Cultural Assignment: People Watching

A college campus is one of the best areas to observe culture – or at least, the culture of the American youth.  Almost every preconceived notion that non-Americans hold can be seen on campus.  For one, American’s treat alcohol differently than other cultures; we drink to get drunk.  I told a friend of mine that I never wanted to experience drunkenness, and he immediately said, “So you’re never going to drink?”  He went on to say that there was no point in drinking if you do not get drunk.  Yet, other people who I’ve talked to from other countries say that being drunk isn’t what they aim for when they drink.  A friend of mine whose fiancé is from the Ukraine said that even on college campuses students rarely drink to the point of becoming drunk.

This generation of Americans is also very open about sexuality.  Often I overhear peers talking about past sexual experiences, or even ones that occurred just over the weekend.  While in line at the P.O.D, a young man was talking on his cell phone very loudly about a recent sexual encounter – using explicit slang terms – and even commented “… Yeah, and now everyone in this store it looking at me like I’m a dumbass…” This is very different from older generations who view sexuality as a taboo subject for casual conversation.  Americans are much less modest (now) about sexuality than foreign cultures.

The way that my friends and I interact is unique in several ways.  We constantly make fun of each other in ways that would normally be considered rude.  We have nicknames for each other; one friend is “Wikipedia” because he seems to know everything about everything, while another friend is “H.C” or “Honors choir,” because she claims to have been in honors choir even though she always sings poorly when she is with us.  This is somewhat unique to our group because, with other groups of friends that I have been part of, this name-calling would have been taken as offensive rather than as a joke.

We are also what my friend Dakar refers to as “cool nerds.”  The majority of our conversations relate to Pokemon, Dragonball Z (or some other anime), Dungeons and Dragons or video games.  Most nights, we get together to play a video game or watch a movie (lately it’s been the Blade trilogy).  Our group is unique because we’re ethnically diverse and very different when it comes to personalities and outside interests, yet we always come together to do things or just to talk.

Despite the fact that my friends and I like to spend time together, we still go off and do our own things.  When they go out on weekends, I stay back.  One of our friends decided to fast for Lent; during the daylight hours, he didn’t eat.  Then, when the sun set, he ate one vegan meal.  Even though we are all Christian and observe Lent, only he chose to practice the full fast.

Individualism as a Cultural Value

This has nothing to do with the blog.

Income tends to be the topic that turns off most Americans.  My own dad always refused to tell me how much he made a year; I only know because I accidentally saw on the FAFSA form.  Since Americans are more competitive with one another, we may shy away from talking about our financial situation because we are afraid of being embarrassed.  What if the person asking makes more than I do?  Or, if our income is fairly decent, we may not want to become a target for mooching.  Weight and age (mostly among women) is another touchy subject.  Anytime either of the numbers are too high, people are embarrassed to talk about it.  Family problems are also taboo subjects.  Anything that happened with my parents, my sisters and myself was never to be discussed, even with grandparents, aunts or uncles.  This is especially true for people outside of the family.  Again, people don’t want to be embarrassed by their dysfunctional family (even though it’s safe to assume everyone has one).

The contrast between Americans’ care for the elderly and Thailand’s care for the elderly are like night and day.  In America, caring for a parent or grandparent is seen as a burden, whereas on Thailand, it is expected that the immediate family care for their elderly.  The Buddhist philosophy shames everything that America represents: get rich, get rich quickly.  Americans seem to be much more self-obsessed than the Thai.

Preparing for college and being in college have best illustrated the value that is placed on individualism.  I was raised believing that everyone went to college.  It wasn’t until I was in high school that I realized that that wasn’t the case at all.  My parents want me to be successful and self-sufficient – not only so that I won’t continue to be a financial burden on them, but so that when they are gone, I can fend for myself.  My parents have always stressed that “If you don’t have family, if you don’t have friends, you still have you,” so they doesn’t want me to rely on others.

Learning from Ladakh // The Global Village Finally Arrives

Working Class Cat from 9 to 5. Ra'Jiin-Dar the khajiit from 5 to 9.

The introduction of money-based economies has distorted human relationships by placing a dollar value on the relationship itself: people tend to look more to how the relationship will benefit them, rather than what can be enjoyed from knowing each other. Producers and sellers of goods or services see people as consumers only; the relationship is very impersonal. Money-based economies have also made people dependent on “things” as a symbol of status. What were once luxuries are now seen as necessities.

The Ladakhis were far better off before the introduction of money. While I believe in money-based economies and capitalism, the Ladakhis’ economy wasn’t broken – so why “fix” it? Under ideal conditions, societies could thrive without the use of money. People would be less greedy, and people would work for the love of working or out of respect for the community (I mean, it works in Star Trek). However, expecting that out of people is overly optimistic.

“The world will not become America” – and I couldn’t agree more. Or, at least, the world should not become America. Don’t misunderstand, I’m a devout patriot. The omniprescence of America, however, is disgusting. Americanizing every corner of the globe not only makes other countries less genuine, it also takes away from the uniqueness of America.

A globalized world would very likely cause a loss of cultural identity (and let’s be honest, we all take pride in our heritage and culture[s]). However, a mulicultural world could also show us the end of – or weakening of – racism, since the need to market to broader audiences would take priority, as well as the production of higher quality goods.

The New Politics of Consumption

In-cat and Out-cat are friends.

