Week #16 Question #3

Pick one other concept in the book that you feel needs further discussion? (You can choose from ANY chapter in the book).

As communication is a very powerful tool which has been used throughout human history to alter the course of events, I thought that a section or chapter dedicated to the ethical use of speech would have been interesting. Within this section, a portion dedicated toward cultural perception of speech and its uses would also have been helpful. As the world becomes more and more globalized as each day passes it becomes vitally necessary that we learn to communicate beyond cultural bounds. In order to do this an ethical or open mided (non-ethnocentric) use of communication must be employed in order to ensure the maximum effect of information relay. A section on the implications of the use of new media forms without regulations and restrictions would have also been very interesting and would have been a good addition to the book.

Week #16 Question #2

What concept's in this class have you found most interesting? What was it about that concept's that you found interesting?

I would have to say that I found the most interesting concepts covered within the class to be tose that dealt with communication within the new realm of the Internet. The ability for people to have absolute access to information, create virtual worlds, and assume and anonymous and face-less identity are all issues which we as a society are becoming more aware of day by day. I found this concept interesting because I have experience with people who have completely dedicated their lives to living within an online world. Their motivations, and the factors that allow such access, have always been things that have fascinated me. There is nothing wrong with playing games; I am myself an avid gamer. When the game, however, takes the core identity of an individual and becomes their living motiviation...that is where problems arise and addiction sets in. A couple years ago I jokingly came up with a slogan for friends of mine who were addicted to online gaming. Now, more than ever, that slogan rings true: "LIVE IRL" (in real life)

Week #16 Question #1

(Regarding Chapter 13) Which of the research methods listed in Table 13.3 seem the most interesting? Assume you want to study some aspect of deception. Frame a research question. Which method would you choose to answer the question. Why?

As a Cultural Anthropology major the most interesting research method to me is that of ethnography. By observing behavior within its environment one is able to gain a deeper understanding of the motives of that observed individual. By following the ethnographic process one is hopefully able to avoid ethnocentric analysis as cultural emersion may help change perspective. By taking ethnography one step further, through participant observation, one is truly able to gain some direct knowledge of what it is to be a person of the observed culture. If I were asking the research question "How does Japanese culture commend and condone deception within its modern society? ethnography would be my method of choice. By living with and observing integrated members of Japanese society, along with how they and members of their social networks interact, one could then use that data to answer.

Week #13 Question #3

· Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I found the section on Increased Surveillance as a characteristic of new media to be very interesting. Technology does allow us to perform more tasks and essentially make life easier. Technology is, hence the name, very technical and hard to understand. This is demonstrated whitin the section when they speak of internet monitoring devices such as cookies. The average internet user would be very unlikely to know what a cookie actually was, thus allowing those in control of technology to continue their monitoring tactics. For any company whose interest is to make money, it is obviously within their best interest to monitor customers and potential customers to ensure the efficiency of the whole working system. This is also true for governments. Keeping and eye on the people and being a step ahead is a governmental must. The ethics behind these practices, however, are what is to question. While the methods may be proven, do the ends justify the means?

Week #13 Question #2

· Do you agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, i.e. that the format or logic of a medium is as important as its content and, in fact, determines what content will be broadcast through that channel? Evaluate his idea that television is a cool medium.

I do believe that the medium in which a message is presented is very important to the audience it is intended for. Each medium, however, has its pros and cons in use. Print media allows an infinite amount of time and space to present ideas and views to an audience. The problem here is that if the print media is too lengthy, or written in a way that cannot be understood by the masses, the audience is more likely to ignore or reject such media. Television media has the advantage of presenting a visual image to its audience which allows its message to be collected and analyzed by the audience within a mere seconds glance. The downfall to television media, however, is that time is strickly regulated and all the facts or the whole story can often times not be told. Forcing whole statements and events into a set time frame often leaves the audience ill informed. McLuhan's idea about television being a "cool medium" is one which definately applied to the Kennedy v. Nixon debate. Today, however, there would be those who would argue that cool collectiveness and hot headedness are both welcomed in media as they portray "real life". Just look at the last 10 years of "reality TV" with various casts at each others throats for whatever reason. 50 years ago it would be hard to imagine an American audience accepting a bunch of people on an island who want to kill each other for a million dollars...instead they got Gilligan. The coolness and hotness of the medium has changed along with that of the American culture. Around the world these attitudes toward the television medium and its relative hotness or collness depend on the cultures using the medium.

Week #13 Question #1

· Have you made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace? If so, how are they different from f2f relationships? If you have not formed cyber relationships, why not?

Yes, I have made friendships that exist solely in cyberspace. I have also made face to face friendships which have then moved into cyberspace due to a separation of great distance. When it comes to cyberspace friendships that revolve around a massive multiplayer game (such as World of WarCraft [WoW] for example) your interactions are much more limited than in a face to face relationship. Now, this is not to say that you and your friends you met on WoW are doomed to only interact on WoW...you're just more likely to interact within the realm of a game. Cyberspace relationships that revolve around blogging and personal pages (MySpace, FaceBook) are still lacking when compared to face to face relationships but, I believe, have more room for adaptation and growth than in a cyberspace gaming relationship. The lack of face to face communication, participating in varrying physical and mental activities, and physical proximity are the main factors which separate face to face relationships from cyber relationships.

Week #12 Question #2

· Review the etiquette rules suggested in the text. Respond to each one. Have you ever been bothered by cell phone, answering machines, or beepers? What do you feel about call waiting? Is it rude to put people on hold to take another call?

