The Transnational Flow of Media

"Only some of the media texts produced around the world are able to find audiences in the United States." Jenkins, Henry; Ford, Sam; Green, Joshua (2013-01-21). Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (p. 260). NYU Press. Kindle Edition.

What makes an international piece of media popular in the United States? It seems as though it is the continual mixing and remixing of our culture with others that allows content produced internationally to resonate culturally with us. For instance, Selena Gomez's song "Come and Get It" shown above features Bollywood beats. The term Bollywood, though, is derived from Hollywood when India was setting up their own film industry in imitation of the then popular musicals in Hollywood. 

So, we have an American artist of Mexican and Italian ancestry incorporating into her style Bollywood music and costumes while Bollywood itself was originally a mixture of traditional Indian theater and Hollywood. Mind Boggling!

Though Hollywood eventually moved away from movies like "Singing in the Rain," Bollywood is still largely characterized by its unique musicals for which it is known internationally. The 2007 movie "Partner" from India, however, shows how Indian movies have continued to incorporate exported American culture. Even the chorus is in English while the rest of the song is in Hindi. So, while we have artists like Selena Gomez using traditional Bollywood beats, Indian artists like those shown above are now using styles from a mix of American rap and music videos in an endless cycle of cultural appropriation.

India is not the only nation that has made cultural inroads into the United States. China's Martial Arts films have been hugely popular since the 1970's arrival of Bruce Lee on the screen. More recently, media from South Korea has also become hugely popular here. For instance, the "Gagnam Style" video has become the most watched video on the American site YouTube with around 1.5 billion views. This is just one of the wave of K-Pop song phenomenons from that country, and there are even Korean dramas on Netflix such as "Protect the Boss" and "Miss Ripley" that have become quite popular with American audiences (my best friend is obsessed with them).

As Jenkins points out, however, "there are also many countries (especially in the Global South — much of Africa, parts of Latin America and Asia) not yet able to actively participate in such exchanges" (260). Such countries are still bombarded with American culture, but their own culture has not circulated quite as successfully outside of their borders as others have. The Makmende myth, for instance, reflects some of American culture in that it is similar to our Chuck Norris and "The Most Interesting Man in the World" legends. Yet, as funny and similar as Makmende is to our own icons, he has not really spread throughout the world.

This is because media is rooted in culture and requires a minimum level of knowledge for comprehension and interpretation. So, jokes like “Makmende hangs his clothes on a Safaricom line to dry” are lost on us because we don't have enough knowledge about the area to understand that "Safaricom, Kenya’s leading mobile phone network, doesn’t maintain any wired telephone lines" (262). To take a phrase from Malcolm Gladwell, there is a "tipping point" of cultural awareness that has to be reached before media can cross cultural and national boundaries in significant amounts as American culture does; "However . . . the informal spread of media content through networked communications may circumnavigate if not circumvent some of the factors (political, legal, economic, cultural) which have allowed U.S. mass media to maintain its dominance throughout much of the twentieth century" (261). So, in many ways, the grassroots spreading of media has greatly increased intercultural awareness. In the end, though, it is an uneven spreading most notably because of the lack in developing countries of tools such as the internet, computers, and iphones that we take for granted.

Humor in Online Activism

Online activism is all around us these days. In fact, Tuesday saw the start of a viral Facebook and Twitter sign of support for marriage equality in the current Supreme Court hearings. In this particular online activism trend, supporters of marriage equality replace their profile pictures with the alteration of The Human Rights Campaign logo shown above. There are also several other unique alterations on this picture in true internet style--no need to be all serious even when making radical social changes, after all.

The Oatmeal, a popular web comic, made sure to get in on the trend with the "equal marriage rights and bacon for all" spin on the logo. Such casual, albeit quite amusing, antics on the internet does lead people  to see online activism as rather juvenile and not reflective of people's true feelings. After all, the thought is that it just takes enough followers and a catchy logo to make enough noise to get noticed.

In fact, as an article covering the response from the White House to the Death Star petition points out:

Anyone with an agenda and 25,000 signatures can elicit an official response from the White House's "We the People" website. This being the internet and all, requests naturally tilt toward the edges: A petition for President Obama's impeachment, federally legalized marijuana, secession appeals, and a nationalized Twinkie industry. 

In the Death Star petition--a petition I proudly signed, by the way--34,435 people expressed their support for our government to fund the creation of a Death Star. While it was clearly a spoof petition that wasn't intended to pass--one of the top reasons being that it would take "$850 quadrillion" to build--it was clearly geared towards and succeeded in garnering attention. Many people would write it off as the typical comical farce of the internet. However, the internet has often proven that humor can carry very serious messages far and wide. Though no one expected the petition to pass, it did show many people's concern with extremely decreased funding for United States space programs, the poor state of the economy, the extreme amount of money we put into the defense budget, and the connection between these things. The actual text of the petition says:

By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.

The Death Star petition was created November 14, 2012, a particularly relevant time considering this August 6, 2012 article on a portion of the public's shortsighted and negative reaction to the funding spent on the Mars rover Curiosity. Most of the comments on Facebook amounted to people saying that the $2.5 Billion budget for Curiosity was wasted when it should have gone to providing shelter for the homeless. This sentiment actually became pretty popular because it was turned into a spreadable media format in the form of a shareable picture on Facebook. I know I commented vociferously on such posts pointing out how employing people using $2.5 Billion dollars does a lot more to stimulate the economy and improve living conditions than does giving it away to treat the symptoms of the problem. However, somehow my singular comments didn't become quite as popular as the photo being shared--shocking, I know.

What better way to combat this mode of thinking, though, than to create an attention grabbing Death Star petition that the White House actually responds to? There really isn't one.

