Cross-cultural communication is where the tectonic plates of culture meet. We watch it happen! Whatever makes cross-cultural communication work or not is good to post. Got examples, comments, brickbats or bouquets? Send them along!
October 19, 2004
What, If & When
Unequivocal Bush: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Democratic commentary: "I don't think there's anyone in this room today or 6,000 miles away who doesn't wish that those words had been true,"
John Kerry says of the "mission accomplished" banner...
Democratic commentary:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
http://www.cnsnews.com/
http://www.ftlcomm.com/
http://www.theangryliberal.com/comoftheday.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/koch1.asp
I think this last site is fair enough.
Hmmm? Extra comment (yay!): I think U.S. politics is rather low-level. After 200+ years, the political discourse ought to be more grown up than what I have read coming from the two major political parties. I hold a Chinese passport, so 'glass' & 'houses' come to mind. Bear with me...
In any case, I think this entry relates to communication in general, if not cross-cultural communication. If you cast the two major political parties as being from other planets then, certainly, it would be "cross-cultural communication". I think partisanship and obstinancy make people hear what they want to hear. If "Major combat operations are over" was too simplistic, then was "I don’t think you can win it..." overly nuanced? The Republican Party makes similar distortions about John Kerry, it seems. In any case, principle #2: People hear what they like.
I know Australians must vote or face fines! (Wow! So cool.) My American and Canadian acquaintances tell me that not voting is a 'statement', too. So, low voter turnout is because people are protesting? I do not think so... I think some proportion of non-voters have turned their back on politics. In Japan, I find my Japanese friends are so unaware of politics. Do they listen? Some do. Most don't.
For that matter, (another bonus comment!) I think there is a vicious circle of politicians making simplistic statements that sound authoritarian and 'presidential' but really do not communicate the depth of today's problems. "Old Bush" & "Little Bush", as we say in Chinese, often say "(Subject) is bad." and "(Subject) is good." These statements may disappoint and disillusion people, then discourage them from paying attention! Politicians then make wilder and more simplistic assertations. There is the vicious circle.
Maybe 'learned helplessness' is a psychological term that fits this case. It is an important concept, because people may be so completely disenchanted that they do not even HEAR the political discourse. It is like getting used to the drone of airplanes if you live near an airport.
Incidentally, I was in a bank complaining about a service charge to a teller. Her blinking eyes indicated that something was registering, on an unconscious level at least, but her vibrating lips "communicated" the following: I am too low-level to even acknowledge the complaint coming out of your mouth. Obstensibly, we serve you, the customer, but really, I just care about making my boss happy, and I could NEVER bring up this problem to him in a matter-of-fact way. I would rather sit here, staring at the headlights of your oncoming complaint, and feign ignorance until somebody higher up takes note and saves me. At least I will have made their day and there will be much hiking of the pants and sucking of the teeth tonight. File that one under "one she did not want to hear".
So, I think Principle #2 should more precisely be:
People hear what they like, when they like, if they even hear anything at all!
Democratic commentary: "I don't think there's anyone in this room today or 6,000 miles away who doesn't wish that those words had been true,"
John Kerry says of the "mission accomplished" banner...
Equivocal Bush: "I don’t think you can win it..."
Democratic commentary:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
http://www.cnsnews.com/
http://www.ftlcomm.com/
http://www.theangryliberal.com/comoftheday.htm
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/koch1.asp
I think this last site is fair enough.
Hmmm? Extra comment (yay!): I think U.S. politics is rather low-level. After 200+ years, the political discourse ought to be more grown up than what I have read coming from the two major political parties. I hold a Chinese passport, so 'glass' & 'houses' come to mind. Bear with me...
In any case, I think this entry relates to communication in general, if not cross-cultural communication. If you cast the two major political parties as being from other planets then, certainly, it would be "cross-cultural communication". I think partisanship and obstinancy make people hear what they want to hear. If "Major combat operations are over" was too simplistic, then was "I don’t think you can win it..." overly nuanced? The Republican Party makes similar distortions about John Kerry, it seems. In any case, principle #2: People hear what they like.
I know Australians must vote or face fines! (Wow! So cool.) My American and Canadian acquaintances tell me that not voting is a 'statement', too. So, low voter turnout is because people are protesting? I do not think so... I think some proportion of non-voters have turned their back on politics. In Japan, I find my Japanese friends are so unaware of politics. Do they listen? Some do. Most don't.
For that matter, (another bonus comment!) I think there is a vicious circle of politicians making simplistic statements that sound authoritarian and 'presidential' but really do not communicate the depth of today's problems. "Old Bush" & "Little Bush", as we say in Chinese, often say "(Subject) is bad." and "(Subject) is good." These statements may disappoint and disillusion people, then discourage them from paying attention! Politicians then make wilder and more simplistic assertations. There is the vicious circle.
Maybe 'learned helplessness' is a psychological term that fits this case. It is an important concept, because people may be so completely disenchanted that they do not even HEAR the political discourse. It is like getting used to the drone of airplanes if you live near an airport.
Incidentally, I was in a bank complaining about a service charge to a teller. Her blinking eyes indicated that something was registering, on an unconscious level at least, but her vibrating lips "communicated" the following: I am too low-level to even acknowledge the complaint coming out of your mouth. Obstensibly, we serve you, the customer, but really, I just care about making my boss happy, and I could NEVER bring up this problem to him in a matter-of-fact way. I would rather sit here, staring at the headlights of your oncoming complaint, and feign ignorance until somebody higher up takes note and saves me. At least I will have made their day and there will be much hiking of the pants and sucking of the teeth tonight. File that one under "one she did not want to hear".
So, I think Principle #2 should more precisely be:
People hear what they like, when they like, if they even hear anything at all!
Comments:
<< Home
Hui,
THANKS! You reminded me of something important that I'd forgotten about in your link to the excerpt about learned helplessness. I think it comes from a book by Martin Seligman called "Learned Optimism." I have it somewhere around here, and I really need to dig it up.
Also, please don't apologize for commenting on democratic processes just because you're from China. We need all the constructive criticism we can get!
Best.
DCS
Post a Comment
THANKS! You reminded me of something important that I'd forgotten about in your link to the excerpt about learned helplessness. I think it comes from a book by Martin Seligman called "Learned Optimism." I have it somewhere around here, and I really need to dig it up.
Also, please don't apologize for commenting on democratic processes just because you're from China. We need all the constructive criticism we can get!
Best.
DCS
<< Home