I agree with the cell phone etiquette rules listed in the text. I have experienced many times people who do not care to follow these rules (at the movies, in the library, even in the middle of class) and have found that often the conversations that ensue are absolutely trivial. People should use their phones only during emergencies when stuck in a public situation. When it comes to answering machines I agree to a point. If you have a non-private line that you use for business purposes then yes, you should use discretion when making your message. If you do not then it is at your discretion. When leaving messages I do agree that a short message that gets to the point is best when ever possible. In my work experience conference calls are always tricky. Having 15+ people on one call can lead to confusion. It is very important to announce yourself before speaking. Fax etiquette is also important since no one wants to receive unsolicited faxes. Also, whenever possible, info should be sent via e-mail to save paper (money) resources. The time one picks for communication is also very important since calling at the wrong or inappropriate time can start the conversation off on the wrong note. Screen name and ring tone discretion are only valid when used in the public. If you are going to announce your screen name at your business or for business purposes then having a Politically Correct screen name would be wise. Ring tones again are at one's own discretion but I believe that while at work phones should be on vibrate or silent. I have been bothered by cell phones, beepers, and answering machines in the past and have found that I dislike communicating through those mediums. I believe call waiting should only be used when receiving and emergency phone call as it is very rude to leave someone hanging on the line (especially when air minutes are translated into cold hard cash).

Week #12 Question #1

· How are organizations tied to the environment? What is the relationship between the school you attend and the city or town in which it is situated? What, if any, ethical obligations does an organization like a college or university have to the local community?

Organizations are tied to the environment in many ways. They are tied to a social environment because they are composed of people who live unique lives and interact within society. Organizations are also tied to political environments as many times an organization's motivations may be politically based. Organizations are also tied to the natural environment (local and global ecosystem) because any means and mode of production produces some sort of waste by product which in turn effects the stability of the natural environment. Organizations must realize that they are not only effected by environmental factors but also may have a hand in the cause. The relationship between SJSU and the city and people of San Jose is a good one I believe. SJSU provides numerous services to the citizens of San Jose and is also a well respected university. Members of SJSU are also known to take action within the local San Jose community. SJSU is also the site of many city/community events held for the citizens of San Jose. I also believe that as SJSU grows larger and its alumni pool continues to grow the relationship between SJSU and San Jose can only grow stronger. I believe that a university has the ethical obligation to attempt to conduct research and community action within the community in which the university is situated. It is one thing for a school to focus on graduating its students, but for a school to focus on building the community which it is a part of is, I believe, a keystone of academia.

Week #11 Question #3

*Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?

I believe the hardest pattern to change would be that of competitive symetry. To attempt to change two overly competative people who are constantly in a struggle to prove something over the other would be extremely difficult I believe. I also believe this to be harder to change because it is natural human instinct to be competitive and society as a whole condons and sanctions such competition. I believe the most damaging pattern to a relationship would be that of rigid complementarity because that leads to resentment held by one or both memebers of the relationship toward the other partner. It is hard seeing a relationship continue when the role one plays is hated. I believe that the submisive symetry pattern would be most damaging to a persons self esteem because a person caught in this pattern does not view their opinions or desires as having worth. It may also be that even being able to make a decision is to much for a person in the submissive symetry pattern.

Week #11 Question #2

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I found the section in the text on self-disclosure to be very interesting. I am aware of the concept of self-disclosure and have often heard of it used in business terms (especially in the case of a whistle blower). In personal matters, however, self-disclosure is a very rare thing to come across in a culture which promotes to growth of the individual over all else. I also found the following sub-section of rules for disclosing information to be quite interesting as well. When I first read the section title I must admit I thought the only step to self-disclosure was honesty in one's statement but I soon came to the realization that there are many spheres of interaction involved in self disclosure which may effect others and situations in different ways. The section on responding to self-disclosure was also informative as often times self-disclosed information can be very private or shocking in nature.

Week #11 Question #1

*Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?