So, before people write off the power of online activism because of its seemingly childish appearance, you really have to look at the underlying and powerful messages that the humor is carrying across boundaries in leaps and bounds that serious, straight laced activism just can't. After all, it's not a new phenomenon that the packaging of the message has to attract people before it can't fully soak into their brains. Internet humor in spreadable media format just happens to be the new transporting agent.

Working Together to Make the Future

How Free is the Internet?

"if you think you're free,

try walking into a deli"

At the most basic of levels, no, the internet is decidedly not free, just as it's not free to walk into a deli if you expect to get a sandwich; "The most widespread myth about cyberspace is that it is truly free and ungovernable" (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures). I don't know about you, but I pay about $60 a month for the internet. It's $7.99 a month for Netflix, and $100 or so a year to rent a URL and server space for my website. Even before that, it's around $100 or so a month to just keep the electricity on to run my devices. There are more miscellaneous charges if I want to get a movie or an e-book from Amazon. There are other less tangible costs even for the free websites, as well. Facebook has access to all of your information which they sell in packages to advertisers. Instagram feels free to sell the pictures you provide.

I know that for a full-time college student with more than a couple of jobs, the monetary cost represents a great expense, and the intangible cost is troubling. I'm also aware that, even in our own country, the minimum monetary threshold necessary to have access to the internet represents an impossible expense to a great many people: 

In itself, the availability of a medium of communication does not guarantee a truly public 'public sphere.' Racial, economic, gender, and regional inequalities in access mean that the public sphere in cyberspace is once more constructed by the (techno-) elite, while the marginal (often racial/ethnic minorities or women) remain at the periphery. ICTs have helped the already empowered to acquire greater power while the disadvantaged remain on the margins. (151, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, even though we may not think of ourselves this way, we are the techno-elite in our own country and especially the rest of the world. In the article "The Internet Is Still a Man's World in Developing Countries" which Nathan shared as a trend on our Digital Culture and Social Media page, it states that "In the U.S., the gap between the number of men and women who use the internet is about 4 percent." So, even in our own country we can see the marginalization of women on the web. In developing countries, however, the gap is even more apparent with a "global gender gap of 23%" where even the internet access for men doesn't break above 50%. These statistics reflecting the connection between the gender/socioeconomic status and the internet access disparity show how:

Cyber-public space is the augmentation of existing public spaces and an extension into another realm of the communities, sites of political action and agency that exist in the real public sphere. This also means . . . that cyberspace is a fiercely contested zone, where ideological battles are played out between commercial interests and justice movements, neo-cons and radicals, businesses and environmentalists, the state and civil society. Even with radical and subversive movements in cyberspace, control is exerted by commercial interests. Even as the latter push for state governance of the Internet, alternative media escape legislation and hackers disrupt the profiteering narrative of mainstream technocapitalism. (137, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, while there is a marked disadvantage in cyberculture for those who cannot afford access to all of the goodies that are offered on the internet, "hackers" as Nayar calls them—though the correct term in this sense is pirate—work to free the internet for public use. Pirates do this by cracking the copyright protection codes on software, music, movies, games, and e-books and distributing them freely and on a large scale using Peer-to-Peer transfer networks via torrents on sites such as Kick Ass Torrents. Technocapitalist corporations are fighting back, though:

Issues of copyright have exercised legal thinkers in the digital era. When the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted in 1998, it was an attempt to ensure copyright protection for software and digital products. The controversies over NAPSTER and music-copying technologies have been cultural debates: who can own copyright, the freeing of knowledge and technology from monopolistic control, and the government's right to monitor usage, among others. (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

Technocapitalists are using new laws to impose severe repercussions for pirates. However, this seems counterproductive in that laws are made by the government which is supposed to represent the interests of the public. Pirates are freeing up media on the internet for public use; yet, the laws made by the government are advancing the interests of the technocapitalists, instead. Indeed, even the premise that preventing piracy protects the profits of the entertainment industry is faulty. In one of many articles expounding upon this point, "Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy" sheds light upon how piracy actually helps promote the music industry.

In conclusion, a free internet—whether in terms of cost or access—is not a thing that is naturally occurring. Lots and lots of people and organizations, however, are in constant battle to create that freedom—including everyone from pirates liberating media products to public libraries which offer free access to the internet. They are in constant confrontation with technocapitalists and the governmental laws they force through which begs the question "whether the task of ensuring security, safety, privacy, and equality (of access) is now the prerogative of private conglomerates and corporations rather than the state" (155, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures).

How much truth is on the internet?

Clients From Hell is what Chapter 12 of Turkle's book Alone Together terms a "confessional site" (230). As a web designer, it also happens to be my favorite. On Clients From Hell, I can read the anonymous stories from other design professionals and commiserate with them over things that have happened to all of us, such as your boss REALLY liking that terrible font...but has that really happened to all of us?


As Turkle points out, "market incentives are, after all, at work; each story competes with others. Exaggeration might increase readership. And since all confessions are anonymous, who will ever know?" (230). I had always just accepted these stories at face value as truths because logically, they seem like they could have happened. However, many people take a similar stance to the forty-year-old college professor that Turkle interviewed: "he takes on the persona of 'everyman.' For him, anonymity means universality. What he says on the Web does not necessarily follow from his actual experience" (240). So, just because it's not true for him doesn't mean it's not true at all. After all, the people who visit Clients From Hell are mostly designers like myself who can relate to the statements, and they ring true whether or not they are 100% truthful. Like the quote from Alan Moore states, "Artists use lies to tell the truth. Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself."

Anonymous confession groups like this became a way to deal with the emotional friction that pops up in our lives. No matter how great your boss, eventually you will disagree with her/him about something. So, instead of registering that complaint where it will only do harm, you can go online and move on by sharing your experience. It seems much different than the scenario in the chapter where a woman confessed to using her parents' retirement fund to go on vacation--twice. That is a workaround to get all of the feel-good of confessing without having to own up to your actions. Clients From Hell is a way to get rid of emotional grist that would only harm a working relationship or remain bottled up until all of the little things finally made you explode. Even that use could sour if you used it as an excuse not to confront your boss or client about reoccurring problems, though.

