialism (or even, for that matter, regionally)? My opinion is that even if it does, it will take at least fifty years to reach the level of cultural imperialism by the U.S. For one, Mandarin Chinese is definitely not an international language, and, unlike the highly flexible and fluid English, is too stiff and set in its construction to become one. For two, China’s worldwide reputation is still somewhat tarnished by its Communist past (and present). It will take a couple of generations to correct this reputation into one as favourable as the U.S.’. Lastly, China’s political climate does not allow for the same creativity and freedom of expression seen in the U.S.’ media and entertainment. Numerous films, commercials, and print advertisements are banned in China, some for very obscure hidden meanings that may or may not have even been intended by the makers. This climate stifles the opportunity of filmmakers and musicians in China to create something truly groundbreaking. An example of this would be the mania over ‘Kungfu Panda’ last year; most Chinese citizens asked why China could not produce such a culturally appealing movie when foreigners could. A filmmaker replied to the complaints saying that the industry was under too many restrictions to produce something creative.
Cultural imperialism is therefore not something that can be achieved so easily. Language, reputation, political freedom and economic/technological prowess all contribute towards it; while China may be the fastest growing industry in the world, I do not think that they are adequate enough in those four areas to become a cultural power within a generation. And, I beg to differ from my mother’s China student’s opinion; Mandarin Chinese may be the most popular language for people to learn now, but English will still remain the international language for a long while yet. It doesn’t do to be too ethnocentric!
Who are we in cyberspace?
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), how does it change the way we communicate, and is it a good or bad thing in the world of communication?
‘Hiding’ behind a screen so to speak, using anonymous usernames and text to express ourselves, having fake ‘identities’ that cannot be traced back to us unless someone makes the effort to do a background check; how does it affect the way the CMC community behaves as opposed to how it would in real life?
I came across a newspaper report in TNP headlined “Rude names, lewd remarks, ‘uglified’ photos, unkind rumours…Celeb blogger Dawn Yang asks: Why go to such lengths to hate me?” The report was about the cyber-bullying that Dawn Yang (pictured above) has been receiving on online forums and such, with netizens doing things like photo-manipulating her pictures (such as attaching a male private part to her body, and making her face look like an ape’s). They also flamed her with insults like “Dawn is a slut, she is ugly, she is stupid, she is dung.”
Dawn Yang was quoted saying “How could a normal sane person not feel pained and aggrieved reading all this?…anonymity on the Internet is too helpful for those who hide behind it. I am sure these people would not dare to write the things they do if they had to do so with their real identities.”
Of course, people tend to be more unrestrained online. Minus the barriers that we encounter in real life communication such as our identities, reputations, appearances, etc., we are usually able to express ourselves more truthfully online than in RL. In a sense, CMC brings out ugly sides of ourselves that we’re not comfortable with revealing in RL. There are even people who, in Dawn Yang’s case, are so involved with their online activities that they spend hours photo-manipulating pictures and posting up derogatory posts about someone that they’ve never even met. This is definitely a case of accountability and mutual respect, which is inherent in RL, being completely ignored in the online world.
Then again, it would be a sweeping statement to say that CMC brings out the ugly sides of people. As observed by Sherry Turkle, “In cyberspace ,we…assume personae of our own creation. We have…people with whom we have fairly intimate relationships, but whom we may have never met.”
In constructing our online personalities, we also gain online friends and an online reputation in a particular area of the Internet. Not having the benefit of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, paralinguistic, etc., we tend to be more sensitive and tactful when speaking to people online as text can be interpreted in many different ways (e.g. you might not intend to sound sarcastic, but the other person receiving your text message may think that you are). We are also more accepting of people, taking them at “text value”, and tend to be able to reveal more to our online friends due to the lack of criticism and judgment. If CMC brings out the ugly sides of people, so too does it, in a way, bring out the better sides of people.