The characteristics or behaviors that I, and most other American males, use to judge others as unattractive may varry based upon the sex of who is being judged. For example, I believe that most American males, when observing the characteristics and behaviors of a woman, will first observe and rate based on physical characteristics. This may noyt ring true in every case as people are motivated by different factors, but I guarantee you'd be hard pressed to find a heterosexual male who will state he was attracted to his current (or previous) partner based on..lets say...her Gucci purse. Now, this is not to say that any interest needs to be sparked off of first contact, rather, if interest of an American male is sparked on first contact it is usally based on the perceptions of physical characteristics. On the American female side (and as I male I am making obserevations based upon my experiences with the opposite sex [family, friends, co-workers, etc,]) I believe the initial observations of characteristics and behaviors do not follow the usual model as with American males. Material and behavior defined as "machismo" have been what I have found to be two of the characteristics/behaviors which highly motivate women when it comes to attraction to men (I have encountered this here in the Bay Area...though I will admit that cultural trait is not as prevailant as it was in my previous home city of Miami, FL. Lets put it this way...in Miami..if you don't have the latest whip, threads, bling bling, and a phat roll to use to treat that significant other to a good time...don't even bother...and the funny thing is that a girl over there will look you up and down in 10 seconds and then tell you "Get away from me becuase of A, B, C, D." Club/material culture at its "best"). Now, again, this is not to force all women into the same box when it comes to how one rates or initially becomes aware of attractiveness. Rather, that at this point in time in our culture as my generation searches for physical partners, motivations have change quite drastically or simply evolved with technology and time. It was never a secret in the past that men looked for beautiful women and women looked for wealthy men who could take care of them and their future family. I find that today, however, it is easier to create the illusion of attractiveness or success.
Duck's theory does indeed make sense to me and I have been guilty in the past of judging someone based on sociological models, only to find myself to be completely wrong based on the time and interactions spent with that individual. On the same end, I have accepted someone based on sociological models and the wants and desires of the community in which I lived in, only to later realize that the person was in no way deserving of anything from me let alone my acceptance. I believe the present election may be a perfect example for this. On both ends of the parties there were those who, without any real or valid information, demonized the opposing candidate in the news media. This characterization in the news media then fed false information to the public which, due to the high level of political ignorance in this contry, motivated certain individuals to vote a certain way. For example, just the other day I was speaking with a friend who has been an adminany Republican his entire life. When we were speaking of Obama's child hood all I heard were 3 things: 1) Obama has the middle name Hussein...he must be a radical Muslim 2) Obama's father was a radical muslim and possibly a member of the Black Panther party and 3) based on these previous statements, Obama is himself a Muslim. Now, I sat and listened to this from my friend and then asked him where he got his information. I was in no way surprised when he said "Fox News...ofcourse". When I heard this I laughed and I told my friend just how wrong he was and how he had fallen into the great Republican propoganda trap. I explained to him that Hussein is a VERY common name in the Middle East and there are countless Americans (muslim and not) with the name Hussein. To make that correlation would also mean that any current living German by the name of Adolf has an uncontrollable need to commit genocide against Jews...simpley not true and more BS that ignorant Repubs try to pass off as scientific fact. Second, yes, Obamas father was a Muslim and may have infact been a memeber of the Black Panther party...but the most important part of that statement was so purposefully left out of the statement in order to sway Fox News viewers: Obama's father left and abandoned his family when he was only 2 years old thus never playing any type of major role in his education or upbrining (one could even easily imagine Obama striving to be the complete opposite of his father based on his abandonment thus negating the claim "Like father, like son". And finally, after stating these past 2 truths, the third statement, "Obama is a Muslim" fell apart without me having to say a word. My friend openly admited that he was wrong and had been fed missinformation...but that was still not enough for him to feel that he voted for the wrong candidate. Regardlesss, my friends image of Obama changed drastically after I told him of the lies he had been told and, despite claiming his allegiance to the Republican party, he admitted that he felt more secure in the fact that Obama was our President-elect (and he didn't have to worry about all the terrorist/Muslim theories) and that he would lead the country in a new and better direction.

Week #9 Question #3

*Pick one concept from the assigned readings that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I found the section on Culture and Goals, especially the examination of effort-optimism, to be very interesting. I have always known that many people around the world view American work ethic as a little "over the top" (I especially learned this living in Mexico for 2 years where things were a bit slower paced). While the section notes that different societies may express effort-optimism in different ways (poor cultures strive for success through hard work while wealthy cultures look for immediate and effortless gratification), I believe that both of these models, and many others, can be found with in the United States and can be used to explain why people are motivated to dedicate so much time and effort to certain ventures. I do disagree with the section, however, when it states that differences in work ethic attitude are based upon the ability of one to achieve higher social mobility. It almost seems to me to imply that the rest of the world is lazy because they are poor/developing...even though I know that's not what the author meant.

Week #9 Question #2

*Do you believe in the rationality, perfectability, and mutability premises? What social institutions and practices are based on these beliefs?

When examining the premises above I came to the conclusion that I do not believe solely in one, but in all when applied to different situations and circumstances. As stated on the text book, the rationality premise is deeply rooted in American law and government. An example of this not mentioned in the book is prison. In the United States people are put into prison to serve time, yes, but what is more stated is that they are there to be "rehabilitated". This process of rehabilitation or the making better of one's self fits directly into the rationality premise. The perfectability premise is also one which is rooted in American culture as we are a country founded on the Puritan principles of hard work and dedication (to God in the case of the Puritans and to various others to Americans). Our culturally passed down notion of "The American Dream" is based upon the same perfectability premise as, in order to reach the American Dream, one must dedicated themselves toward tireless and innovative work. While the first two premises obviously exist and are practiced in our own country today, they are man made constructs based upon reaching an intellectual ideal. The mutability premise, however, uses a natural standpoint to argue for that good physical and mental health are what is truly needed in order to advance. This too is becoming a more and more popular idea as more Green movements gain support and stress the importance of a healthy "Earth Conscious" diet and an environmentally conscious mindset.

Week #9 Question #1

*Do you agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture" and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture? If so, how can we break through the limits of our culture?

Yes, I would have to agree with Ruth Benedict's statement that "we are creatures of our culture and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture". It is very true that that majority of what we learn on how to act and carry out the basic functions of life come from observed patterns in direct family and in society as a whole. Now, this is not to say that being born a human dooms you to be nothing more than a mimic. On the contrary, many do have the option of rebelling against cultural norms and sets. This decision to rebel and the ways in which the rebellion are carried out, however, often are rooted in the cultural norms and sets which are being rebelled against. For example (and a very loose one) a society may promote the color white as ritual garb. One who wishes to rebel may choose the opposite, black, but this choice is rooted in the cultural norm and set of white. Now we may choose to conform and rebel in ways which do not fit within Benedict's model and statement...but when culture is looked at as a whole it seems that Benedict's statement rings more true despite the various probabilities of will.

