Your Brain on Sex book

I am currently reading a book called "Your Brain on Sex" by Stanley Siegel with Alyssa Siegel as a contributor.
I am almost done with the book. The book discusses sex and how deeply it relates to a person. The concept behind the book is that how we view sex (what we find desirable) is related to how we internalized fearful and uncomfortable experiences from childhood. In a direct way we attempt to do "duplicate" the uncomfortable situation in sexual fantasies. The difference from the uncomfortable feelings that we experienced as a child to a sexual fantasy as an adult is that we can have a choice and voice in it. For example if a person often felt alone as a child. Parents may have been neglectful in some ways, emotionally absent, or never physically home. People with these kinds of experiences may desire tender love and fantasize about finding a soul mate and being loved softly and romantically. Another example is a person who has been in a very controlling home may find themselves attracted to domineering and aggressive sexual roles: whether they are the domineering one or their partner is. There are many other examples and of course many people will find a unique combination of what is sexually gratifying for them.
Building on this, the author guides the reader into how filling these fantasies with a trustworthy partner can be healing. The healing comes from the first doing some soul searching into what true and honest fantasies are. Whatever these may be one must be as open and non-judgmental as possible for complete success. Indeed the partner must be open as well in this way.
The awareness of what our desire mean alone can begin healing from childhood experiences. For some they have found a trustworthy and loving partner to fill the fantasy with and take their own journey with too.
As I read this book, it has occurred to me that perhaps this is why some pornography stars find themselves initially attracted to the industry. I am sure this is not the case for everyone of them but for some of these men and/or women, I believe that this may be the case. Without knowing it these people have attempted to make sense of their childhood with sex.
Similar to a mirror, people attempt to replay experiences in their lives for many reasons. They may feel most comfortable with what is familiar. Other times they desire to find healing by creating a different outcome from similar to the original circumstances. Still some may have been sexually abused and attempting to make sense of this too.
I am not supporting pornography in this way but what I am offering is another perspective on the functionality of pornography. While there is still debates on why pornography is such a successful industry when it demoralizes women so much. As a women seeing this kind of abuse to women, I do wonder why this is even seen as options to make money? I wonder what could possibly make someone turned on by this or what would make this job look appealing.
I believe that the author of this book may be onto something much deeper. Sex is incredibly powerful. Not only does it create the most intense vulnerability but it taps into feelings we may not realize we had. I remember seeing a movie where a woman confronted a man she had been romantically involved with and she said, "You never say I am beautiful or touch me...You are only tender when we make love." I think the point she was trying to make is that when someone has sex they can tap into a completely different part of themselves: parts that they may deny in their day to day life, parts where they have hidden away...etc.
For some this becomes a way to "numb out" the painful experiences from childhood. What Siegel is suggesting in his book is that we can only make sense of what sex means for each of us personally when we take the time to dig into it. He encourages his readers along a path he calls "intelligent lust." This is where we discover our fantasies and feelings about sex. Then we can connect similar feelings with childhood experiences and see how these link up in a larger picture. That larger picture being how we have attempted to "heal" or make sense of uncomfortable childhood experiences through sexual encounters or lack there of. Siegel says that if we can bring awareness to ourselves in this way and then find partner to share this vulnerability with (and they in turn do the same) that sex can bring a kind of powerful healing and growth from our past.
I would venture to say that anyone in the pornography industry has some unresolved issues that need some attention at some point in time. I don't necessarily mean the cliche of having "daddy issues." I definitely think think this works for all the levels of people: the men actors, the women actors, the producers...so on and so forth.
Because sex is really such a fundamental part of our lives: it is the deepest expression of love and vulnerability, it is the beginning of life.... It really is a beautiful thing when in certain healthy and functional contexts. It is something that is meaningful for everyone and anyone. It is the most physical expression of our internal being.

Summary of the Semester

This is definitely one of the most, if not the most, interesting and useful classes I have taken. I think the topics discussed have been extremely beneficial and important. The one idea I will carry away from this class and remember for many years to come is Hegemony. This concept is one that has changed my perspective on many things. I remember when I took Communication 108, I had a similar experience of enlightenment when I saw the documentary discussing how media works in conjunction with the music corporations. At that time, I remember feeling betrayed and mislead. I felt much like a pawn in a large game. I had the same feelings when I learned about Hegemony. How this idea of manipulation to be better consumers is so deeply embedded into everything we see and do was so fascinating and frightening at the same time. I truly believe that hegemony is so ingrained in us that those who are perpetuating it are even unaware of their part in the cycle. For example the producers of porn may be aware of what sells and how to make a quick buck but I don't believe they are so in tune to know that they are feeding ideas that suppress women or certain races. Many people, like myself have felt uncomfortable with certain things that appear in advertisements, media, so on and so forth but have not truly understood the kind of control that was structured behind it to keep people in certain roles that benefit a more elite group of people.
I really enjoyed the documentary Pornography in everyday life. This documentary was very insightful for me. I really liked the metaphorical look women over the ages. I love seeing women who are inspirational. I am inspired when I see women who are very much in tune with their power as a woman. This documentary talked about how society used to look at women in this way. They are the mothers of the world. I wish this kind of kinship was seem amongst women today and the respect of other women and men alike would follow.
I am excited to share things I have learned here and to find more material of the same nature.