So do you think that CMC is more of a good or bad thing in communication? In my opinion, being an avid Internet user myself, CMC paves the way for one to meet many people in various countries that one would otherwise not meet. We are able to exchange cultural information, learn about each other’s attitudes and behaviours, and talk about things that we are not able to in RL due to the fact that RL friends and ourselves tend to exist in the same ‘setting’. There are cyber-bullies, yes, and people who abuse anonymity on the Internet, but they are far less than the overall goodwill and respect that is found on the Net (or perhaps I don’t surf enough ‘flaming’ sites?).
What we should remember, though, is that no matter how anonymous you are on the net, you can still be traced. All those people who flamed Dawn Yang ‘anonymously’ are making a big mistake; they are giving their emotions a release through what they deem as anonymity on the Internet. If Dawn Yang chooses to trace them, the issue of accountability would come into play. Defamation and copyright violation? Who knows? One is never truly anonymous nor safe in cyberspace.
Invasion of the Mainland Chinese
vs. 
I think that most Singaporeans should, by now, be very familiar with the ‘China invasion’ that has overtaken our island in recent years. Ever since the turn of the millennium, the Chinese have flooded the world, particularly the Chinese-speaking parts. In Singapore we’ve witnessed the Chinese integrating into all aspects of our lives; old drinks-selling aunties have been replaced by young Chinese girls, Bangladeshi construction workers now share half their trucks with Chinese workers, many places in our local universities and polytechnics are filled by Chinese students, etc; the list is inexhaustible.
Of course this integration has been met by resistance by Singaporeans. Proud, perhaps, of the fact that we’re “overseas Chinese” who can effectively hold a conversation in English, we “look down” on the Mainland Chinese much as the Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese do. In our collective consciousness, the Mainland Chinese are loud, noisy, uncouth, unmannerly, destructive, and uncultured. Despite the fact that they speak much purer Mandarin than we do, we ignore that and, instead, make fun of their accents as being unintelligible. When talking about them, we exaggerate their loudness and mannerisms, and tend to talk more about the negative aspects than the positive, even though both exist. In other words, we’re extremely prejudiced and ethnocentric.
This makes me think about how, as a whole, cultures view other cultures. While we might call ourselves modern and open-minded, the fact remains that nearly every culture on earth is ethnocentric. For example, the Mainland Chinese think they’re better than the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese think they’re better than the Mainland Chinese. The Japanese think they’re superior to the rest of Asia. The Singaporeans think they’re better than the Malaysians. The Indians think they’re better than the Pakistanis. The British think they’re better than the Americans. And so on and so forth down the line.
Yet, how much concrete evidence do we have to be making such assumptions that we’re ‘better’ than some other culture, and how does this affect our intercultural communication? Coming back to the ‘China invasion’, there are few among the people I know who actually have direct contact with Mainland Chinese. Most of us assume attitudes towards them that are the social norm. We don’t actually make judgments based on our own observations. While there are Chinese who are loud and noisy, there are also many who are soft-spoken. While there are Chinese who are ill-mannered, there are many others who are well-behaved. But we blind ourselves to the quiet, mannerly ones and choose instead to avoid communicating with the bulk of the Mainland Chinese. We don’t talk to them, don’t wish to talk to them, and try to stay away from them, establishing a very clear “them and us” mentality.
Then again, if the ‘China invasion’ was, instead, the ‘American invasion’ or the ‘Japanese invasion’ or the ‘Korean invasion’, would we still feel the same way seeing as we view Americans, Japanese, and Koreans in a far more positive light? Somehow I feel that we would be much kinder and more tolerant, perhaps even welcoming, even if Americans, Japanese and Koreans are in actual fact no better or worse than the Mainland Chinese.
How aware are we really of all these barriers to intercultural communication, and how much do we ‘miss out’ simply because we have negative stereotypes that are formed by society and not the individual? Do you have any cultures that you look down on? Be truthful, now!
Is every man capable of cruelty?
The henchman of Pol Pot, Duch, on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity during Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge reign of terror from 1975-1979.