Week #7 Question #2

2). Although nonverbal messages are more universal than verbal messages, nonverbals do not always carry the same meanings in other cultures. Can you give examples of some of the nonverbal displays that take on different meanings in other countries? If you have moved around within this country, have you ever encountered regional differences in nonverbal meaning?

An example of a nonverbal message which has a completely different meaning in the United States and other countries is the public display of men holding hands. In the United States I would venture to say that 9 out of 10 people, if questioned whether or not a pair of men who were publicly holding hands were gay, would state the pair were gay. This seems to be a culture wide norm here in the United States, but not in other countries. In the Middle East, for example, it is quite common to see grown men holding hands in public. Here, though, this is a symbol of friendship and in no way symbolizes anything remotely homosexual to the various Middle Eastern cultures involved. While I have no doubt that most Americans hold on to their ethnocentric views when observing this situation in public...but do people from the Middle East think all those guys up in San Francisco are just really good friends?

Week #7 Question #1

1). Because nonverbal messages can be ambiguous, they are open to misinterpretation. Have you ever been wrong about the meaning of someone's nonverbal message? Describe what happened. How can people increase the accuracy with which they interpret nonverbal messages.

One of the most interesting cases of a misunderstood nonverbal message(s), which I also found myself guilty of, is images used by the Hells Angels motorcycle club. Growing up on the East Coast of the U.S. motorcycle culture was something that only came to town with the yearly bike rallies. When I moved to Miami, they became even more rare. I grew up with a culturally learned notion that bikers were nothing but a gang on wheels and the Hells Angels, they were the worst of them all. I saw images of swastika covered jackets, SS lightning bolts wherever they could fit, skulls and cross bones on helmets, and defaced American flag patches. Needless to say the word "evil" seemed to fit quite well with my learned preconception of the Hells Angels. It was later that I read a book by Hunter S. Thompson, by the name of Hells Angels, which documented a few years of Thompson's life on the road with the motorcycle club as a freelance journalist. While Thompson in no way refutes that the Hells Angels are in every way a group of brutes who revel in an orgy of violence, rape, and the road, he was able to peer into the mindset of the Hells Angels themselves. This understanding of the workings of a Hells Angel's thought process allowed him to understand their use of symbols. Thompson came to the conclusion that the Angels didn't wear these hate symbols because they themselves were full of hate or evil, but rather because they enjoy instigating violence where ever and whenever possible. Thompson alludes to countless occasions in which a civilian attempted to fight an Angel due to worn symbols only to be gleefully beaten by the entire gang in response, just as if the entire scenario was a trap. So, while I and the rest of the United States were interpreting these images in a way which would seem normal in our culture, the Hells Angels knew this and used it against anyone unlucky enough to cross their path. Just as the Venus fly trap draws in its prey, so do the Hells Angels. This belief of Thompson's was reinforced when I met a group of first generation Angels who road with the infamous Oakland club, lead by Sonny Barger. They confirmed that many of the symbols they wore were just to get a rise out of people and tempt them into throwing the first punch. In the same conversation the entire group also adamant in stating that Thompson was a lunatic idiot who had no idea what he was talking about...one can only wonder. None the less, my notions of the Hells Angels were inherently wrong based upon my use of culturally learned interpretations of their symbols rather than taking an non-ethnocentric view and interpreting them as an Angel, and not as an American.
I believe a way in which people can educate themselves on nonverbal messages is to watch visual media from other countries. By observing television shows, movies, art, and people of other cultures, as represented in visual media, one could pick up on nonverbal messages and their meanings. Another way someone can increase the accuracy in which they interpret nonverbal messages is by attempting to leave any preconceived notions behind and interpreting the message through the lens of the observed, and not the observer.

Week #6 Question #3

One thing I found interesting in this chapter was the section titled factors affecting memory. I had already known previously of the phenomena of melding memories into one, and have even experienced this with my own memories. I did not know however, about such cases as the one examined by Pratkanis and Aronson. In cases such as this people were actually convinced that they had extensive involvement throughout their life time in events that they previously were unaware of (apparently most of these cases and events involve an extreme case of cultural taboo). I would have initially thought something throughout these lines to have been a case of clear cut brain washing. The fact though that these cases are advocated by the involved individual community makes it unique. It makes me wonder If these same constructs were at work in Salem.

Week #6 Question #1

1)Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make more fair?

As an anthropology major I have been asked the same question when asked to examine various cultures through outsider's eyes. When an observer/participant of/in a foreign (not by distance but by knowledge) culture reacts to practices, beliefs, systems, or any other cultural product in a way which suggests the superiority/legitimacy of the observer/participant's own cultural products then the direct knowledge gained is tainted and is in need of further interpretation. This viewing of foreign cultures through one's own cultural lens is called ethnocentrism. At the core of anthropology lies the ethical debate of whether or not ethnocentric studies in fact yield "relevant" knowledge. While the core of mainstream anthropologists in every branch would side with the ethical standpoint of rejecting ethnocentrism and responding to foreign cultures and their cultural products in an open manner, one could also make an argument that anthropology has also been used quite often for the purpose of domination (ethnocentrism indeed). One of anthropology's famed mothers, Ruth Benedict, conducted a study during World War II which involved examination of Japanese media in order to further understand the culture and then systematically demoralize them. Her work was highly regarded by the U.S. military and was later published under the title, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (it is also interesting to note that in the past 3 years Benedict's work has again become very popular through out Asia as multi-national tensions increase with Japan). One could also fan the flames of conspiracy by stating that the recent torture/degradation techniques witnessed at Abu Gharaib were based on the insight of an anthropologist (or someone very culturally aware), but we may never know. None the less, ethnocentrism is a double edged sword any way you look at it. So, to answer the above question: yes, I definitely believe it is possible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them, however, whether or not we do is based on our own agenda.