Cloudy with a chance of change

The gay and lesbian community is one that I feel ignorant about. I have had direct experience with race, gender, and class issues. However, I have felt uninformed about the lesbian and gay communities. I grew up in a home that was very religious and taught the idea of sinfulness regarding homosexual behaviors and lifestyles. As I have gotten older I have found myself meeting wonderful people who live the homosexual lifestyle. I have held wonderful conversations and one of my good friends is a lesbian. She ironically came from the same church that I grew up in and that is how our friendship started many years ago (before she came out.) It may seem a surprise that I mention that I have seen wonderful qualities come from people of the lesbian and gay community. But one must understand my upbringing and the ideas that were very well ingrained about how "different" and "to be feared these people are." While I truly believe I have no room to judge anyone, it is something that many religions seem to have pegged as the unforgivable sin: as the church I grew up in did as well.
It would come to no surprise then when my youngest sister came out less than two years ago that some in the family did not know how to respond. I was always so close to my sister growing up. She and I were best friends for many years: invading each others privacy on a regular basis, knowing every detail about each other and then some. I was honored that I was the first to know but I still wasn't sure what kind of support she needed or to give her. I attempted to be supportive to her and I verbalize my loyalty and love for her.
Still my mother took it the worst. She, a devout Christian woman, found herself tangled: she loves my sister very much but doesn't agree with her lifestyle choice. In later heated discussions, she mentioned the bible and verses to support her beliefs. I understand this is difficult for my mother the most and I also sympathize with her cluelessness on how to be loving in ways that my sister is receptive to.
Though not every family takes the news of one of its members coming out so harshly or unsure, I think many still do. I find myself increasingly drawn to gay and lesbian activities, documentaries, communities and so forth. I feel a sort of kinship with them as if in some way it will help me be a better sister and friend to my childhood best friend. Since she has come out, she has drifted away from the family and I hope that this kind of drifting and separation is only a phase. She has said that she only feels comfortable in gay and lesbian arenas more than any other environment (including with me or any other family member).
The documentary and many others like it remind me of my sister and her struggle. I watch these kinds of things intently hoping that I will find some gem of information that will change something in the way I communicate with her.
The truth is I think this is a battle that may not be won soon. There is a great amount of sensitivity with it because of its large taboo from society for so long now. It hasn't been until recently that people have become more aware of it and a bit more open. Even the openness that has been accomplished towards it has been limited. As we saw in the documentary (Further off the Straight and Narrow 2006), even the portrayal of gays and lesbians holds specific guidelines as to how in depth producers will go. They mentioned the idea of the "good gay/lesbian" and those characters that deviate from it are presented as a joke. The "good" gay is tame, well-mannered, clean, stylish, and wealthy. There is no room for lower class or unfashionable  or boisterousness. The best example they showed was the paradox of the two characters on Will and Grace.Will follows the guidelines of a "good gay." He is intelligent, well to do, mild mannered, and conservative in his sex life. Jack is the complete opposite. He is loud, obnoxious, unclassy, careless, and his sex life is more out in the open. In this ways Will seems almost as if he is not gay at all. He has a platonic relationship with Grace that could almost represent a romantic relationship. The only thing their relationship does not have is sex in it. Good gays are conventional. They are conventionally masculine or feminine in their right so in other words they appear as if they are not gay at all. Consequently Jack does not fit this role and he is a joke in the show. He is delusional about his talent, appears to be an idiot most of the time, and is typically out of touch with reality. Will is more palatable. He is easier for society to accept and that's why he is presented in a conservative way. The "extreme" gay is not acceptable and is much more difficult for society to accept.
Whats interesting to me is that even before media outrightly used gay/lesbian characters, there was subtle expressions of gayness. These subtle expressions were ways that marketers could target gay audiences without losing profits from their heterosexual customers. From a marketers stand point this is a really smart move to make. Similar to the advertising biases seen with people of color, when companies use gay/lesbians celebrities or characters to market products, audiences automatically segregate themselves. Meaning straight audiences feel as if they can not relate to the show or product and discontinue use or view of it. A similar effect happened with people of color. If marketers used a black or Hispanic or even Arab person to sell a product or on as the main star of their television show, audiences or consumers that did not associate with the face (selling the product) saw the product as an "ethnic product" (not for their use).
Disney is one of the companies that has done this well. They target to the gay/lesbian market by having a fundraising event for AIDS or "Gay Day." In addition they have used characters in movies and songs to subtly relate to the gay/lesbian market. The texts mentions two examples: one from Aladdin ("You never had a friend like me") and the Lion King scene with Timon doing the hula. I have added the links below.

http://youtu.be/sVRXtalL5MI
http://youtu.be/Ju-E4ULsPFk

However, according to those on the documentary and those on the panel discussion Wednesday from UWP LGBTQ there seems to be unanimous gladness about the "publicity" of gays/lesbians in media. Most seem to agree that it is simply a step in the right direction that they are even being noticed and validated in media; whereas before there was subtle text. They seem to recognize that this step can lead to opportunities to expose more of the multifaceted realities of their lives. Television shows like Modern Family show proof of this. There is a more openness to the possibility of gays/lesbians.
Not only are they being embraced by members of society but the expectations of them are widening. Gays/lesbians are no longer restricted to the ideas of "good gays" or "extreme (unacceptable but the butt of jokes) gays." Also, just as importantly to mention is the idea of gays being included on the "sex" talk. Since homosexuality is about sex itself, it would make sense that this would also be a topic that is uncovered with the "rights" of gays otherwise. Previously, in the media the gay kiss was metaphorical for sex. Viewers could assume that if there was a gay couple kissing then they must have had sex as well. Now there are more scenes that show gay sex. In Glee, there was an episode where a young teen was contemplating losing his virginity to his male partner. The focus of the show was on his decision making to lose his virginity, not on his choice of who to lose it to. While this seems like a weird thing to celebrate, it shows that society has been expanding its borders. Audiences are becoming more comfortable and accepting of gays and ultimately their lifestyle.

Classism..... is there a such thing?

I still recall a conversation I had with one of my best friends. She and I got onto the topic of immigration. Typically we don't discuss politics. I stray away from it with her because she and I have such different views on it. She has the strong mind set, like many people that I have talked to, that wealth is fairly and equally available for everyone. She truly believed that if anyone works hard enough they can make i.
She comes from a wealthier family than I do. The idea of "wealth" for me has been one that as I talk to people about I realize comes from where we stand in our social class. People that I consider wealthy, my friends in the past and present, did and do not see themselves as wealthy. To me wealthy meant that the parents could pay for colleges and they received new clothes every year before school started. They also bought almost any brand outside of Walmart or K mart and rarely if ever shopped at Goodwill. For the "wealthy" shopping at Goodwill was seen as a way to stand out and be unique with funky outdated clothes, not a way to save money. Wealthy meant that they ate certain foods and drove certain cars. For my friends they saw themselves as middle class but by no means rich.

When I stop to think about it every friend I have had has come from a "higher class" than I do. I have grown up with the idea that I was poor. It was something my mom talked about consistently and sometimes in subtle ways. Mostly she out rightly came out and stated it but sometimes it was implied. I recall very distinctly when I needed new shoes and I told my mom they were falling apart. She responded that she had needed new shoes for a long time and couldn't afford her own so how could I expect her to buy me some. My clothes had been hand-me-downs for my entire childhood. In middle school I fortunate to have an older sister who had moved away to college give me her old clothes. She, perhaps hoping to look like a higher class, bought what we considered nice clothes. Clothes from Gap, Express, The Limited, Delias, or other "brand name" clothes. If I did get new clothes it was from Walmart or Kmart. "Shopping for clothes" meant going to Goodwill or Salvation Army. That was not often. My lunch everyday was the same thing: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. That was it and I didn't have a lunch box or even a paper bag so I would put it in the lunch basket with all the other kids lunch boxes. By the time lunch time came my sandwich was at the bottom of the basket smashed. I remember in Kindergarten my teacher would ask me everyday where my boots were. Everyday I lied and said I forgot them. She finally caught on and was kind enough to buy me a pair of snow boots. I didn't have my "own room" until I was a junior in high school. In fact for many years my mom was on public aid and we lived in government assistance housing. In middle school, I hated having friends come over because that meant they would see all the things that were so different about me. We didn't order pizza, like all the other cool wealthy kids, we ate left overs recooked for the second or third time. We didn't have soda or milk to offer them: we had water.
My siblings often joke now about how poor we grew up as kids. We can look back and laugh at our painful experiences with social settings and our class.
But where does this idea come from that  we all have equal opportunities to reach wealth? Though I don't believe it the idea comes from television. The idea seems to fit in line with the "American Dream." The idea "American Dream" is a one that supports equal opportunity for everyone. Everyone wants to believe that this country is truly "free." How could a country really be "free" if the opportunities are limited to only certain groups? It would seem if that was so then all of these years, all of the wars, all of the fighting, all of the giving of lives, deaths, and lost loved ones would be a waste. It seems that this is the very reason it is so difficult for so many people to accept the fact that there really is not equal opportunities across the board. Much like the American Dream capitalism has proved to be an unjust and corrupt system. Where capitalism once started as a system that claimed to allow everyone equal and fair opportunity to make money, it has become a twisted and biased system. Those that are given opportunities to flourish in it are very often those that already have wealth from passed down family.
According to Richard Butsch in his article Ralph, Fred, Archie, and Homer there are a few reasons why the idea that wealth is attainable by everyone is a strong ideology in television. Butsch article discusses the Buffoon or the blue collar worker who is played out to be an unworthy, lazy, and stupid person who could get  more out of life financially but appears to have "chosen" to be from the working class. This is the typical character seen in almost every sitcom on television that represents the working class. Those watching can see that this character brings upon himself his financial woes. He is unworthy of any better kind of lifestyle because he is constantly making dumb choices. His stupidity even would seem to be a choice.
This character is shown in sitcoms for a few reasons. First it works. This program has worked and television broadcasting receives the ratings and money its searching for. There is too much risk involved in trying to find new entertainment. Secondly networks work in conjunction with advertising companies. They use product placement to allude to wealthy by ownership of certain products. This ideology seems to suggest that owning a product will convince others of wealth that actually is not there. Even more so that owning a product may actually change a person's status. The third reason is that programmers hope to appeal to the audience that is watching the show. Producers hope to create character's occupations based on the setting and situation of the show. They hoped that the audience would relate well too. In other words they wanted to whole show to appear as natural and real life like as possible. This says something about the producers as well though. They are maybe in some ways internalized the same ideology that they are enforcing as truth.
I'm still back at the same point I seem to be at the end of every blog. As consumers in the most literal sense, we need to be careful what we are consuming and that that we do "consume" needs evaluation and awareness in the highest regard.