So, like in all things, prudent use is the key...and often the very thing we're missing in the technological onslaught of our new age.

Indeed, in chapter 11, Turkle discusses how we are reducing our interpersonal communication to resemble our communication with bots or completely replacing them all together. Where games like Second Life could be a method for "working through" problems rather than "acting out" (214). Working through problems is a positive way of using virtual reality to impact our corporeal lives:

A young woman who had lost a leg in a car crash and now wore a prosthetic limb felt ready to resume a sexual life after the accident but was still awkward and anxious. She created an online avatar with a prosthetic leg and had virtual relationships. Online, she practiced talking about her prosthetic limb and taking it off before being intimate with her virtual lovers. She grew more comfortable with her physical body through the experience of her virtual body. (214)

However, many more people resemble the story of Adam who "disappears [into his game worlds] for up to fifteen-hour stretches. Adam gets little sleep, but he does not consider cutting back on his games. They are essential to his self-esteem, for it is inside these worlds that he feels most relaxed and happy" (219). In fact, "to make ends meet, he provides technical support for an insurance company and takes care of an elderly man on the weekends. Neither of these “real jobs” engages him. He is barely holding on to them" (219). Adam moved away from other people by degrees. Having first started gaming as a social event in his work place, he now prefers to play with the in-game intelligences of Civilization. So, instead of gaming being a tool to help him socialize, he's now acting out his problems every day by reinforcing his antisocial tendencies. In other words, he's stuck in a developmental moratorium and is making no progress.

Stories such as this seem to affirm Turkle's fearful question "does loving your Second Life resign you to your disappointments in the real?" (219). Adam is getting just enough reliable and predictable gratification from his game life that he doesn't put the monumental effort in that is needed for more substantial rewards in his real life, such as pursuing the singer/songwriter and screenwriter careers in which he expressed interest. Instead, he's holding down unfulfilling jobs just to keep the electricity on for his games:

Success in simulation tempers Adam’s sense of disappointment with himself . . . it is not creation but the feeling of creation. This is the sweet spot of simulation: the exhilaration of creativity without its pressures, the excitement of exploration without its risks. And so Adam plays on, escaping to a place where he does not have to think beyond the game. (223-4)

So, truth online seems to inhabit its own sphere of meaning separate from what we think of as truth in the corporeal world. Confession site entries don't necessarily have to reflect the subjective truth of one's corporeal life so long as it hits upon an objective truth. In fact, this is a healthy way to work through slight problems at work where confrontation is not useful. The trouble online comes from acting out our problems, fooling ourselves into believing we have accomplished something when what we've really done is replace human interactions with computer ones. Instead of the woman confessing to her parents that she had used their retirement money, she anonymously told the internet so that she could continue living her lie with her parents. Adam also used online games to lie to himself. He started gaming as a way to socialize and then abandoned real people for the illusion of friends the game provided. Thus, the most pervasive and harmful form of lying on the internet is our own self-deception.

Introverts and Communication

"electronic media “levels the playing field” between people like her—outgoing, on the soccer team, and in drama club—and the shy: “It’s only on the screen that shy people open up.”

Turkle, Sherry (2011-01-11). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (p. 187). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. 

We Are All Cyborgs Now

"In this new regime, a train station (like an airport, a café, or a park) is no longer a communal space but a place of social collection: people come together but do not speak to each other. Each is tethered to a mobile device and to the people and places to which that device serves as a portal. I grew up in Brooklyn..."

Wait a minute.

Steve Rogers, did you write my digital media textbook? O_o

The above photo is a still of the Captain America deleted scenes from The Avengers (2012). Just a kid from 1920s Brooklyn, Steve has been transported into a future where nobody really talks to anybody. Everyone is plugged into a device of some sort designed to take them out of their immediate surroundings. From left to right we have an MP3 player, an eReader, and two smartphones. Steve Rogers, the man out of time, is the only one actually on the train.

Earlier in the clip, when Steve is walking through New York, a cellphone street vendor barks out "Buy some time! Buy some time!"



Is that what we're all doing now? Trying to "make more time by multitasking, our twenty-first-century alchemy" at the expense of living in the moment? I know of one person in particular that is notorious for this type of behavior. I'll have her over at my house, and she will interact with her cellphone every five seconds while we're eating. Trying to have a conversation with her feels like I'm intruding upon the world she really wants to be in. Even my best friend is slipping into this habit now that she has a smartphone. I have to cover up the screen to get her to answer a simple yes or no question. My dog even feels the immediate social disconnect caused by technology; just while I was writing this, he pawed at my leg until I picked him up so he could sit in my lap while I type.

With the immediacy of all of our technology, we are not "existing in the moment" as my yoga teacher likes to say. Recently, however, I've made a concerted effort to stop this, to become a better cyborg by knowing when to turn off the display flickering at the edge of my vision so I can fully experience one event. After all, is all of this connectivity really enhancing our lives when we're sort of--but not really--paying attention to five different things? Well, yes and no. Sometimes, like in class, I use technology to look up supplemental information. That's the beautiful side of technology when online you and real life you is working together towards the same goal. Most times, however...

We're doing five disparate things that detract from each other. I'm not saying this is always a bad thing. Entertainment in itself is not an unworthy pursuit. However, this type of technology is not so shiny new anymore, and we need to learn how to put it down in the right situations. After all, that smartphone is not literally sewn to your hand. Part of the obligation of being a consumer is knowing when to cut yourself off so it does not become an addiction. So, just like the liquor ads always tell you, please

Chapter 1 & 2

So, today's blog is prompted by chapters 1 and 2 from the textbook An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures from my Capstone class in Communication. A major theme of both chapters focuses around discovering how much of ourselves we take into the cyber world with us.