NOTE TO INSTRUCTOR: I e-mailed you about this post. Please see e-mail 10/3 8am

Week #6 Question #2

2).

Do you agree that men and women use language differently? In what areas?

While being at risk of sounding very non-PC, I would agree with the above statement when used generally. It is no secret that the majority of men and women rationalize their experiences in completely different ways. With that said, if communication is based off of one's rationale, then it would be easy to correlate a difference in the use of language along with a difference in rationality. Now this is not to say that I believe EVERY man and EVERY woman uses language in a way completely different from each other..on the contrary, many men and women purposefully use language geared toward the other sex to get their message across. I would feel comfortable stating, however, that when it comes to communication of personal emotions there is a HUGE difference in how both men and women use language to convey this to each other. Things that are more private in nature there seems to be a great difference in language usage, while those aspects of public life almost seem to have a set language associated with them.

Week #4 Question #3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading (Chapter 9) that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I found the section on context and rhetorical situations to be very interesting as I personally believe this section outlines much of what is going wrong and right in the current Presidential race. It seems to me that both parties, but especially the Republican party, are not concerned with presenting their side of the debate within the framework of historical context and rhetorical situations until the fallacy of said statements are brought into the light. For example, McCain's VP choice could be seen as an attempt to hijack the historical context of the presidential race away from the first African American presidential candidate with a small town, self proclaimed "redneck hockey mom." Now whether or not this tactic is one of genius or not is up for interpretation. I for one see through the ploy and laugh at his attempt...but the rest of America seems to have been fooled by the Wizard of Arizona.
An example of how rhetorical situations have been avoided would be how the current economic crisis has been all but ignored by both presidential candidates till just a few days ago when the news took center stage. I believe that not being able to address issues before they reach the crisis point is a con for both candidates as they appear to me to be reacting to the news rather than being ahead of the ball as a President should.
On the other hand, both parties (and ESPECIALLY the Republican party) are very good at presenting their statements in a way which correlates with physical setting, medium and occasion. I believe Fuhrer Bush's rise to the throne through the manipulation of Bible Belt and Midwest voters is a clear example of that.

Week #4 Question #2

2). Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is this speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?

The strong points of the current Democratic Presidential candidate, Barrack Obama, are one of the most hotly debated issues in popular news media today. For 25+ years we have heard of John McCain being a war hero, a maverick, one of the greatest Arizona senators ever and most importantly: experienced. These are all great things to contest with when the majority of Americans do not research candidates and take most of what they hear as truth (a major problem with this year's campaign as nearly every public statement made by McCain and his running mate are strewn with misinformation and flat out lies). Despite all of this I believe Barrack Obama's strongest characteristics lie with his credibility and the attractiveness of his message.
We have all heard that the big issue this campaign is change. Barrack Obama championed this theme during the Democratic primary and into the national race. He clearly believes that the working system in Washington is broken and the American people pay for it year after year while those in government are more interested in holding power than insuring that government power is working. This core statement has made Barrack Obama's message very appealing/attractive to the voting masses as the majority of Americans (regardless of party affiliation) do feel the everyday workings of Washington need to be changed. This then caused Republican nominee John McCain to switch around his core running issues to match the national desire for change. Here we run into the issue of a speakers credibility. I believe Barrack Obama is extremely credible when it comes to the issue of changing the Washington system as he presents ideas and plans which have never been implemented before. McCain, on the other hand, who first claimed he was the best Presidential candidate based on his 25 years of senatorial experience and that he would be able to hit the floor of the Oval Office running now claims that based upon those same 25 years of experience he is the best candidate to evoke change because, in the past, he has been a "maverick" (I ask you this...does voting for the right and honorable thing, despite your own party taking a clearly racist and elitist stance against it, make you a "maverick" or make you just a normal senator doing his job while being surrounded by district elected snakes? After all...lets not forget that senator Strom Thurmond was considered to be a maverick too due to his beliefs and political attempts to keep racial segregation lines drawn). This current statement, when viewed in to context of John McCain's career and previous statements, is clearly an oxymoron but apparently the vast majority of Americans just don't get it. This, to me, makes John McCain HIGHLY not credible(along with his attempt to sway Clinton voters with a self-proclaimed "redneck hockey mom" with no real government experience at all who, according to McCain, has kept Russian invaders out of Alaska...Alaska people. That and I'm pretty sure Russia would not risk massive military/nuclear retaliation over Alaska...but apparently that's just me and John McCain is still living in the Kennedy-Reagan Cold War era).
I believe Obama's current stance of not participating in the old Washington way of smear/attack ads (which John McCain seems more than happy to pump millions of dollars into) clearly shows an extremely good quality of ethos which in turn make his statements that more credible. I honestly think the only thing that Obama could do to boost his ethos would be to openly challenge John McCain to a series of presidential debates in various areas of the country (both blue and red states/industrial and agricultural states). If McCain accepts then Obama has a real chance to make McCain look like an old fool in his own territory and really swing the vote his way. If McCain denies the challenge then Obama can then truthfully and factually state that his opponent, John McCain, is afraid of confronting important issues vital to the American nation and government and there for can not be trusted in the White House to act in the best interest of the country. As it is, I would argue that Barrack Obama has the highest degree of ethos in any presidential candidate that I have ever witnessed/heard in my 25 years of life.
On a side note, when it comes to the notions of credibility, attractiveness of message, and power the current two party system in the United States leaves quite a bit to be desired and offers no real opportunity for those with real ground breaking ideas to enact change. Often times the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the color of their tie...