A Rotting people from Capitalistic Corruption

The word "addiction" has a very negative connotation. Webster's dictionary defines addiction as a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." I think the interesting part about this definition, which I literally copied and pasted from the Webster's dictionary, is the part that says "use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol)." I think this shows a lot of the narrow thinking that the majority of people have about addictions. Most people are uninformed on addictions: what they are, who has them, how one can become addicted, what substances. I can understand why addiction does have a negative connotation. They are detrimental to a person's mental health and more often than not suppress personal and mental growth. Addictions, though it can be argued, at some points in time assist in personal growth. However growth occurs as the addict pushes themselves through the painful and dreary process of recovery. Extreme amounts of  growth and learning can come from this recovery period in ways that those not seriously addicted can not understand.
I really don't think addiction or even the idea of them are very far from home for anyone. As we saw in the documentary today about video game, there are people who are addicted to video games. It would seem there is a common theme with those that are addicted to  pornography.  It begins with a few times then to "relieve boredom" then it escalates into a point where the person needs it and has a full blown addiction. 
I am not sure that there really is much difference from any addiction really. They all stem from a need to fill a space within: a void. It is my personal belief that everyone is addicted even slightly to something. Addictions as I see them is anyway that a person searches outside themselves to "get high" or as a form of consistent self-esteem. The most common example I believe is the idea of searching outside oneself for approval. The validation that is needed to make decisions in our lives can easily become a form of addiction. If we look outside ourselves to bring us up, we are then affected by factors outside of us in negative ways the same. These negative factors bring us down in the same ways that positive factors bring us up. In this way we have become a puppet to our environment. A common example is seeking out advice. When one seeks out advice they are looking to be told what to do. Most people will "count votes." They choose the path that most people supported. They are seeking to be socially accepted by their friends so they choose the path that leads to social approval. While there is nothing wrong with asking for advice once in awhile, I believe that answers to our questions can always be answered from within if we seek it out. The problem with asking for advice too often is we mute our own inner abilities to make sound decisions. We were born with all the answers we will ever need. 
This kind of interactional process and mental pattern is very common among Americans. I know we can look at where this kind of empty thinking comes from: its very easy to see its roots in marketing. 
I was once talking with my brother about my job. I am a bank teller and like almost every job I have had there is some kind of sales aspect involved in it. It would seem that no matter what job we are taking companies feel the need to incorporate sales into every aspect as much as possible to increase revenue as much as possible. I told him I was having trouble with my sales at work and I asked for his advice. He has been in sale for a long time as well. What he said to me has always stuck with me. He said that the best sales people create a need in a customer ("Are you seeing results you want and work for after your work outs?" Inevitably the question is set up to say "no" in a nation of overworked people.) Then the sales person will create a solution for the customer: their product ("I use this product and it works for me. This product is awesome. It guarantees results from plateaus.....") This kind of marketing is everywhere though: in commercial, magazines, radio ads, billboards. The idea is the self we are in the current moment is not good enough. So really the self we are in EVERY moment is not good enough because every moment we are living in is the "current moment." Hence these voids are created in people: constant and addictions are created. Addictions are really never having enough of what we don't want. The things we fill our voids with will never satisfy it and somewhere in us, this is a truth we know.
He noted that in sales the goal is really to sell yourself and not the product. If the customer likes the person selling the product then they are much more likely to trust their judgement and listen to them. Someone could be selling a piece of crap but if the customer is convinced they are trustworthy than they will listen to them and buy the crap. This is one way we can be addicted to approval. The idea that we need someone or something outside of us to give us value will always lead to controlled consistent behavior towards others in ways that does not feel self-worthy. 
It is no wonder to me that things like video-games and pornography are addictive substances but more over that they are rampant here in America: where we pride ourselves on a free market and capitalism. I find myself continuing to come back to this same reflection. I wonder what kind of cost we are really paying for a "free market." It seems the cost of our mental health and self-esteem. In a market where anything goes for the sake of making money, how can we deviate from the "norm" or from a destruction of ourselves?

Chicken Ranch

http://www.hulu.com/watch/155136/chicken-ranch

Above is the link to a Hulu movie called "Chicken Ranch." This documentary film was produced in 1983 about a brothel in Las Vegas. The documentary contained no commentaries from outside sources but was filmed more like a reality t.v. show. The women went about their normal routines were filmed chatting, putting on make up, lining up for clientele and such. It was interesting to watch this because there is no commentaries involved. Viewers can make their own logic out of the film. The taping in unbiased in this way but still shows the honest environment.
This documentary, though filmed in the early 1980's, shows very consistent gender roles as seen in our current day media outlets and pornography films.The woman in the house are commanded around by the owner of the business Walter. He regularly comes onto the some of the woman in subtle ways that shows his dominance. In one scene he is talking to one of the girls about making money. He comments that he noticed she has been making considerably less than usual and asks her why or how he can help. She begins crying and doesn't know why. He rubs her cheek with his hand and sits uncomfortably close to her.
She comments later to a girl how she feels incredibly uncomfortable with his subtle advances.
One night the girls have some drinks, play music, and dance for a bit before heading to bed for the evenings. Walter has a fit about it and has the house mom give a mandatory meeting to ensure this doesn't happen again. 
To me the most striking part of the documentary was the ending. Mandy was "fired." She actually quit and he fired her out of anger. She quit because he forced her to do a jacuzzi special for less than the standard price for two customers. The Brothel still made their standard 20% but Mandy make less money. This is inevitably the end of the documentary because Walter tells the film directors to stop filming and demands the film tape that contains anything having to do with Mandy. He doesn't want that included in the movie.
As a viewer one wonders why women would feel so desperate at a degrading place? Many of the women eluded to abusive partners they ran from and had no other means to support themselves. One mentioned large amounts of debt and not having other solutions to pay for it.
In class some questions were raised about pornography. One that I wanted to discuss a bit in this blog is: What would it take to bring equality to these types of industries? While I do recognize there are differences in porn and prostitution, I do not think there are very many of them. Would changing the concepts or ideology in the industries themselves first bring out more equality or would changing societal values or ideology first be a more effective option? While the largest question remains still: how can we even begin to combat these negative types of ideologies about sex and gender?
I do believe that education is a great way to start this. It can not stop with education though. First people need to understand that there is a problem with sexual inequalities in our societies ideology.
I think more companies need to get involved like Dove has. They have a campaign to help bring positive advertisements to women and girls alike. Rejected negative images is also important.
I do not have television in my home, no facebook, myspace, or twitter and no subscriptions to magazines. I do engage in some media forms but I try to limit these. While I don't suggest abstinence from media forms but I do think as consumers we need to make more choices in what we decide to engage in. We so often just see things without giving them second thoughts. I think we need to consciously dissect what we are viewing on a regular basis. Those things that are degrading we need to avoid them as much as we can or at very least not use them in our daily lives.
This is the topic I would like to focus on for my final project: alternatives for sexual images and positive advertising images. I intend to research more options that promote social justice among both genders.