A couple of days ago I was going through the newspapers when I saw a news article on the henchman of Pol Pot during Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge years being put on trial for crimes against humanity. His name was Duch and he had been the head of the infamous S-21 prison in Phnom Penh where he had engaged in several inhumane acts against the prisoners, which include torturing them, using electric shock in forcing confessions, pouring water into their noses, and bludgeoning them to death in fields. Duch and four other senior Khmer Rouge cadres are alleged to have caused the deaths of 1.7 million people from 1975-1979. There is a detailed report on Radio Free Asia [here].
One thing that struck me while reading the report was a survivor who said “All I want to know is why he did it. How can a human commit such atrocities against other human beings?”
After the communications class on Friday in which we went through the concept of “groupthink”, I shall make an attempt to explain my understanding of how man can commit hideous war crimes.
How cruel is a man by himself? Throughout history we have had serial killers, rapists and murderers, but overall I would say that a man left to himself is of little harm in the general public (unless, of course, he is Stalin or Hitler or Mao Zedong, and even then they committed crimes alongside their top supporters). The truly cruel side of a human being comes out when he is among a group of other people committing the same cruel acts. ‘Groupthink’ is defined as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members” strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action’. In layman’s terms, it means that a close group will override morals and negative feedback in order to perform according to their beliefs.
I believe this is what happened with the Khmer Rouge officials and other notorious political criminals such as the Nazis, Communists, Japanese imperial army during WW2, etc. They had faith in their own morality (“it is right to kill those who oppose us even if they are merely civilians”), collective rationalization (together, they convinced themselves of the so-called ‘justice’ of killing millions in the name of Communism), shared stereotypes (“all Jews must be executed for good of the world”), pressure on dissenters (those who were against the regime would be persecuted alongside the other ‘political prisoners’), and mind-guards (propaganda generated from the higher ups). As a group, they formed their own morals and acted accordingly.
It also reminds me of something I learned in my Social Psychology class back in my polytechnic days, which is very much similar to ‘groupthink’; the experiment of how far a person would go under orders. An experiment was conducted in which a person was told to ask another person questions. If person B answered the questions wrongly, person A was to administer a mild electric shock to him. It turned out that person B answered many questions wrongly (unawares to person A, he was acting as part of the experiment) and person A continued administering electric shocks to him even after B was screaming in pain. Many soldiers, when questioned on their acts after the war, replied simply “I was under orders.” This experiment proves that a normal man can, indeed, torture and kill fellow human beings when under orders.
A group that is under orders or performing the same acts together, is capable of far greater cruelty than a man operating on his own. For one, you do not wish to appear ‘against’ the group, nor do you want to risk punishment that may follow from not conforming. For two, acting as a group gives you a false sense of morality through collective reasoning. For three, it gives you courage as you tend to believe that you are more invulnerable as a group than as an individual, and therefore consequences from these acts should cause you less harm.
I hope that all of us can understand from Khmer Rouge, Nazis et. al how frightening ‘groupthink’ can be. As a Chinese saying goes, ‘one chopstick alone can be broken, but many chopsticks together cannot’.
What are you guys’ views on groupthink? Do you think it explains in part the horrifying acts of Khmer Rouge against the Cambodians from 1975-1979, and all the other war crimes committed in the history of warfare?
Let’s have babies and then again let’s not
‘Love at first sight? More like lust at first sight.’
So says The New Paper on a new autobiographical book by the advertising mogul, Jacques Seguela, which describes in detail the evening when French President Nicolas Sakozy met former model Carla Brunei. Sarkozy and Bruni married seven weeks later in an infamous affair that set the tabloids’ tongues wagging. [Click here for a BBC report on the details.]
The account of that dinner party is an excellent example of how a relationship can be formed through reciprocity and liking, interactional and cognitive cues. Almost immediately, Ms Bruni and Mr Sakozy were drawn to each other through eye contact and, before long, Ms Bruni was using the informal ‘tu’ (you) in addressing Mr Sakozy. This shows clearly that both of them were aware that attraction existed on both sides and this led to increased efforts throughout the evening.