Earlier theories presented in chapter 1 "such as that by Howard Rheingold (1994) celebrate virtual worlds for enabling the user to transcend geography and the body." However, chapter 2 develops a very different stance based upon more recent--and perhaps more realistic and less ideological--theories:

The artifact is the environment through which the audience moves, and the artifact-environment is shaped by this movement of the audience. "Interactivity" is this mutual linkage: the rootedness of the artifact in the audience and the audience-experience being shaped by the artifact. Art forms that depend on cybercultures once again highlight the fact that cyberculture cannot be studied independently of the real and the material.

 Because the cyber world cannot be completely disconnected from our corporeal selves, then, there is a place to discuss the disparate experiences that different genders go through. The hybrid state between human and computer is known as a cyborg, a key staple in cyberpunk fiction. Ironically, though, in the early eras that claimed that virtual reality allowed one to escape the confines of the body, cyberpunk literature reflected the predominantly white male participants of the technological world through the "macho-cyborg" protagonists. Any transcendence for women and minorities, then, would have come from the fact that cyber culture "rarely identifies the 'console cowboy' as 'white male' because it is assumed that white male bodies are the norm." One of my favorite cyberpunk novels Ender's Game from this time in the late eighties to the early nineties even holds true with this assumption of the white male as the active agent in the cyber world.

From this was born a cyberpunk feminist response that: 

...demands a new genre that emphasizes women's experience of high tech. Feminist cyberpunk begins with the assumption that cyberpunk reinforces existing gender inequalities. The genre foregrounds technology in the material conditions of the real world, where control over technology is concentrated in male, capitalist hands and serves the purpose of racialized and gendered exploitation. The woman cyberpunk, when not a part of the underclass, becomes a code for the alien Other. 

However, it seems just as we move away from the assumption that the body can be transcended is actually when we begin to see this happening. The real world and the cyber world impact upon each other simultaneously in that the more women are introduced to cyber culture, the more the technology is opened up to them and the more they participate. For instance, in the early days of the computer even into the 2000's, computers and their career fields were associated predominantly with men. Now, though, my womanly self is tech savvier than 80% of the guys I know--which is saying something as I tend to hang out with some awesomely geeky individuals. Also, a majority of the individuals I tutor in Web Design are women, and I work with technologically empowered women such as the awesome Graphic Artist Elisabeth Shabi.

Furthermore, rather than the contrived cyberpunk feminist movement, female protagonists now appear naturally in cyberpunk literature such as my favorite recent cyberpunk series Uglies by Scott Westerfeld.

If you read the reviews, I haven't seen a person yet that even comments on how the protagonist is female. It's because it just doesn't matter. Women in technology spheres have become so commonplace that the event is just not remarkable--which is exactly as it should be. Rather than shouting out our special snowflakeness by setting up a separate genre for female cyberpunk, a more effective method is just running a silent invasion into the technology that had been dominated by males. Before long, we're there, and they don't know how long ago it was that they just accepted that fact. We didn't announce our plans to take over their cyber world; we just did it and didn't demand special recognition for it.

That's what the cyber culture I live in is about. Yeah, we are inextricably attached to our female bodies, but it's really quite incidental to our participation in cyber communities. It might even be a benefit in terms of hardware as guys burn their junk on the hot underside of laptops all the time...though I suppose boobs can occasionally get in the way of viewing the screen when you're laying down...

Aaaaaaaaand that's where I end this blog for today. Feel free to contemplate how your own bits influence your online life (answer: probably not much).

Purple Hair and More, Coming to a Classroom Near You!

Hello, people I've now known for three years! Assuming you've all picked up amnesia over the break--or that we might have people looking at this blog who don't know me--allow me to once more introduce myself. My name is Angela Harkins. I'm 22 and a senior at Reinhardt University. Next year, I hope to start working towards a Master's degree in Human-Computer interaction at Georgia Tech. Mostly, though, I'm known as the girl with the purple hair.

 This purple hair, to be exact.

In fact, that picture is one of me in Spain where I studied abroad over the summer. As a web designer, I was able to continue doing some work for Cherokee FOCUS, a non-profit located in Holly Springs, Georgia whose website I built and maintain. It is in this way, then, that cyber culture has quite an impact upon my life. Even though I was half a world away, I was able to participate in my workplace culture almost as if I were there in person. 

It's a little bizarre, when you think about it, to realize that cyber culture has developed over the past few decades to the point that I don't have to be physically near anyone in order to participate in a community. I go to work online, I pay my bills online, and I interact socially online. In fact, since most of my interactions occur on the web, most people's mental representation of me is my avatar rather than my actual face.

However, with this new field suddenly open to us, a lot of the major ethical questions of our day are being raised. I recently received an email about a lawsuit against facebook for using personal information of its users in their advertising. Is it okay for them to do this? After all, we did voluntarily give them the information.

What about the problems over at Instagram where they're selling pictures and user information?

Or, more broadly, should the internet come under the control of the United Nations, or are we doing okay on our own?

What about online piracy, the use of online information by police, and the existence of vigilante groups like Anonymous?

We're setting the example that all future generations will follow. In order to make sure we are laying a solid foundation of moral responsibility, we need to understand the cyber culture in which we are participating before making decisions about issues such as those listed above.

World Citizenship

In the video we watched in Intercultural Communication on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, I saw people being treated as if they were less valuable than a piece of paper. This is because they were refugees—“internationally displaced persons . . . victims or potential victims of persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, or political views”—who had fled their homelands out of fear (262). Thus, they did not have time to collect papers validating them as fellow humans worthy of equal treatment.