Week #4 Question #1

1). Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

The best speaker I have ever heard would have to be my 6th grade English/reading teacher, Rafael "Coqui" Ross, who also became my mentor in the medieval arts of combat, heraldry, archery, armour craft (leather, chain maille, and plate), leadership and (most importantly) the code of chivalry. From the age of 11 till I left Miami, FL at the age of 21, Coqui Ross spent 10 years dedicating his time, not only to his students in school, but also to students such as myself who's chosen course work did not exactly fit in with the normal school curriculum. Looking back I know that one of the main reasons why I stood by, and still stand by, Coqui Ross is his amazing sense of character, ability to lead any group toward success, and ability to make you feel nearly every emotion possible with but a whisper of his words.
In 6th grade I first met Coqui Ross at Belen Jesuit Jr. High in Miami, FL. As a non-Christian stuck in an all boys Jesuit school...lets just say I wasn't happy. That all changed, however, when I first took Mr. Ross' English/Reading class. From day #1 he challenged our minds and was not affraid to let us know if we were wrong, stupid or just crazy. When we read, we did not just read, no, we acted out and attempted to experience what the author was depicting in a certain work. When we read difficult pieces, such as Sir Thomas Mallory's 'Le Morte De Artur', Mr. Ross took the language within the text and was able to present it to his students in a way which I believe no other has ever been able too. In the period of two months I and other classmates were able to read, understand and decipher one of the oldest Medieval texts known to the Western world...all at the age of 11.
Following my experience in Mr. Ross' 6th grade course he asked me to assist him during the summer with a project he had revolving around actual medieval reenactment. That summer the Summer Knights INC. program was born in Miami, FL and over a period of 10 years both Mr. Ross and I taught thousands of students in various medieval arts but I mainly focused on combat and the code of chivalry. By the age of 15 I was honored to have parents of my students (who happened to be my same age) approach me and personally thank me for "saving" their sons who apparently were on the brink of boarding/military school. After hearing this Coqui Ross made it a point to put our "hardened" students directly under my control and order to be "whipped into shape in a timely and chivalrous manner." I am very proud to say that working with those groups of troubled kids over the years and watching them grow into honorable citizens was the most rewarding work I have ever been honored to be a part of. Without Coqui Ross' amazing ability to inspire his students and then take that inspiration and form it into a working, and quite functional, model I honestly believe I would have chosen another path in life and I would not be the experienced person I am today. Coqui Ross...I owe it all to you.
The worst speaker I have ever heard (and this is no easy thing to narrow down as I have heard far more worse speakers than exceptional ones) would have to be our current President, George W. Bush. I have never heard anyone in my entire life who, but with a single word, wrought such contempt and hatred from my living soul. Now, this is not to state the Bush (I will not give him the courtesy of affixing the presidential suffix to his name again) is a horrible speaker in technique. On the contrary, one could correlate his 8 years of "success" to his uncanny ability to preach to the American people of the Midwest, South and Bible Belt (where the vast majority of voting Americans live) and essentially tell them exactly what they wanted to hear. This takes time and an extremely conscious effort on the part of Bush and his advisers. Bush's attempts at silencing critics and government whistle blowers is also an example of his speaking abilities. When confronted by issues such as these Bush has shown that he and his writing staff are very talented ad dodging questions and issues and leaving everyone in the dark...essentially ending the issue. What then makes me believe Bush is a horrible speaker? I would have to place it on his uncanny ability to spurn me toward the opposite of everything he proposes and the unconscious (yet consciously motivated) belief that every thing he says is a lie. No matter how well someone plays the game of speech, if you can't mobilize your listeners to your cause and those very same listeners question the credibility of everyone of your words you wind up with approval ratings around where Bush' are today.

Week #3 Question #3

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it*

I found the final section on the cultural studies perspective to be very interesting. While many of the practices, I believe, are similar to those in the social constructionist perspective (viewing how cultures form norms), the cultural studies perspective demands the deeper question be asked. It is not only concerned about how these norms are formed and passed on, but how the norms themselves are transmitted, acted upon or forced on those within or outside of the culture. I believe as time goes on and the world becomes more and more interconnected with the global economy and global mass media it will become more and more important to use the cultural studies perspective in order to successfully communicate.
I also found the cultural studies perspective to be very useful as it promotes an awareness of one's own ethnocentrism (belief and practice that one's own culture has the correct ideology and all others have it wrong) and pushes the speaker and listeners to get past that same ethnocentric boundary. Being able to speak with others with an awareness of their cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and practices is absolutely imperative in order to secure success during international/intercontinental speech.