Race and Class and our humanity

In a class discussion today there seemed to be some underlying tension. It seemed that when Professor Akindes asked us to discuss how we felt about the documentary "Color Adjustment (1991)" and thoughts on it. The class is primarily made up of "white" people. I am Hispanic myself and I am almost completely positive I am the only Hispanic there. Still the class literally has only 3 black students. Its interesting that more than thirty years after the Civil Rights movement that a group of college students seem to have some tension about discussing racial progress. After a bit of thought, I am certain that some of the tension lies in economic wealth distribution.
For as far back as historians are able to record, it seems there has been a consistent connection with race and class. These two seem almost one and the same at times. Or at very least I can say that somewhere along the way, I have internalized this message. At a very young age I learned very quickly who I am and what that means about where "my place" is.
Minorities are always very aware of who they are. Being reminded of it on a regular basis: moment by moment, day after day...this is their reality. It is difficult to ignore that we look so different than each other and we learn that somehow based on these looks it makes us different people on the inside. I have wondered why looks seem so very important to us for a very long time...the truth is I think a great part of it is human nature. We have eyes and we biologically know to use our eyes to observe and essentially protect ourselves from harm. Its one of the five senses.
....It seems to me as I continue on my educational journey I continue to come back to the same focal point in my life. Its the Buddhist idea that we are all connected. I do believe that every soul is unified with the collective humanity. In the back of my head I feel as if Buddhism holds all the answers for us. It seems that every problem in life somehow stems from unhealthy ego. This constant idea that we are in competition with one another is ego. It is the exhausting and a battle we will never win. The idea that Martin Luther King Jr. preached supported our human spiritual connectedness. Everyone we pass on a daily basis is our brothers and sisters. We will always be attached to others in the most human ways. I don't believe there is very much that separates any of us from each other beyond our visual looks.
I believe that it is detrimental to our mental well-being to separate ourselves from each other. I believe that by doing so we create a sense of loneliness in our souls that cannot be quenched. This kind of thinking is what can lead to depression: a belief that no one is like you. In these cases people believe that they are only like a certain "breed." They truly believe that somehow the looks on the outside of the body has some kind of effect on the inside of the mind and heart. This kind of delusional thinking leads to hate: prejudice or racism is essentially a deep hate against another group. Hate has physical effects on the body. According to the website "How Stuff Works" hate (as it corresponds to anger) has dramatic effects on the body...

"If you're constantly being activated by triggers, however, then this state of response can start to cause damage. Chronically angry people may not have the mechanism to turn off these effects. They may not produce acetylcholine, a hormone which tempers the more severe effects of adrenaline. Their nervous system is constantly working and can eventually become overexerted, leading to a weakened heart and stiffer arteries [source: Angier]. There's potential for liver and kidney damage, as well as high cholesterol. Anger may bring along some accompanying issues, such as depression or anxiety."

As we know hate and anger can eventually lead to violence if not solved. In a book called Nonviolent Communication by Rosenberg, he states, “Violence comes from the belief that other people cause our pain and therefore deserve punishment.” 
In modern day society, the kind of hate or anger towards "different" people is less apparent than it used to be. It shows up in smaller less obvious ways such as oppression of certain groups through Hegemony. Beliefs that people "choose" to be poor and that they bring upon themselves certain lifestyles is more than ignorant. These beliefs have given way to the continuation of race and class oppression. 
I still believe education is the first step to any change. 

Violent Masculinity

 I remember a conversation I had awhile ago with someone about smiling in pictures. It was a male and he said he preferred not to smile in photos. He felt it made him look weak, geeky, or cheesy. I joked back and forth about how peculiar this concept really was. I commented that I had seen it often though: that men seem to avoid smiling in  pictures to appear tough and manly. I wondered where that "rule" came. Somehow though as we chatted I realized in some ways I agreed. Why did it seem that a guy who smiled seemed less manly? It was almost as if by smiling in a picture he would expose all his secrets.What did purposely not smiling in a picture mean? It seemed that smiling showed vulnerability. One of the unwritten "manly man rules."

Masculinity today is very narrow. I have not seen very many examples of men in the media that stray from the narrow definition society supports of what a "real " man is. Media and our society supports the claims that masculine is unemotional, tough, strong, violent, aggressive, womanizing, and robotic....Women and men are seen as polar opposites in our society today. There is no gray in either definition. Qualities are labeled "masculine" or "feminine." Men possessing any qualities in the "gray" or in the "feminine" category are considered unmasculine. What is a man without his masculinity? Gender is such an important part of our identity. From the time we are born and typically before that (when we are in womb and our sex is identified) we are divided by our sex. Our identities begin to become deeply ingrained in our gender. Our parents feel the need to identify us with colors that are "feminine" and "masculine."


There are many examples of this kind of masculinity in media such as in rap music. Lyrics of these songs degrade women in violent ways and promote violence in general: whether its killing rivalry gangs/rappers or just communicating aggressively with others. This kind of style of communicating as they do in rap videos and as they do verbally is becoming more and more popular among whites as it was previously and still with blacks. It is described at times as "ghetto." Its a guise of acting tough and as if one has no feelings. Its a fear of vulnerability and a fear of looking "weak." According to the documentary we watched in class, "Violence, Media, and the Crisis of Masculinity with Jackson Katz (1999)" these now popular ideas and behaviors about masculinity originated from Italian mafias or gangs. Blacks adapted this and whites seem to be adapting it now from blacks.


The ideas of whats "masculine" in our society has lead to consequences. Men feel the need to use violence to display power. The power issue seems to be a large component of masculine. Large muscular men demonstrate masculinity in their physical power or strength. Those that can not be physically strong resort to using other means to show their dominance or power. These men or boys turn to violence to defend their masculinity. They suddenly can gain respect by using guns, knives, and force. Respect seems to be given to those that are most powerful...or at very least media has convinced men of this. The most robotic man who seems "hard" without feelings is seen as powerful. Non-emotional in conjunction with physical strength equals the most masculine forms of manliness.

As a woman, I am becoming more and more aware of how this masculinity is not appealing to me. I find myself longing more and more for a better communicator in relationships: romantic and platonic. I want to have relationships with people who are not afraid of their feelings and what it means to be vulnerable. There was times in my life where the tough guy seems a bit appealing but within weeks of dating this type I would become frustrated and burned out. Attempting to dig deeper and know the person below the exterior became overwhelming and I would soon find myself avoiding the person. It is my hope that all women can learn to find a man with great communication skills and vulnerability as a turn-on. By having women who desire men who are too tough, men understand that this is desirable and adapt to it. If women demand different qualities in men, this type of behavior will diminish greatly. As women, we need to understand why this is so appealing, if it is to us. They say old habits die hard but I am a firm believer that one can never be too old to grow and change. 

'S&M' Is 'Not About Sex'

'S&M' Is 'Not About Sex': "The video will have lots of colors, you'll see," Rihanna says.