The people in the video were a part of transnational migration, a “movement in which a person regularly moves back and forth between two or more countries and forms a new cultural identity transcending a single geopolitical unit” (259). The reason for this is that they were regularly shunted from nation to nation because of their illegal status. Indeed, as illegals they were actually prevented from getting jobs and often deported.

Paradoxically, one gentleman that we saw actually attain a visa was then restricted from

leaving the country at all. The point is, then, that international laws restricting movement are highly illogical and ridiculously discriminatory. Indeed, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” Barbara Miller refers to this as the “right of return” and explains that it was “elevated by the United Nations to an ‘inalienable right’ in 1974” (273).

However, international laws hardly allow for someone to fulfill their right to leave any country because they are then not allowed to reside anywhere else as full and equal citizens. The most common barrier is that applying for visas or green cards are extremely long, complicated, and discriminatory processes that do not lend themselves to helping foreign citizens that are in poor situations due to violence or a lack of opportunities in their home nations. For example, take a look at who may apply for visas in the United States. The list is limited to visitors, students, workers with a U.S. employer, and people with family already in the U.S. Indeed, the qualifications for a green card are the same—“green card through family . . . green card through a job”—though it does at least include “green card through Refugee or Asylee status.” However, whether or not people are really refugees is still determined by a person with a clipboard when they are “admitted to the United States.” Furthermore, the system is clearly classist. If a person is leaving his or her nation for the fact that there are no jobs and he or she has no money for school, how exactly is it that he or she should legally transition to an area with opportunities? I certainly have no answer for this question, and it seems none of the world’s nations do either.

Thus, in response to this inadequacy of laws was born the World Citizenship movement. It was created by Garry Davis, a former WWII bomber pilot, who stated that:

the essence of democracy is universal participatory decision-making, whereas the essence of national sovereignty, a hangover from the feudalism and the absolute sovereignty of kings, is exclusivity and the non-participation of citizens outside the national boundary. Citizens "belonged" to the nation only while all humans outside that nation were "foreigners," or worse, "aliens."

Indeed, the World Government of World Citizens issues the World Passport which “over 150 countries have visaed . . . on a case-by-case basis.” The passport is founded upon the tenants penned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and “therefore it is premised on the fundamental oneness or unity of the human community.”

What is needed now is a universal acceptance of our shared humanity. To do so, we must abandon our “lifeboat mentality, a view that seeks to limit enlarging a particular group because of perceived constraints on resources” (272). Indeed, one of the most common arguments I hear against Mexican immigration to the United States is that they are taking all of our jobs. However, that is utter crap. Often, illegal immigrants take jobs a citizen would not. Also, an illegal immigrant’s residency in the United States is no more of a threat to employment than the people already living here. Indeed, additional people create a rise in demand which, in turn, leads to a rise in supply and creates more jobs.

Thus, in summation, it does not hurt us, the unduly privileged, to ensure the rights and freedoms of our fellow humans. Indeed, it serves only as a reaffirmation of the shared humanity from which all of our natural and inalienable rights derive. It follows, then, that the only injurious action is to do nothing while the freedoms of our fellow humans are impinged upon, thus debasing the very foundation upon which our own rights and governments stand.

Chapters 3 and 8

Many people tend to drastically oversimplify past and present economic systems. Usually, people tend to think that their current economic system is far more advanced than their ancestors’ economies. However, past systems such as foraging were extremely complex. Also, what most do not realize is that foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, and agriculture are still alive today—even within our contemporary, industrialism/informatics society.

(Old and new economies, as seen through the eye of the modern man.)

For example, consider foraging, “a mode of livelihood based on resources that are available in

nature through gathering, fishing, hunting, or scavenging.” This seems like the mode of livelihood least likely to still exist in our society, right? Wrong. People hunt in the United States a great deal. My Dad, in fact, hunts deer. Thus, he supplements a modern industrialism/informatics system—“the mode of livelihood in which goods and services are produced through mass employment in business and commercial operations and through the creation, manipulation, management, and transfer of information via electronic media”—with foraging, “the oldest way of making a living.”

Indeed, my Dad and I also participate in horticulture, “a mode of livelihood based on cultivating domesticated plants in gardens with the use of hand tools.” We grow squash, potatoes, tomatoes, onions, bell peppers, jalapeño peppers, and other plants. It is, in fact, extremely common in the North Georgia region, in which I live, for people to be both foragers and horticulturalists. These systems also provide for a mode of “personalized consumption” because it leads naturally to farmers’ markets where people buy produce directly from the producer. Miller even acknowledges the farmers’ market system in Cultural Anthropology in a Globalizing World.

In addition, being part of a foraging and horticulture microculture provides a “social safety

net” because of “leveling mechanisms” that are an unwritten part of the society. This leveling mechanism is a “norm . . . an accepted standard for how people should behave that is usually unwritten and learned unconsciously through socialization.” If one person or family has a surplus of a certain meat, fruit or vegetable, then that person is expected to give away the extra. Later, when the people in the sharing circle have a surplus, they will in turn give away what extra food they have. This is a system of “generalized recipricoty”—“a transaction that involves the least conscious interest in material gain or thought of what might be received in return and when the return might occur”—which is a form of “balanced exchange”—“a system of transfers in which the goal is either immediate or eventual balance in value.” For instance, my neighbor Charlotte made peach preserves and gave some to me. In return, a few weeks later, I brought over brownies that I made. She has also given me apples and vegetable plants. So, when I went home to the mountains, her husband asked me to pick up sorghum and honey, the staple items of my region.