Week #3 Question #2

*Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?*

When I read the section on pragmatic perspective in the text I immediately thought back to my years of congressional debate competition in the state of Florida. What the book describes as an apparent "chess game of communication" is actually a very accurate depiction of debate itself. There were countless times I, or one of my teammates, would unknowingly fall into a trap created by a debate opponent only to watch our argument slowly crumble away due to one miss step...a counted on miss step none the less. After my first year of debate competition I began to realize that a cutthroat attitude was necessary in order to succeed (or even just get called to speak)...in other words I really needed to get my head in the game. I eventually found that by using logic I was able to often confuse an opponent and get them to vocally commit to some fact or figure which in reality is the bomb meant to sink their boat. In order to do this, however, you yourself must be very ready with exceptional factual knowledge of the topic at hand and any others which may tie into it because as a debater you must always be aware...and you must catch your opponent unaware.
While communication is very much like a game there are also noticeable differences. The first and most apparent difference is that in a game, once the game is over, that's it...it's over. There are no true worldly consequences other than the loss of bragging rights till the next game. In communication, however, the results of the communication game have very real consequences and repercussions and can themselves be the reason for great change. Another difference is that in a game the rules are normally always set and must be followed a certain way. In the communication game, however, the rules constantly change based on the statements made by the previous person (for example: In a debate one's family and family history may seem obviously off limits...but if an opponent makes comments regarding your family that are false then all bets are off and it's time for the gloves to come off too) and the rules themselves change from culture to culture. While Monopoly is played the exact same way around the world the communication game has many many different ways to play it.

Week #3 Question #1

*Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we “build worlds” through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness or success (of the lack of these) in our culture?*

As a Cultural Anthropology major, the social constructionist model presented in the text is very familiar and, I believe, presents the most plausible theory or perspective on how and why we as humans communicate. In Anthropology the term "world view" is used to describe a particular culture's ideas (current, present and past) and how those ideas, or ideology, were (are; will be) put into practice. Cultural norms of public practice (even speech itself) are created by the masses over time and passed down, generation to generation. One could even argue that the greatest aspect of one's private practice, religion, is itself a "built world" of communication.
While around the world most of the norms described by the social constructionist model are based upon years of cultural experience, adaptation and the direct passage from older generations to the young, in the United States, I believe, the majority of our "world view" is not passed on my elder generations but by commercialized mass media. Here in the United States (and now elsewhere around the world due to the globalized economy and international/intercontinental flow of cultural ideology/practice) nearly every aspect of our world view can be seen promoted on air by one FCC approved station or another. Want to know what American cultural norms concerned with health, hygiene and beauty are: watch all the pharmaceutical ads, cosmetic promotions (plastic and not), and toiletry commercials during day time, prime time, all the time...because after all...if you didn't use Krest...you're really not Krest Clean(tm)...right? Even the social norms of politics, religion, and the arts are controlled and promoted by the media in the United States. I believe the American people's willingness to look toward media outlets as a "world view compass", when those media outlet's primary interest is the production of revenue, is a communication practice which separates use from other countries in the world. Now, whether or not this is a good thing...that is the true debate.
Our created world view can build worth out of the smallest things which in another part of the world may be viewed as absolutely useless. Those things we culturally create to be important can often times dictate one's social status and entire future, while in another culture those very same things would be viewed as useless (or the other way around). Happiness in both the material and the mental (religion for example) stem from communication passed down and created into a culturally accepted and promoted norm.

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.*

I personally found the section on the five cannons of rhetoric to be very interesting and full of detailed information on how speakers would form and present their arguments.
The first cannon, invention, states that speakers must shape their arguments to fit their audience and persuade them toward their side by using proof (ethos, pathos and logos).
The second cannon, style, states that how a speaker uses their words can be used to instruct, please, or persuade an audience. In ancient Greece the use of figurative language was a common stylistic preference.
The third cannon, arrangement, states that every speech needs a structure in order to be presented to an audience. This structure usually consists of an introduction, body, and a conclusion.
The fourth cannon, memory, states that a speakers ability to remember all vital information and formation of a speech is vital to success. In ancient Greece, which practiced an oral tradition, one's memory was often a prized possession for anyone interested in philosophy, pubic speaking or politics.
The fifth and final cannon, delivery, states that the tone a speaker uses to present their words is also very important. The way an audience interprets a speakers tone can either draw them closer to the topic or push them away.

Week #2 Discussion #2

*The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?*

I believe the above statement to be true...in the Greek sense of what is morally believed to be good. The morality we promote today in no way, I believe, reflects the majority of those morals which were lived by in ancient Greece (one need only look at the systematic brutality of Sparta, along with the drugged Oracles and masses at the Eleusinian Mystery, to find proof of societal morals and promoted norms which we today view as taboo). I believe many of the moral issues we confront modern speakers with would have been a none issue in ancient Greece and if raised by the opposition such attacks would be viewed negatively (excluding the big "No No's" of course: murder, theft, incompetence, betrayal, etc). The problem today, however, is that many public speakers make moral issues a part of their public crusade, only to later be proven not to practice what they preach. While there are basic moral norms in which to hold public speakers to I believe we today (especially as a majority conservative Christian society) look for everyone in the public eye to be living saints...and there haven't been many of those in years as far as I'm concerned.
There is of course a connection between a speakers goodness, public communication skills and truth of statements and action. All speakers must be viewed by their chosen audience as "good" in order for their message to truly be successful. This of course needs to be examined in a cultural and historic time frame. For example, one could argue that many Germans who listened to Adolf Hitler's many racist charged speeches was in fact acting and speaking for the "good" of the German people. This of course we, and a vast majority of Germans today, know not to be the case but the context of culture and history can make a people believe the impossible. One's skill in public communication is also vital to a speaker's success because in an oral tradition, if the words are not remembered, then what was the point? Truth of statements and action are also very important in order for a speaker to be credible. Today, however, I believe the current tactic of misinformation, media outlet control and near libelous campaign/promotion ads truly brings all speakers and their credibility closer to the public's microscopic lens. Why truth of statements and action are no longer scrutinised and expected from the listener is the true question I believe...