A Closer Look At Rihanna's 'S&M' Video

I always remember the first time I hear Rhianna's song "Sand M"on the radio. I was appalled by the lyrics in the song. I immediately thought that the lyrics were going to encourage her fans to become increasingly sexualized. The chorus line says,"Sticks and stones may hurt me but chains and whips excite me." I have seen several clips of the music video but I was not able to find the video in its entirety. It was banned from youtube for indecent material. In the clips that I have seen she is in bondage struggling to get out. The scene is colorfully designed. In another scene a group of men in suits pin her to the wall. She is wearing a dress made of newspaper. The men put a piece of plastic over her and tape it down, as to suffocate her under it. In another portion she is in a short of white spandex bandage outfit and she is whipping some tied up people.
In an interview she stated that this song and video, however have nothing to do with the highly sexualized theme, title, and lyrics. The song, she seems to imply in this interview, is a form of rebellion. In a following video I found a clip of some MTV representative discussing the video and analyzing it. He seemed to be saying that the video was a sort of way for her to express the way media has "pinned her as the scapegoat." She seems to be saying that she wants to be "bad" but doesn't want to be punished and looked down upon by others for it. In the clip he mentions the video seems symbolic of her relationship with media. She is sometimes victimized and at other times she is the one calling the shots. She seems to be taking back her power in this way. He also mentions that many artist have had "this type" of rebellion in their careers. Madonna did it with her eroticism era and Britney spears has done this several times with the video circus, womanizer, and others.

It is completely ignorant to deny the impact that media has, had, and continues to have on us as a people. I am going back to the idea of Hegemony. Hegemony, from my last blog, mentions that our senses of self as a society come from a collection of ideas that are strategically placed in media, schools, central religions, government or public settings. These ideas are seeped and leaked into our beings by repetitive messages that are normalized as natural and acceptable. These ideas are at the expense of certain groups: races, genders, classes ect. so that another group benefits and continues to benefit. I am reminded of the idea that I heard once said about black people. Someone had once said that, "White people no longer need to suppress us as they once did in slavery. We as a people (black communities) do it to ourselves." In other words the speaker was saying that as a people (a community) has come so accustomed to being the "underdog" that they have internalized that and live into that repressed position: all the while believing it is natural and normal.
Knowing what we know about Hegemony, lets take another look at Rihanna's S and M video. If the video is really meant to send the message she claims (of rebellion and not of sexuality) then one must ask...
Why does she feel the need to "rebel" using her sexuality?
The irony here is that she again uses her sexuality to get her point across: that she is tired of being judged for being sexual. "Rebellion" implies that the person taking on this action is doing something different than whats "normal" or "acceptable." But in fact Rhianna is not "rebelling" at all but living into the role that media and society have given and developed for women. She is not be any "different" than anyone else in mainstream media: she has simply made it more "colorful." It would seem that the once "rebellious mold for women" is now everyday. Women are expected to be sexual objects for men: this is what media dictates for the role of women.

 These ideas are very vivid in pornography. According to the documentary we watched in class, typically any genre of porn contains 80 to 90% of violence and degradation. Of that percentage 94% of the violence is directed at women. These women are exploited as sexual objects for only the man's pleasure. They are not viewed or treated humanely and they do not receive any more respect than an animal. There is no question that porn is directed at a male audience. There is also no question that the goal of this degradation is to keep women in their place. 
Then media does its best to make the roles in porn look natural. Advertisements and media create images mirroring that of porn: images that defile the woman and her body. Often times the woman is depicted in sections: making only parts of her body seem valuable. Women are posed in ads as vulnerable, young, ready for sex and only there to be used as a sex object. Our "roles and identities" as women have been laid out very nicely before us, thanks to the use of porn and media.
Rhianna has done a fine job of incorporating porn into mainstream media. It was always there subtly and sometimes not so subtly. Yet now if we have any question to its existence, her song cleared that up.
I consider myself a pretty smart person but when I heard her song "S and M" I didn't hear any kind of "rebellion." I immediately felt how sexual the song was and felt there was a sexual message behind it.

...so lets think about this logically, how many people would actually understand that this video is "not  about sex?!" Rhianna must be misinformed herself if she truly believes the song has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

 

A Closer Look At Rihanna's 'S&M' Video: MTV News' James Montgomery breaks down Rihanna's new video.

The Destruction of a People...starting with women

As a female in these modern times, I am constantly questioning my value and worth. The identity of women in our society is clear: women are sexual objects meant for the pleasure and appeal of men. Media makes this message very clear constantly. In movies, music, television, radio, magazines, newspaper, billboards, ect. women are exploited. Many people are aware of the feelings that are associated with these advertisements. Women may feel guilty, ugly, worthless, or uncomfortable. Men may judge the women around them more intensely and begin to pressure them. But most people say that they are unaffected or that the effects of the exploitation of women is minimal. This is not true...even in the least bit. According to "Killing Us Softly 4" only 8% of advertising messages are absorbed into our conscious. So that means 92% of the messages are absorbed in areas of our brain we are not even aware of!! We internalize these messages and these messages become our identities. While we may say we are unaffected and we may think we are blocking these messages out, we are not. According to "Killing Us Softly 4" we see about 3,000 advertising messages in one day! All of these messages are constantly being absorbed into our beings and our unconscious dialogues with ourselves. Even the most "beautiful" or "flawless" women are affected in detrimental ways. The models themselves that are shown in these advertisements do not even look as perfect as they are shown. The photos are retouched and manipulated to create a look that is not physically possible. It was humorous but also a slap in the face with truth when Cindy Crawford said of the years of retouching of her photos, "I wish  I looked like Cindy Crawford."
What is the reason for destroying women? Most obviously it is to create better consumers. A consumer in need is a sale. Convincing women that they are flawed (and moreover convincing men of this too) creates a fertile ground for sales. As they say "sex sells," but really at what cost? At the cost of the mental well-being of our young and old women alike?
We are destroying a people: ourselves.
What they seem to be selling is a lifestyle not a product. They are selling the glamorous sexualized "natural" way women should be. It would seem by advertisements that this is really a choice that women make. It is empowering for us to be sexual objects and we do it well....Indeed its not. Sexuality  becomes more of an obligation to feel accepted and worthy than a choice. And those women who are not "attractive" are left to feel worthless. According to "Killing Us Softly 4" only 5% of women can actually fit into the mold that advertisers call "attractive": its the rail thin, small bust, no hips and thighs look. Yet with the increase in the desire to have and promote even thinner models, this 5% may question themselves and are still capable of eating disorders and depression. Indeed, depression, eating disorders, and low self esteem are consequences of advertisements for everyone that run rampant in our culture.
There is also a dramatic amount of ageism seem in advertising. There typically is never anyone in an ad who is older than their mid 20's, unless the ad is for an aging product such as wrinkle cream or bone loss treatment. Our culture glorifies youth to the point that there is a huge lack of respect for the elderly. This is seen everywhere. Recently a song came out on the radio that stated, "We don't care about the old folks. talking about the young folks." This line was repeated several times in the chorus. The tune was rather catchy but the lyrics were very clear. Lyrics in other songs are no longer "suggestive" to sex but blatantly come out with it. Lyrics such as those saying, "I don't want to meet your daddy. Just want you in my caddy." More recently other lyrics I have heard say, "do you want to be my backseat whore?"
I am reminded of the movie "Stepford Wives." After watching this movie I had a very bad taste in my mouth. I think the movie ticked off some all too familiar feelings. Is our worth as women really as objects simply for male pleasure and appeal? While the women in this movie found a way out of Stepford and returned to their normal lives and gained their rights as successful women again with opinions and feelings. All of their husbands in the movie seemed to prefer the latter of them to the real them. In other words, the men brought their wives there so that they would be submissive, only concerned with their husband's happiness and keeping up with their beauty. The only reason that the men were forced to go back to their lives as it had been before is because the wives came out of their mechanical programming. The movie seemed to leave a subtle message that indeed men do just want women for sexual objects to make them happy. The last scene of the movie showed the men in the grocery store, on "punishment," all scrambling to shop for what the wife had asked. It seemed to imply that given the chance men would never choose a women with intellect, personality, and compassion.