Thus, because we are part of a group that shares foraged and grown food items, we are a “band, the form of political organization associated with foraging groups, [involving] flexible membership and no formal leaders.” Indeed, everyone in my group is either “related through kinship,” which comprises most of the group, or they are neighbors or people with whom we have a significant sort of friendship. We even “come together at certain times of the year” around holidays due to “foraging patterns and ritual schedule.” At these times, the men will go hunting either together or by themselves, and the women will have potlucks and exchange food items and recipes. Indeed, we even have an informal “leadership” because it is my grandmothers that host the holiday events.

If someone in the band breaks the norms of our group, they will face the typical small-scale

society form of “social control”—“shaming and ridicule.” Indeed, it is a norm in our group that neighbors should give to the correct person any mail mistakenly delivered to them. Recently, though, my neighbor Marty—who is Charlotte’s sister—gave away my $50 pair of shoes and kept for herself my $25 kayaking gloves, both items that I bought offline. I handled the situation “at the interpersonal level through discussion,” and she paid me back for my items. However, her remediation was helped along by the fact that Charlotte found out what Marty had done and rebuked her.


Apart from modern foraging and horticultural systems, though, everyone participates in the systems of pastoralism—“a mode of livelihood based on domesticated animal herds and the use of their products, such as meat and milk, for 50 percent or more of the diet”—and agriculture—“a mode of livelihood that involves growing crops on permanent plots with the use of plowing, irrigation, and fertilizer; it is also called farming.” All of the food we buy in the supermarket, or anywhere else, comes from pastoralism and agriculture.

Therefore, it is irrational that Barbara Miller should need to make it clear that the model in the book does not “imply a judgment about the sophistication or superiority of more recent modes of livelihood.” This is because all of these modes of livelihood still exist today in our modern society, as evidenced in my own life.

Chapters 9, 10, & 11

The most visible cultural differences arise in three basic areas: communication, religion, and art.

The first area, communication, is, in fact, the first way one can usually use to identify a person with a different background than themselves. Language, “a systematic set of symbols and signs with learned and shared meanings,” is the most obvious difference amongst cultures (190). If you and another person don’t speak the same language, then you can tell you are not a part of the same language meaning making group.

Indeed, “ethnocentric” principles come into play when one not only recognizes the different cultures behind languages but also applies a hierarchical class system to which language has priority (194). For instance, Miller says that “although sign languages are complete and complex languages in their own right, they are often treated as second-class languages” (192).

Eurocentrism also exists in language. The current view is that Americans are stupid for being largely monolingual. However, this view fails to take into account that languages are found much closer together in Europe than in America. Thus, languages are learned out of necessity rather than because of the universal higher intellects of Europeans.

Americans, sadly, are also proponents of an ethnocentric ideal, though. They tend to view the language or accents of the newest immigrating group as inferior. I have said before in my blog that my family ditched Gaelic and their Irish accents for just this reason. Immigrants that speak only Spanish, however, have it much harder because they have to learn an entirely new language and are expected to do so as soon as they enter the country. Most people with this American ethnocentric view also refuse to learn Spanish, denigrating the language as gibberish.

There are also gestures—“movements, usually of the hands, that convey meanings. Some gestures may be universally meaningful, but most are culturally specific and often completely arbitrary”—which most people rarely think about (192). Consequently, nonverbal communication can be one of the easiest ways to offend someone from a different culture. (That article is hilarious, by the way.) For instance, how close do you stand to someone? Do you really think about it, or do you just do it? Well, the distance between people is usually a reflexive thing, and when someone invades your bubble, you probably back away. However, in countries such as Spain, they stand much closer together. Thus, if you move away, it is seen as somewhat offensive. It is the equivalent of someone talking to an American but keeping a room’s length between them. You might begin to try to interpret the action within your own shared cultural meanings: “Oh man, I must not have put on enough deodorant today.”

Another sure fire way to offend people is by talking about—you guessed it—religion. I know they say “never talk about religion, sex, or politics,” but, hey, let’s give it a whirl.

First off, what is religion? According to Barbara Miller, “religion consists of beliefs and behavior related to supernatural beings and forces. This definition specifically avoids linking religion with belief in a supreme deity, because some religions have no concept of a supreme deity whereas others have multiple deities” (212). Huh? Basically, all religions believe—and you should know up front that I’m going with magical ponies as a generalization—in a magical pony, many magical ponies, or the disembodied idea of a magical pony. And their pony is pretty much always the best. (In case you were wondering, I’m Buddhist. I hold with the disembodied idea of a magical pony, a.k.a. karma.)

(And why wouldn’t I? She’s clearly so much more stylin’ than your pony.)

In magic versus religion, religion is seen as the higher class belief. This is not surprising as many foundational thinkers were deeply religious. Also, religions have a lot of practitioners that express their beliefs through modern writings. Even Miller refers to a “magical religion in the modern world” as “so-called Wicca” (213).

But, what is the difference between magic and religion? Well, it’s a pretty fuzzy distinction, but Miller quotes Sir James Frazer in saying that magic is “people’s attempt to compel supernatural forces and beings to act in certain ways” while religion “is the attempt to please supernatural forces or beings” (212).

(Magic = I COMMAND YOU TO FLY, PONY!)

(Religion = I will brush your hair if you fly, pony. Pretty please?)

Now, we move on to “expressive culture, or behavior and beliefs related to art, leisure, and play” (236). Let’s jump right in and discuss that age old question.

(How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? No, I mean the other question. Sadly, woodchucks are still disinclined to chucking wood.)

What is art? Surprisingly, Miller presents one of the best definitions I have heard. She says that “art is the application of imagination, skill, and style to matter, movement, and sound that goes beyond the purely practical” (236). This definition is a lot more inclusive than, for instance, Eurocentric views on high-art being the only true art form.

(You might know it as ‘It’s not art unless someone is naked.’)

It is important to remember that “all cultures have art, and all cultures have a sense of what makes something art versus non-art” (236).