Week #2 Discussion #1

For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated with how speech (not only words, but emphasis, placement and historical timing) have an effect on people and events and can spurn great upheavals or cause widespread merriment. I also knew that these great speakers knew exactly what their words were meant to do and had picked and chosen them carefully much like someone who would prepare their tools for a day of hard work. Knowing this and the great power speakers in history have wielded I further asked myself, "Has there ever been a speaker who has used the art of speech to advance society, culture and justice and, despite their clear and impending doom, used their words for the good of all and not for the good of their own neck?" After much thought and debate with friends, especially over whom we could truthfully and historically state was once a living man and had their ideology documented during or directly after their life (this was mainly to dis way my friends, many of whom are quite religious, to choose their adopted religion's mortal figure head), I and a few other came to the conclusion that Socrates was the man who perfectly fit the bill.
Socrates, who taught Plato and is considered to be the father of logic and ethics, used ethos and logos during his life long philosophical quest for truth, good and justice. Many of Socrates' arguments are based in logos as Socrates is considered to be the father of logic and the Socratic Method. Socrates' messages also attempted to promote ethos, not only within himself, but in his listeners as he believed, despite being defiant, being a good and honorable citizen was above all else. In Socrates' most famous oration, his statement before death to the people, jury and court of Athens, one can see pathos take hold within his final words. Rather than attempt to refute the claims of the State (that Socrates was willingly corrupting the minds of Athenian youth) he instead uses his final statement to passionately defend his chosen way of life, beliefs and actions and also makes a mockery of the entire trial itself (Socrates is said to have refused several escape attempts which had been assured success by the finances of his friends; Despite the court's willingness to subject Socrates to a punishment other than death [Socrates is believed to have concluded that death was a reward and not a punishment] he mocked the court by suggesting a better sentence then would be to have the government pay him a salary and provide free meals for the rest of his life due to his service to the people and state of Athens).
I believe my personal sense of logos and pathos are my greatest tools while waging speech. As I do not consider myself in any way to be the image of "American values and ideals" my ethos often suffers as many listeners will make a preliminary judgment based upon their conception of cultural and societal norms (though I have found that the opposite can be true depending on topic of speech and audience make-up). My sense of logos stems from years of reading, meeting strange people with even stranger ideas, traveling all over the Western Hemisphere and living outside the United States, never taking what the media promotes as truth and not being afraid to do, think or act in a way that others may view as "against the grain". Before the revolution there need to be revolutionaries...logos indeed.
My sense of pathos, I believe, is a mix of my cultural background and experiences with my father. I'm a jumbled mess of Cuban and Irish blood which, when mixed, cause a reaction similar to that of nitroglycerin in the right circumstances. My father, a civil attorney in Miami, FL who serves the poverty stricken Haitian community, also taught me that passion in the right cases can go a very long way. I watched many a time as my father turned the tide on a custody, property or will and final testament case with a passionate plea to the judge made in the name and interests of his clients.
I do believe that Aristotle's scheme can be used to categorize the qualities I believe make me a good speaker. Some things can be used in multiple spheres at the same time during speech but the classifications of ethos, pathos and logos still stand.

Ulf's Comm 105 Introduction

Hello everyone and welcome to my COMM 105 blog. I look forward to working with all of you toward great success in our course. I am senior at SJSU on the brink of completing my undergrad degree in Cultural Anthropology. I am not a native Californian and have lived in Boston, Miami, Mexico City, Chiapas and all over the NorCal area. My cultural background consists of Cuban and Irish which often times caused much conflict in communication and ideals when I lived on the East Coast of the United States. In Boston I found that I wasn't Irish enough. I remember as a child watching someone in my school giving me a quick scan and commenting to another, "He's white...but some thing's just not right." When I left Boston and moved to Miami I found much to be the same despite the cross continental move. While in Boston I wasn't white/Irish enough, in Miami I wasn't Cuban enough and the fact that at the time I did not yet speak Spanish branded me as a hated "Gringo". Clearly racism still lives on in South Boston and South Florida. It wasn't until I moved to Mexico, a country and culture outside of my own, that I finally found acceptance for who I am, what I believed, what I thought and what made up my cultural background.

This experience is what brought me into the field of Cultural Anthropology and allowed me to specialize in understanding the effects of Globalization on an intercontinental level and also how differences in ideology (especially between developing/developed cultures and those that wish to maintain a more traditional way of life) create cross-cultural conflict. I joined this COMM 105 course because I believe the subject matter to be discussed goes hand in hand with my chosen course of study and specialization.

My communications background consists of: 3 years debate captain at St. Brendan High School (Miami, FL), winner of Florida International University's 2003 Anthropological Film Festival, public relations representative for the law offices of Sabrina Chasagne P.A. (Miami, FL), SJSU representative at the 2005 SWAA (South Western Anthropological Association) conference in San Jose, communications liaison between 33 Northern California Public School Districts and Extreme Learning Inc.