Stepford Wives trailor

http://youtu.be/zst_sAGnu1Q

As I watched the movie "Killing Us Softly 4" there was a few resonating thoughts in my mind. I am reminded that the people of a culture can be no more than the culture they are developed in. We are products of our environment.  I am also reminded that we are all connected. From the worst of us to best of us, there is some of everyone in each of us. So what this means is that we cannot look away and hope it will get better. We can not simply think that we are unaffected...We must commit to take action against it and continue to do so until....forever, really. We have spent years defiling the body of women. We have spent years destructing the value of ourselves then. It makes no difference if we are a man or woman, our survival and health of our society depends on each one of us.What is affecting our least and our best is affecting us.

Consequences of Capitalism

America is a capitalistic economy that has systematically created ways to marginalize minorities in effort to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer. From the beginning of this country, the economic system has been working to suppress certain groups of people and keep other groups elevated. Capitalism has allowed this system to continue. This is a combination of racism and classism that is so prevalent in Capitalistic America.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those. In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by those who provide the capital and utilize it so successfully that revenue from resulting products exceeds the costs of production. Often profits are used to expand an enterprise, thus creating more jobs and wealth. Wages are received by those who provide a service to the enterprise, also known as workers, but do not have an ownership stake in it, and are therefore compensated irrespective of whether the enterprise makes a profit or a loss. In the case of profitable enterprise, profits are therefore not translated to workers except at the discretion of the owners, who may or may not receive increased compensation, whereas losses are not translated to workers except at similar discretion manifested by decreased compensation.
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism."

quote from: Wikipedia

Capitalism is made possible from the working and middle class. These two classes support the upper class and their businesses. Without a strong support of workers any business could not be successful. In essence what is happening is that a group of elite people are dictating what will happen and everyone else is doing the work to keep everything running in order. Capitalism preaches a free market but is it really and truly free? "Free" implies that the market is within reach to anyone who wants it. It is not free though and comes at a cost; typically that cost is working hands being manipulated into a system that hurts them and benefits a small group of rich. Regulations on the market have become more lax since the 1970's. While regulations once supported small business (or working/middle class attempting to get a hand at upper class), regulations have now allowed large corporations like Viacom to monopolize certain markets. Smaller companies are forced to sell out or shut down because they can't compete with large corporations that consume the majority of the market.

All this is made possible from ideology that has been instilled in the culture of the nation. The ideology that I am talking about supports the oppression of certain groups and the elevation of other groups. Ideology is placed in schools, religion, government facilities, media, and other public institutions. This is known as Hegemony: a theory by Antonio Gramsci. Hegemony basically states that ideas are put in place through many avenues, such as media, schools, government organizations, ect., that support oppression of minority groups and the success of other groups for the benefit of the economy or social control. All the while the ideas are made to seem "natural" and "normal." They most indeed are not though. The ideology most often supports one group and demeans another in an attempt to create economic wealth for one side.
Examples of this are everywhere in the United States: most predominantly in media. It would seem that in order for capitalism to function there needs to be a "problem people" or a group of people that are dehumanized in order to justify their treatment. This can be seen from the beginning of history. It began with the blacks and slavery. At that time the success of the south was built on the backs of the black labor force. This was the start of a class system in the U.S. Blacks would have been the "working class" and whites would have been the upper class. Middle class was more of the factory workers who weren't black. This struggle would continue up until modern day with races such as the Irish, who were dehumanized during the Industrial Age. Fast forward to modern day with Mexicans who were seen as a scape goat for the fall of the economy back in 2008. Regulations and lots of publicity created hostility towards Mexicans for "stealing jobs": jobs that no upper or even "middle class" person would take on. Now, our very current situation shows that Arabs "are the new black." They have been marginalized after 9-11 to all be violent and dangerous. They are inhuman and should not be respected...So the media dictates to us.
Movies like Borat poke fun at non-white groups: making these people appear dumb and weird. Throughout the movie, Borat is a character that appears stupid and always disrespectful. This movie is difficult to analyze though because it could be argued that it attempted to fouly bring light to the ridiculous stereotypes and ideology set in place with media.

In any case I have included a clip from Borat....
In the clip Borat is in the "hood." Blacks are depicted stereotypically. There is no scene in this movie that counteracts this scene. Meaning there is not a black character in this movie that appears "educated" or "well to do." This is just one tiny example of how class and race are put together and a message is sent to the audience about a black person's identity or what is expected and "normal."

http://youtu.be/cNtkyA1C4jg

It is difficult to sum up this blog....
This topic is one that touches at everyone and at everything around us. Only when we are observant and begin to question everything can we even begin to shed some insight on this.

Dude

Scott Kiesling writes an article titled "Dude." In this article, Kiesling outlines the use of the word "dude" and what it means for the relationships, settings, and identities for those who are using the word. He discusses how the use of the word has evolved into how it is used today and its meaning. He also illustrates how the word is used within linguistic communities to display social relationships and identities; which is what makes language socially meaningful.

He begins by stating that commonly the word "dude" is used primarily by men, particularly those in the surfer crowd or the "druggie" subculture, or so that is how the word began. It has evolved and become a word that is used by both men and women to address both men and women.
In its primary sense of the word it has been used as a term used by men to express their masculine solidarity but at the same time it is used as a way to show closeness between two heterosexual (men).

Kiesling draws on the background of the word to further his research:

"Dudes originally referred to ‘old rags’, and a dudesman, ‘scarecrow’. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, “dude became synonymous with dandy, a term used to designate a sharp dresser in the western territories [of the United States]” (321). There was for a time a female version of the word, but it fell out of use. According to Hill, the use of dude as an address term developed in the 1930s and 1940s from groups of men, “Urban Mexican American pachuchos3 and African-American zoot-suiters” (323), known for their clothes consciousness." (Kiesling, 284)

Kiesling also discusses other ways that dude is used by women to women or to men. It is also seen as a way of commiserating. The use of "dude" within heterosexual relationships. Men reported using the word "dude" with women that they were friends with but not with women that they were romantic with. Among male to male relationships it is a nonhierarchial term used to commiserate and bond.
The research that Kiesling did and the way he conducted his data and analysis is a great example for me and how I can apply it to my linguistic study.
I have been able to use this research article as a sort of example to work off of in my own analysis. Similar to the word "dude" the word "baby" can be analyzed by examining the participants, the setting, the time, and other important factors.
Chiaka calls the system of creating a system of understanding aspects of langauge such as kinesis (body language and unspoken elements of communication) is called paralinguistics. Paralinguistics is a combination of kinesis and spoken language and other elements of that create language as we understand it.
For my own research of the word "baby" I have been able to utilize both the studies done by Kiesling and the word "dude" in addition to understanding principles of language by Chiaka. Chiaka presents the technical concepts that can be applied and Kiesling article presents an example of how Chiaka can be applied.

language and dialect

In the book titled "The Games People Play" by Dr. Eric Berne, he outlines transactional analysis theory. In its most simplified terms this theory describes how ideas and concepts about the world around us and how we respond to it are developed through childhood, our parents, and our adult selves. I would like to describe this theory a little bit more as I understand it. According to this theory most or all of our concepts of self and identity in relation to concepts in the world around us are set from birth until 5 years of age. Everything after this is a reinforcement of those ideas and a further development of those already  placed. As we grow into ourselves over the years, we have three entities that are within us. There is the parent who teaches concepts to the child. Often times the child does not always understand or know the "why?" of each concept or lesson but none the less the lessons are internalized and accepted as truth and reality. The child is the part of the person with the emotional responses to the adult or its external environment. The adult of the person is one that has developed a learned concept. At this point in adulthood, or as the person enters into adulthood, the concepts of this person are developed enough that they are somewhat set in stone. The theory is called transactional analysis because the theory describes in great detail how the three entities make transactions among each other.
At the start of life the adult is a small child. Adult data gathers out of the child: his ability to understand what is different than what he/she observes (parent) or feels (child). Another way to understand this is the adult allows the young person to evaluate and validate the child and parental data. The adult is the decision maker after it computes information from the parent, the child, and the information gathered.