Actually, it is best to remember that cultures have different meanings and values for everything, including communication, religion, and art. So, try not to take yourself too seriously. It is okay to form opinions about these areas based upon the context of your own culture and experience. In fact, I encourage it. However, don’t expect others to conform to your ideas, and don’t vilify them when their ideas conflict with your own.

My Cultural Roots, Continued

In my previous blog, I detailed my family's Irish-American heritage, and the practices that carried over into our modern day lives.

However, when my family arrived in the United States, our cultural differences were hardly celebrated. They moved, as stated earlier, in order to escape the potato famine. The Great Famine, as it is known in Ireland, was largely a manmade catastrophe. Aside from the potato,

there was a great deal of food—such as beans and wheat—being produced in Ireland. However, the British landowners exported most of their Irish tenants’ food back to Britain, even though the Irish were starving (Corrie). The British did so because they perpetrated this system upon the Irish for many years prior without consequence, and they generally considered the Irish to be subhuman. The United States, largely populated by descendants of the English, took a similar attitude to the gangly, starving, “uncultured,” burr tongued immigrants invading New York during the time of the famine. The papers of the era most memorably vilified America’s newest citizens by means of cartoons, often portraying the immigrants as gorillas

(A Dublin famine Irish-American monkey)

In order to fit into their new hostile environment, my ancestors—like many Irish-Americans—tried to abandon a lot of their former cultural practices. The dialect went first as it was the easiest way to single out the Irish from the non-Irish. The accent, however, did not completely disappear because it changed the regional dialects, such as giving the Appalachian accent

harsher R’s. The Gaelic language, on the other hand, did disappear. Irish-Gaelic had already flagged for years under British rule of Ireland. In the new country, without any use for or anyone to teach them the language, Irish-Americans simply lost their native tongue. Many of them, as my family did, also converted to Protestantism. This caused them to abandon the Latin that had been a necessity for church. Class and educational values additionally superseded their own beliefs—though this seemed a welcome change. The British rule in Ireland generally perpetuated a system of British landowners and Irish tenants class system (Corrie). As in many farming societies, the Irish were afforded little opportunity for education and generally saw little point to it. In the United States, however, the class system made social mobility possible—though they began at the lowest possible rung. In addition, the economy and government necessitated higher education. Gradually, my ancestor’s went from farmers, to factory workers, and then to small business owners. Each generation saw an increased level of education ending with myself being the first person in my direct line to attend college.

As I said in my previous blog, probably the least similar kinship and cultural system is the one of the modern American portrayed in the media—living away from family, being a

divorced/single parent, interacting with mostly the grandparents, not being expected to support the older/younger extended family. Furthermore, the current media also portrays all Caucasians
in the same light as the bland, elite, dominant class. Many tend to forget that Irish-Americans escaped from starvation and the life of the tenant farmer to come to the United States where they faced rampant racism. Many forget that it is only within the last fifty years that either an Irish-American or African-American president was elected—and President Kennedy was a descendant of the Ulster-Scots, the ruling class in Ireland (Corrie). In summation, no matter how similar or different Americans may look, beneath our shared culture lies a vast and exciting mixture of unique values.

Bibliography

A Dublin famine Irish-American monkey [Newspaper cartoon]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.travelgolf.org/images/a_dublin_famine_irish_american_monkey.jpg

Corrie, E. (2011, September 22). Conflict and peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Lecture
presented at Reinhardt University sponsored by The Year of Ireland Committee and the
Chaplain's Office, Waleska, GA.

Chapters 6 & 7/Cultural Roots

So, who am I? The obvious answer is that I am Angela Marie Harkins. Even this—as un-elucidating as it might seem—tells you a lot more about me than you think. Angela is a name meaning angelic, and it hints at a Christian familial background. Marie is my Mammaw’s name. My mom said she added it to make sure I took after her mom a bit. I could be as angelic as I wanted—but I better have a little fire and stubbornness as well. Lastly, I have my surname Harkins. Harkins is an extremely Irish name. It was originally O’hEarcain meaning son of red or redhead as we still have a lot of redheads in our family tree. There are legends and stories about the O’hEarcains. We were generals—leaders but not princes—and as far as I know, there isn’t a generation that has gone by without a good many Harkins in the military. Originally from Inishowen in County Donegal, the potato famine of 1845 saw the family trading one end of the Appalachian Mountains for the other as they moved from near the Giant’s Causeway to Northern Georgia. This is my culture and it shapes my thoughts on kinship and society.

How does my culture create my kinship? As Lewis explains in Cultural Anthropology, there are two basic classifications for family types: Eskimo and Iroquois. Like most Americans of European descent, my family type is of the Eskimo variety. That is, kinship terms are the same when referring to either my mother’s or father’s side of the family. Also, being of Irish descent means that we are mostly patrilineal, “in which kinship is traced through the male line” (129). This means that the women “marry out” and take on the surname of the spouse while the male heir “carries on the name.” Also, we have an Inuit–like determiner for kin. That is, those who act like family are true family. We might disown someone who does not act like family or kind of adopt someone who is as close as family. I have a third grandma we adopted in because she’s so awesome. We also practice formal adoption—a practice which dates back to clans. My brother is actually my half-brother by my mom. My dad adopted him, and he’s just considered my brother. He’s true family.

What is my household and domestic life pattern? Like a lot of cultures—Spanish cultures, for instance—my family tends to live in the same area. I can literally walk to my Granny and my Mammaw’s house. I did it just this weekend, in fact. My nieces and my brother live in the same house as my parents until they can afford their own house which will most likely be in the same county. My dad lived with his parents before he bought the land we live on now and built our house. I plan to hang around after college until I can buy my own place. I’ve never heard of anyone in our family having a mortgage. So, we’re extended family, and we’re very matriarchal in the household. My Granny, my Mammaw, and my Mom are the rallying points for family gatherings. Sometimes we even have holidays at my place. This is as much out of practicality as it is a testament to their fortitude. Men biologically, especially back in the day, just don’t live as long. I have three Grandpas that are no longer alive.