Of Duck’s ‘filtering theory’ of screening potential relational partners, Mr Sakozy and Ms Bruni certainly used the cues during interaction. Through their verbal barbs and teasing, they were ascertaining themselves of each other’s wit and humour, and assessing how well they would get along in future.
An example in case:
Sakozy (referring to attending Ms Bruni’s upcoming concert): “We will announce our engagement. You will see, we will do better than Marilyn and Kennedy.”
Bruni: “Engagement, never! From now on I will only live with a man who gives me a child.”
Sakozy: “I have already brought up five. Why not six?”
By assuring each other, albeit teasingly, that their interests lay within the same area, they were screening one another during the entire evening. As we now know, their screening was successful as they were very shortly married.
The opposite end of the relationship spectrum is also getting busy. Much to everyone’s surprise, Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo went official last Friday with their split when Glenn announced it on the Morning Express. (FYI, Glenn and Jamie were a high-profile couple as they are both radio DJs and appeared to have shared an extremely strong relationship ever since they started dating in 2001.) In today’s New Paper article, ‘Glenn Ong says split with Jamie Yeo was inevitable: No quarrels, we just drifted apart’, Glenn Ong demonstrated several relationship disengagement strategies. He did not attach blame to either side, saying instead that “The split was amicable and we still talk”, and redefined their relationship positively “I still think Jamie is a great girl. I hope she still thinks I’m a great guy.”
He also justified the breakup, saying, “Jamie and I thought long and hard about it. If it didn’t happen now, it could’ve happened in 10 or 20 years. We’ve drifted apart and we have different goals.”
What do you guys think about the two relationships? Do you think Sarkozy and Bruni are really ‘soulmates’ or did they not give themselves enough time to ‘filter’ each other (hence leading to possible split in the future)? And do you think Glenn’s approach to his breakup with Jamie is a good one?
Non-verbal doctors
(Please click on picture to access video clip.)
The above clip is taken from a recent Japanese drama titled “Code Blue”, about four young doctors who do an internship at a hospital that offers the “Doctor Heli(copter)” service. In this scene, they are all getting ready for their first day at work while the veteran surgeon rides on the helicopter with a nurse. Although few words are used in this introduction, I think that the director has effectively made use of non-verbal cues, especially kinesics, in order to portray the distinctive personalities of each character.
The first intern, Shiraishi, is seen meticulously clipping pens to her uniform and putting in manuals and notebooks into her pockets. She then closes her eyes and takes a deep breath before closing her locker. Through these actions, it is clear that she is a person who goes very much by the book and perhaps is lacking a little in confidence.
The second intern, Hiyama, applies lip gloss, ties her hair back while using her teeth to grip her nametag, and gives a “let’s do it” look before moving on. As opposed to Shiraishi, we immediately know that Hiyama is not lacking in confidence, might be an aggressive and straightforward personality, and, due to her grooming, is probably also more interested in appearances.
The third intern, Fujikawa, at first comes across as confident by checking his penlight, but after that stuffs a huge bunch of things into his locker and forces the door close, only to have everything spilling out when he leaves. He immediately shows himself to be a messy, scatter-brained person who possibly lacks a central focus and may not be efficient or skillful.
The third intern, Aizawa, puts on his uniform calmly, twirls a pen, and gives a grim, expressionless look before closing the locker. Unlike the rest, who show signs of anxiety, he seems relatively unaffected by it being the first day of his internship. We can tell that he is someone confident to the point of narcissism, a little cold-hearted, and possibly the most skillful doctor of the four of them.
Moving away from kinesics, paralinguistics is now employed in creating an impression of the veteran doctor in the helicopter. Although all he says are very short, succinct words without any special meaning attached to them, his manner of speaking shows that he doesn’t have much interest in the interns who are arriving. If anything, he’s weary of them and simply wishes to get on with his work, which, from the way he handles the clipboard and talks to the control station, he appears to be efficient and knowledgeable about.