In chapter 7 of "Language the Social mirror" by Chaika she discusses how children learn langauge. Language is something that can be mutually understood by the speakers so that they communicate. Dialects and language are closely related. Dialect is a division of a language that shares basic qualities of the language it is derived from but differs slightly with accents or different meanings to words. Chaika discusses how children learn a language briefly. The develop their vocabulary by listening to their parents and testing out different words and ways of using the words. Eventually children will speak the dialect of the language from which they are surrounded by. As adults it, and as the child ages, it is incredibly difficult to learn new languages or master other dialects. The reasons for this is not certain. However some communication specialist theorize that it is easier for a child to learn a language than an adult to learn a language because they are more enthusiastic and willing to do so. Others say that the reason is the language is ingrained in the adult and they have learned their ways and the mind is unwilling to fully embrace the new language.

In this blog I wanted to speak a bit the later idea of why it is difficult for an adult to fully master a language using the transitional analysis theory. As I understand it, just like the concepts, morals, and understandings we develop from childhood from our parents (the parent entity), we also gain the language from them. It is a concept deeply ingrained in us just as any other moral lesson or value our parents create in us. In this way it is very challenging to change our minds and accept another language with as much strength as the first was. I do not believe that difficulties in learning a new language rests entirely on the inability to open one's mind to new truths or concepts but I do feel it has a large impact on one's ability to do so. I believe that a large amount of it is the fact that our minds have difficulty allowing new agreements in or new concepts that do not line up with the ones taught to us when we were young children.
This is an unconscious in us: all of the patterns from our language and mannerism of it were developed and continually refashioned according to our childhood.
What are some ways that your language and dialect reflect your childhood or parents?

I don't really care about that...and you won't shut up

Grice claimed that there are certain maxims that guide conversations. He labeled the four he found as "maxims." For the purpose of this blog I wanted to focus in on two in particular: quality and quantity. Quantity is the amount that one person speaks to another. He claimed that a person in a healthy and worthwhile conversation should say no more and no less than is required to maintain the interest of the others and continue or end a conversation. Quality is the actual value of what is being said. He claimed that those in a conversation should say only things that add value to the conversation. What is being stated should be believed to be true by the speaker or the speaker should have evidence for what is being said.

As I was reading this particular section of the chapter I began to think about the differences commonly noted and studied in men and women. For the purpose of this blog I want to specify that when I use the term "men" or "women" I am not meaning to categorize all persons of a female sex or of a male sex. It would be too general to assume and/or make statements that claim the opinions and actions of all men are the same and the attitudes and actions of all women are the same. This is not true. It has just been found that certain qualities are more commonly found in men and other qualities are more commonly found in women.

I have similarly heard in one of my communication class discussions that women enjoy talking about the details of a story and build suspense up to a climax of a story while men would rather that the person they are conversing with simply presents the meat of the story or the main point. One can see how it would be frustrating or difficult for both parties to communicate on common ground. 

I relate this particular idea of gender differences in communication to Grice's ideas of what makes a worthwhile conversation. According to Grice saying too much (quantity) can ruin a conversation or take away from the essence of a good convo. For women, it seems that adding extra "fluff" is what makes a good conversation worthwhile. Men would disagree, perhaps, that all the "extras" are not needed. However for women these extras are important because they allow them to create/build social support systems by creating trust and kinship. For example, when two women are talking and one women is sharing a story about her daughter learning to walk; the other women is listening intently. The women who is listening is showing that she cares, while the women who is talking is able to share her excitement (trusting the other). 

Generally quantity and quality go hand in hand. It is often assumed that if one is speaking too much what they have to say may not be of much quality. Quality can be expressed in very little quantity of words, usually; or so many people assume so. It is my opinion, too, that for the most part quality and quantity are relational. I do, however, believe that sometimes conversations do not have very much substance may actually have value. Often women will converse over what seems very trivial matters. Perhaps, these conversations, though appear on the outside as meaningless or needless, assist in building strong social bonds and ties. After all, the more one talks to another, the more often one talks to another, the more ingrained that person becomes in the others life. They gain many details about the other person and are able to better understand and bond with each other. In some ways it is like a photo or a painting: the more details that are noticed or exposed in the photo the more comprehensive one can have of the picture when viewing the photo: even those details that seem trivial and minute. 

In closing, I would argue that quantity and quality are aspects of a conversation that are up for some individual interpretation. Everyone will have their own opinion on what is too much talking and what is substantial information for the conversation. Each conversation will be different and every person will change based on their experiences and attitudes. 

I found a clip below from a Friend's episode. It is kinda humorous but it shows the idea of what this blog is talking about. I wasn't able to embed it because it was disabled on you tube and for some reason it did not create a link but if you copy and paste it into a page it should work! Its worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGoC8FTLKSI

To close, I would just like to pose a question to think about, how can your daily communication be improved by being aware of the quality and quantity of what is being said?

Cultural norms affecting tempo of language in a speech community

In chapter three Chaika discusses how communication is separated and described into style categories. Style of communication varies widely based on the speaking acronym. The speaking acronym is used to breakdown any particular communication experience and in use of further studying and learning about the speakers and the communication itself that is occurring. The speaking acronym stands: the "s" stands for setting or where the communication experience takes place. "P" stands for participants; who is involved. "E" stands for  events: this serves to answer "what?" "A" stands for acts or sequences; in  a particular event there will be several or at least a few acts. "K" stands for key or mood and tone of an event. "I" stands for instrumentality or the means of communication: for example texting versus talking in person. "N" stands for norms: rules of meaning for actions and such. "G" stands for genre: forms of speaking or expressions.

For this blog I want to focus on norms. Norms are socially constructed rules or regulations that occur in communication. Norms are a culturally developed idea. They change with different cultures and exists differently based on the unspoken agreements of members of that community.
Culture itself is based on customs and traditions that a particular community develops. These traditions and customs can be simple day to day rituals and habits among members of the community. From culture comes the idea of norms in language communication and behavior or actions. Unspoken rules and standards are developed among the elders that are passed down to the younger generations. These norms are assessed and enforced in behaviors, speech pattern or language, clothes, ect.