How are kinship and households changing in my time? Well, to begin with, the location of my family is spreading out a bit into other parts of the Southeast. Cohabitation is a more valid—but still frowned upon by the older or more conservative members—lifestyle choice, and children born from cohabitation are considered legitimate. My mom cohabitated with my brother’s dad. My brother cohabitated with my nieces’ moms. Household, as I talked about earlier, hasn’t changed much. The household is an extended one and the women tend to be the leaders. Although, a bit more of the child rearing responsibilities have been handed off to the men. The whole family pitches in to take care of the youngest generation instead of using nannies or daycare. The older generation is taken care of by the younger generation instead of going into retirement villages or whatever those things are. The most drastic change has been in waiting to get married and have kids until an older age and then having less kids. My Granny, for instance, married early and had 9 kids. My Mammaw also married early and had 7 kids. My brother cohabitated at a later age and had 3 kids.

So, there is my kinship system in all of its shining glory. I suppose we’re pretty representative of most Irish-Americans. Even other Americans of Spanish descent seem to have a similar kinship system even though they come from a completely different background. In the end, probably the least similar kinship system is the one of the modern American portrayed in the media—living away from family, being a divorced/single parent, interacting with mostly the grandparents, not being expected to support the older/younger extended family.

Chapitre un et deux!

So, I am actually enjoying the textbook for my Intercultural Communication class. (C’est incroyable, I know!) My opinion of the book, though, is not a shocker to those who know how much I love the show Bones. After all, the book is called Cultural Anthropology. What’s not to love?! A pretty relevant question came up in the first couple of pages of the book, however:

“the popular impression of anthropology is based mainly on movies and television shows that depict anthropologists as adventurers and heroes . . . What are your impressions of anthropology? How did you acquire them?” (6-7)

Well…perhaps my viewing pleasures do tend toward geeky adventures such as Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Bones. I have not seen anything in my studies or the readings of the first couple of chapters to disagree with these shows, though. Sci-fi scores again!

First off, Daniel Jackson from Stargate SG-1 is probably the coolest anthropologist ever. Period. In fact if you have not heard of him, you should probably go and read the Wikipedia article about him. Who knows, it might erase a modicum of shame your ignorance has brought upon your familial name. Go on. I’ll wait… Great, you’re back! Because my readers are the brightest, most well read people still ambulatory, I naturally assume that you noticed Daniel Jackson is an archeologist and a linguist. That’s right, folks. You get two anthropology fields crammed into one slightly geeky, ocular impaired individual! Right about now, I bet you’re asking yourself “whoa! So they were, like, teaching me stuff the whole time?” The answer, my friends, is yes. They have indeed practiced their dark, teacher-like chicaneries upon all of you. Fear not, though! Barbara Miller explains quite succinctly what sorts of vast intellect have been visited upon you: “archeology—the study of past human cultures through their material remains . . . linguistic anthropology—the study of human communication, including its origins, history, and contemporary variation and change.” In essence, when the cast of Stargate SG-1 pulled the Stargate out of the sands of Egypt, they were in fact practicing archeology. Later, when SG-1 traveled to distant planets, there was a reason they dragged along a civilian. The team needed Daniel to translate for them as they interacted with the peoples of the different worlds. You see, they all had a familiar lingual background, but the languages had morphed after hundreds of years of separation from the source language. Studying and interpreting those changes was the job of—you guessed it—the best linguistic anthropologist around town.

Later, the spin-off series Stargate Atlantis continued the anthropological intrigues. This time, though, they moved from historical archeology—the time of the Egyptians to present—to prehistoric archeology—the time of the fictional ancients. It is prehistoric archeology because time being studied “concerns the human past before written records” (7). During their travels, the Atlantis team also indulges in a little “cultural anthropology—the study of living peoples and their cultures, including variation and change” (7). Because all humans were created by the ancients, they all come from a similar cultural background but have adapted over millennia of separation. The team meets up with several cultures at varying levels of our own development. For instance, the Genii are a race of people in a developmental stage comparable to America’s own nuclear arms race. On the other extreme are the Wraith. They too originally have human roots. However, human genes combined with the foreign iratus bug and produced a completely new species.

Bones, however, is not a science fiction show. It is, actually, a crime drama show. As it is set in a very close approximation of reality, facts must adhere closer to reality. In fact, Kathy Reichs—producer and writer of the book series—is a forensic anthropologist in reality whereas the main character Temperance “Bones” Brennan is a forensic anthropologist for the Smithsonian Institute in the show. As a forensic anthropologist, Bones is a student of “biological anthropology or physical anthropology—the study of humans as biological organisms, including evolution and contemporary variation” (6). Furthermore, Bones also specializes in “war zone anthropology or research conducted within zones of violent conflict,” often helping to identify genocide victims whose bodies were dumped into mass graves (45). The show displays some of the dangers that anthropology field work presents. Bones actually had a run in with a local gang while she was on a mission on a remote island where anthropologists believed bones could be found that would fill in the gap in the human evolutionary chain. The show also takes on some of the conflicts between government policies and anthropological principles. On several occasions, the FBI director wants cases swept under the rug for political reasons. Bones, however, searches for the truth, putting her subjects before all else.

So, don’t dismiss the educational (eeeh gads!) value of television out of hand. Shows such as Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Bones may look innocuously entertaining, but watch out! They are secretly full of facts and knowledge. They are like the rice in a crunch bar. You’re eating it for the chocolate, but the rice is cool too.

Now I’m hungry.

À bientôt!

Angela