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.
Mi familia bonita
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
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.
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?
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.
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?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
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?
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?
Friday, February 11, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)