In chapter 3 of Language the Social Mirror by Chaika, the author discusses style of language or speech. Chaika refers to tempo of speech. Tempo is how slow or fast a person talks. The author remarks on tempo having to do some with a person's familiarity to the variety being spoken. Generally, students learning a language will speak slower and with more deliberance so as to be careful to say the words properly. How much time a person waits before responding to the other speaker is called tempo, as well.
Culture is really what dictates tempo in a speech community. The community creates norms within their society that are determining factors of what is an acceptable tempo in particular situation. Culturally what the group decides is an acceptable or expected tempo in a given situation or for a particular group is known as a norm. Its a norm because the society has decided what is normal or not normal.
One of the best examples I can think of comes from latin countries versus European ones or the United States. Latin countries, speaking spanish, have come accustomed to speaking very rapidy. The tempo they use is quick in comparison to "white" countries. The tempo of how rapidly they speak comes from their cultural values and social norms that have created an acceptable standard of what a native speaker would have. Those that speak with different tempos typically stick out like a sore thumb and are immedietly identified as non-native to the area.
Spanish from spain (castillo) is the most rapid tempo of all the latin countries. Puerto Rican spanish is fast as well but carries a draging out towards the end of each statement. It is somewhat like a rythm, fast-fast-slow.
In American culture what are some norms that are created in our culture and translated into our language? 

communication style and the first agreement

Don Miguel Ruiz wrote a book called The Four Agreements (A Toltec Wisdom Book). The book outlines four  agreements that ancient southern Mexican men and women practiced. They were known as "women and men of knowledge."
The author describes how Mexican men and women of knowledge viewed the world around them and life itself very differently. Their outlook on life gave them the courage and strength to live lives that were full of joy and rid their lives of drama and daily anxieties.
They believed that the world in which we live in is a dream. Each person is a mirror. Humans themselves are pure loving light. The dream or the world is simply smoke that does not allow us to see what we really are.  Confusion in life comes from the wall of fog or smoke between the mirrors made by the interpretations of the images of light: the dreams of humans.

 "...I am looking at myself in all of you, but we don't recognize each other because of the smoke in-between us. The smoke is the dream, and the mirror is you, the dreamer." (page xix)

The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams. The dream of the planet is made up of a planet that includes all of society's rules, its laws, beliefs, religions, its different culture and ways to be.
 The outside dream has so many rules that when a new human is born, we hook the child's attention and introduce these rules into his or her mind. Attention is simply the ability we have to discriminate and to focus only on that which we want to perceive. As we develop a need for attention we can become very competitive.
The outside dream hooks our attention and teaches us what to believe, beginning with the language we speak. Language is the code for understanding and communication between humans. Every letter, every word in each language is an agreement. The only way to store information is by agreement. As soon as we agree, we believe it, and this is called faith.
Don Miguel Ruiz describes domestication of humans. This is a process by which the outside dream is translated to the inside dream and a whole belief system is created.
Through this belief system Don Miguel Ruiz describes how man is destroyed through contradicting agreements learned and internalized from birth. With these agreements people begin to judge others based how well they follow rules. Those that do not follow rules are punished and when the rules are followed rewards are given. A need to hook other people's attention in order to get a reward develops. A fear is created: the fear of being rejected becomes the fear of not being good enough.
All the agreements we have made for our existence must be broken so that we can break free of the prison in our minds. To replace all other agreements there are four simple agreements that are made that if followed can lead to a fulfilling life and freedom in our own dream.

The first agreement is be impeccable with your words. This agreement is the agreement that all others stem off of. It focuses on how humans use language. Words are incredibly powerful and when used become black or white magic. The author calls these words magic because when  we use our words we place spells on people. They can choose to believe our words and internalize them: in turn making an agreement or they can choose to reject them by not believing them and not making an agreement. When someone believes in our words and makes an agreement, we have hooked their attention.
To understand being impeccable with our words, it is important to note what the word "impeccable" means: from the Latin word pecatus meaning sin and im means without. Sin is really anything that is said, done, felt, or believed against ourselves. When we choose to be impeccable with our words, we take responsibility for our actions, and do not judge or blame ourselves.

In this way we can understand that our words, all words, any words, that come out of our mouths are creating agreements with others and with ourselves. Our word choices will make or break us and in the same way words we choose to listen to will make or break us. The key here is that we are conscious in the process of choosing the words we speak and we take an active role in what words we value and internalize.

In chapter three of Language, the social mirror, by Chaika, she defines the word style. Style is defined as "different modes of communicative strategy that create a communication system in its own right, one that determines how a social interaction will proceed, or if it will proceed at all. Style is bound up with our presentation of self, the image we convey to others. Interactants mutually apply style both to guide and manipulate others." (pg 55)
The style or way in which we choose to communicate, including word choice, shows others and the self the agreements we have made with ourselves. When we actively engage in a shared style with other people we are expressing shared agreements. If someone approaches us with hostility: in an angry and vile style of communicating, and we reject their words and refuse to make an agreement with what they have said, we are communicating in a different style. In order to communicate one party will have to conform to the other parties style, otherwise communication can not successfully occur. This means that if we refuse to communicate in their style (refuse to believe in their words and make agreements) they must change their style to meet ours or there will be no communication.
As I understand it, our communicative style is how we outwardly express agreements we have made with ourselves on the inside. We can choose to be impeccable with our words, not using styles of communicating that go against our internal spirit, and aligning our inside world with our outside world.

What are agreements you have made with yourself over the years of your life that are destroying the person you are? What styles are you communicating with others and what agreements are you expressing to others when you use those styles?

Ego versus spirit

Wayne Dyer once said that, "all reality is a conflict between ego and spirit." In one of his conferences he mentioned a poet named Tagore. The poet described ego. The poem is listed below. The poem is a beautiful description of the effects of ego on our lives as humans living with pride and competition.

I have many words that have made a strong impact on my life. Some of these terms have been good, while others have been bad. Those terms that represent strong ideals and morals in one's life are called "God-terms." They are "words to live by." The opposite of this is called "devil-terms." These are terms that represent strong negative anti-God-terms. These words consistently have dark connotations. The ideas they represent are rejected  and avoided by people.
For me the word "ego" is a devil term. This term represents the grand flaw of the human race. Spirit is the opposite of this word. Ego is the idea that we as humans are in constant competition with others. We become separated from other humans and ultimately from God. The word "God" represents a spiritual peace and serenity: a kind of connectedness with a greater power. Ego is a separation of us as humans from this serenity. The ideas of ego and spirit are things that I think about everyday and as time goes on I become more aware of it in my life and in others around me.
Ego is the idea that we need to be better than other people and a constant pursuit of it. Ego is a need to announce events and achievements in our life. It can be as simple as not trusting your instincts and inner voice of what is the best next move: needing a consensus on making decisions in life.
Spirit is the opposite of this. Its a silent serenity and trust in your inner voice in life making decisions. My brother once said to me, "life is to be lived and not talked about or discussed." It is not needing to announce achievements and events or constantly seeking advice. All the answers and all needed guidance is already within us. There is no need to look outside of ourselves for approval or a spiritual connection with our great father (or higher power). He has been with us the whole time. He never left our side.
Below is listed the poem by the poet Tagore. He describes ego and how it is a part of us as a human being. Spirit will always be needed to overcome ego.

Ego by Rabindranath Tagore

" I went out alone on the way to my trist but who is this me in the dark? I step aside to avoid his presence but I escape him not. He makes the dust rise from the earth with his swagger. He adds his loud voice to every word I utter. He is my own little self, my lord. He knows no shame but I am ashamed to come to thy door in his company."

On a daily basis, I think about areas of my habitual lifestyle that I have let ego overcome spirit. This is the question I pose to my readers, what are areas of your life you have allowed ego to overrun your sense of spirit? And consequently how can spirit be the main force guiding our lives?