Monday, April 26, 2010
Clock Opera
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Do You Speak American?
Why is American culture so pervasive? Brazil, for example, and many Spanish-speaking countries have extremely diverse populations. Brazil gained independence from Portugal much later than the United States, thus cultural influences from Europe are quite apparent, not to mention influence from African countries of Mozambique and Angola that contribute to the culture of the south of Brazil. I would even venture to say that Brazil is more demographically diverse (ethnically and racially) than the United States. So what makes us different?
My feeling about American culture’s permeability revolves around a concept we’ve read and talked about in class: Whiteness. I do not think American culture is attractive because it is so “diverse”, as Gitlin claims, but rather because it is so white. Historically as a country, we have perpetuated that idea that whiteness is the superior color, that whites are the most successful. And for the most part, this rings true in the United States. This idea is accepted in countries like Jamaica as well (as we read about in Outliers)—that the whiter you are, the higher social standing you have.
We even see the entertainment industry dominated by whites. Gitlin claims that many actors are from foreign countries, which is true certainly, but he doesn’t account for many of the directors and producers (Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen) that are white men. Even director Wolfgang Petersen, whom Gitlin references as a successful German director, is of course, white. Sure the actor demographic may be diverse, but the people behind the productions do not appear to be.
So why not England? So why not Australia? These countries have a primarily white demographic as well, so why aren’t children in China saying “Gidday Mate”? I am not suggesting that whiteness is the only contributing factor to American culture dominance, but that it should be considered a contributing factor. Consider the following: America was built under a free market system promoting success and the American dream in which anyone could do anything they dreamed possible. America was first populated by white Anglo-Saxons. White Anglo-Saxons have been successful under the American system. Therefore white people are associated with success. This seems like an utterly elementary theory, but this is essentially how the human mind works. We are conditioned to learn associations between two originally unrelated things (whiteness and successfulness) and the association sticks in our minds as long as we continue to see it played out, which we have.
I think that Gitlin raises a good point with the Americanization of countries around the world being imminent, but I do not think the reasons he offers for this globalization are the only explanations. I think that race definitely plays into it, even though no one from China would admit that they are eating McDonald's because white people eat there. I am simply suggesting that America has perpetuated white superiority both covertly and overtly for so long, that it retains some force in shaping how people perceive American culture as dominant, subconsciously.

Some people may consider Vicky Cristina Barcelona a foreign film. What makes it foreign though? The Latino actress? The location (Spain)? The title? This film was directed by American screenwriter Woody Allen.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
392-Rearing
1) The first step is to inform the child about biological differences in gender without teaching them stereotypes associated with them
2) The second step is to teach the child to be skeptical of any cultural messages or stereotypes they are exposed to in the media or in everyday life
The idea is to “provide the child with a critical lens that would predispose them to ‘read’ the culture’s conventional messages in an unconventional way” (WS). I like this method because rather than shielding the child from media—limiting what they can watch and read, whom they can talk to—you provide them with the tools they need to view the world with their own critical eye.
In the second article examined, “Family Structures and Gender Personality: Chodorow, Familism, and Pyschoanalytic Sociology Revisited” Denise Segura and Jennifer Pierce assert that rearing children to be gender-neutral is nearly impossible. Some cultures promote community child-rearing and place emphasis on communitarian rather than individualistic goals. In this case, it seems that employing a “critical lens” while examining cultural messages would be, well, detrimental to the culture. A society such as this requires a certain amount of solidarity and conformity among its members to function appropriately, which leaves little room for the individuality that Bem feels is so important.
The author of this article poses some interesting questions at the end in response to what Bem, Segura, and Price have said. Author WS asserts that we should worry not about raising gender-neutral children, but rather try to raise children with gender-appreciate values. He/she writes “we know that there are distinct differences between men and women; there are some things that women are better at than men and vice versa” (WS). But this claim comes from someone who has (likely) been socialized in a gender-biased society, like most of us are. Are there really distinct differences in the capabilities of men and women? I don’t think so. I think that these “differences” can be overcome by a little psychological overhaul.
There are certainly biological and hormonal differences that make women good with fine motor skills and men good with heavy lifting, but that does not mean that these differences cannot be overcome. It’s an age-old argument, but a good one I believe—we all have certain natural advantages regardless of gender that put us on an uneven playing field, not to mention circumstances that we share with many other people, both men and women. This is not to say that men are incapable of dancing ballet and women of carpentry; just that traditionally we have lent ourselves to these roles. Once we detach ourselves from these traditional obligations, there should be no reason that we cannot do anything.
If we were to raise our children to “appreciate gender differences,” we would, I believe, would be emphasizing the differences and giving people an excuse to blame gender for their shortcomings. I think the better practice is Bem’s, at least for our society, in which children are taught to be skeptical of cultural messages. Using this method we create a society of individuals taught to question and think for themselves, rather than a society that just accepts the stereotypes.
Associated Content-Article
Neon Single
SLEEP PARALYSIST
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
What does this mean?
O.N.E. video