So, as can be seen from these impressions, the director has, in a mere two minutes, employed body language and facial expressions in introducing each character to us. Even before the verbal communication and situations begin, we have formed opinions of each personality which will most likely last throughout the viewing of this drama. It reinforces the fact that we are really very perceptive of the little non-verbal cues that we pick up from the people around us, and the influence of those cues is tremendous. Non-verbal communication is certainly very powerful!
What do you guys think? Do you think the director has effectively portrayed those characters’ personalities? (Apart from the blatant fanservice-y moments of Aizawa standing topless before the lockers, apologies that I couldn’t cut them out), did you receive the same impressions as I did, or have you read even more into them?
Presidents in the making love communication strategies
On Tuesday, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the new President of the United States. Over two million people turned up to listen to his inauguration speech, and there were many more viewers tuned in on their television sets. According to an American friend of mine, classes were even cancelled so that the students and teachers could watch the event. The international media, stock markets, and people from other countries settled down to watch as well.
Given that this is the inauguration of the new President of the United States, the world’s powerhouse, it is only to be expected that the world will take an interest in it. But there is definitely more anticipation for Obama’s inauguration than one would normally expect and while there are numerous reasons for this, such as relief at the end of the Bush administration and a hope for rebuilding of the economy, etc., I shall discuss a couple of reasons relating to Obama himself.
Obama is a fantastic orator who knows how to bring out the charisma of his personality through speeches. While there have been alternatively debates over and support for his policies and socialist views, my opinion is that he gained many supporters through his gift of speech delivery. This is not uncommon as great, well-known orators from the past like Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and even Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew have made use of effective oratory in order to win the public’s approval.
I was reminded of the power of oratory when a friend linked me to a video of the political commentor, John Stewart, on Obama’s inauguration speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbnpRcj4RvI in which he pulled out several quotes from Bush and Obama that are uncannily alike.
Bush: “Freedom is the gift of almighty God.”
Obama: “The God-given promise that all are equal, all are free.”
Bush: “We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life.”
Obama: “We will not apologise for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.”
Apart from the obvious fact that Obama’s speechmaker drew inspiration from various Bush speeches (or that he and Bush’s speechmaker are of “great minds think alike”), it is striking to note that while Bush has been mocked for his infamous “Bush-isms” and simplistic views, Obama is praised for saying almost exactly the same things.
This is really a good demonstration of ‘lexis’ (the style and delivery of a speech) in action. Obama delivers his speech in a rousing manner that is full of conviction, and compels the listeners to focus more on his manner of speaking than on the words themselves. He also makes good use of ‘ethos’ (persuasiveness of one’s character), by always appearing humble and sincere. In fact, he did say at the beginning of his inauguration speech: “I stand before you…[dramatic pause]…humbled.” Who wouldn’t be impressed by that?
Aside from oratory, the media plays a huge part in making Obama appeal to our emotions. There were several reports on Obama and his wife dancing at the ball (to quote reports: “their eyes shone when they looked at each other”) and his daughters, family life, grandparents, etc. Portraying Obama as a family man who came from a normal background and loves his wife, effectively creating the “he’s one of us” image, appeals to our emotions. We are always more willing to support someone whom we can relate to, and I think all of us consciously or unconsciously became more sympathetic towards Obama when he was shown as a “normal” man who became President. (Other politicians, particularly Singaporeans, have also tried to play this strategy but with much less effect)
As for whether or not Obama will deliver on all that he has promised, I have no idea. But the fact remains that he has gotten to where he is today based largely on his oratorical skills and sympathetic portrayal in the media, and as such has made really good use of communication strategies (do you think Obama is familiar with ethos, pathos, logos,…?)
Now I only wish that our local politicians would take a lesson or two from him about oratory and stop looking at their notes whenever they give a speech…
In the name of communications
Over the course of the next eight weeks, or perhaps more, this will be my Communications blog in which I endeavour to discuss my thoughts and opinions on communicative stuff in a manner that will encourage discussion. So please humour me and remember to leave comments if any of the topics in this blog happen to stir your interest.
With this introduction, I shall now embark on my efforts to appear learned and interesting 🙂
countless types of ambiguities 