A societal focus on buying material items creates alienation between different groups: the “us” and “them” groups, or “in-groups” and “out-groups.” The in-groups are those that are able to buy desirable items or brands (iPads, MacBooks, NorthFace, Under Armor, Coach and Air Jordans to name a few) and the out-groups who cannot. Members of in-groups are stereotyped as smug individuals who proudly carry around their Starbucks thermos like a status symbol. Meanwhile, members of the out-groups are seen to members of in-groups as bitter people who envy the financial freedom that the in-groups seem to enjoy.

Increasing the average American’s income wouldn’t necessarily solve this, though. Just because these out-groups cannot afford high-priced items does not mean they are not consuming them. The need to own an iPad has superceded the need for running water and groceries. Case in point: I have a sister living out in Los Angeles. She has a son, Draco, and lives with her boyfriend “Alex.” Their rent is halved because my sister manages the apartment complex where they live, but they are barely able to pay their utilities. Yet, she and Alex both have iPhones and are in the process of planning a Draco’s first birthday at Disneyland. I understand that life shouldn’t revolve around money, but needs have to be prioritized. See: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Societal factors that encourage competitive consumption are commercials and celebrities. Commercials tend to make products look better than they really are, and people are tricked into thinking that they need it. This is true especially for toy advertisements. Even I remember wanting every toy I saw in between episodes of The Rugrats, but in hindsight, the majority of them were garbage (except for toys that teach skills, like Easy Bake Ovens or Leap Frog books). Celebrity endorsement also fuels competitive consumption. For $25, you can buy diet pills that will reshape your body to match Kim Kardashians. Practice safe sex with LifeStyle condoms – it’s what Ke$ha does. Pretend to work in a recording studio with Beats (headphones) by Dre. Anytime a celebrity throws their name to an existing brand or creates a product, it sells.

Competitive consumption has not affect my identity very much. Growing up, I knew better than to ask for anything. There were a lot of things that I’d want after seeing a commercial – for example, the Marvin’s Magic Drawing Board. I could ask my parents for it, but the answer was almost always “no.” I never had a Marvin’s Magic Drawing Board (but that’s okay, because they weren’t very “magic” after all). After buying 4 Gameboys between my two older sisters, my parents refused to buy one for me. So I made do with hand-me-down a Gameboy colour and Pokemon Gold until I saved enough for a Nintendo DS.

In my family, my mom is most affected by competitive consumption. She dreams of big houses with ionic columns, crystal chandeliers and gilded crown molding. The house we have now has two extra bedrooms that are rarely used and a sitting area that is for display only, and yet it isn’t enough. She owns more purses than she needs, many of which were bought for close to $150/ $200.

Moral Machines

Spot is a pretty cat.

The catastrophe described in the text is not probable, but is possible. I want to believe that people wouldn’t leave so much decision making to the “minds” of machines, yet at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. The public reaction would be confusion and outrage. Trying to explain how these sequences of events were related to the average person would like trying to explain the internet to a fish. Quite honestly, it was hard for me to follow, too. The steep death toll would cause mass outrage and hysteria, people would more than likely blame the Government

Artificial Intelligence with the capacity to think and reason for itself is within reach, perhaps within another century or so. In doing so, humans will, in a way, create non-human life. Questions will be raised as to whether or not this artificial life is a danger to our existence, or if it is of equal or lesser value than human life. In Star Trek (TNG), several episodes address the debate as to whether or not Data (an android crewmember) is a sentient being. In one episode, another member of Starfleet tried to claim Data as property of Starfleet so that he may dismantle him for study in order to create more androids that would serve humans. Picard jumped to Data’s defense, stating that Data was undoubtedly intelligent and self-aware. While Data’s consciousness could not be proven, Picard proposed that neither could his own, and therefore Data deserved the right to decline the study. In reality, the debate would last longer than forty-seven minutes, and there would be far more opposition than just one person. For thousands of years, humans have been the only form of intelligent life. If we introduce a new, lab-created intelligence, does that make us less unique, or subordinate?

The advantages of developing artificial intelligence include replacing humans with machines in dangerous situations. Mining, one of the most dangerous fields, could be done by robots, and space could be further explored by intelligent, mechanical probes. The downside of artificial intelligence includes unemployment for people. The auto industry is the best illustration for what happens when machines are introduced to the assembly line; the need for human hands goes down. As stated before, the creation of artificial intelligence will also raise ethical and moral questions: is it right to subject intelligent machines to labor for humans? Will they become stronger than their creators?

Recently, my four-year old cell phone (an LG Rumor, one of the least intelligent phones the market has ever seen) has been turning itself off randomly. The battery is fully charged and lasts well-over twenty-four hours. But sometime, when I take it out to check the time, it’s off. Then, when I turn it back on, I realized I’ve missed a call or a couple texts. Usually, it isn’t that big of a deal; none of these missed calls or texts have been life or death situations (yet), but it is extremely annoying. Upgrade to Samsung Galaxy S II Epic in t-minus 185 days.

Morality

 

Cats are immoral.

 

 

Of the three figures provided – Mother Theresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug – I initially decided that Mother Theresa was the most admirable. Although religion does not play a large role in my life, I still admire those who dedicate their lives to their faith. I can’t say that I knew too many specifics about Mother Theresa, except that her services to the poor were often written about in TIME magazine, and that my oldest sister took “Theresa” as her Confirmation name. I realized, also, how automatic my decision was. Then, after being given facts about all three, I began to lean more towards Norman Borlaug (who, prior to the reading, I had never heard of). Based on facts given by Pinker, it seems that Borlaug touched more lives than Mother Theresa, and made a real, tangible difference: he gave them something more than prayer. Yet even as I write that, a part of me feels guilty. Is it sacrilegious to elevate someone like Borlaug as more admirable than Mother Theresa?

Two people who I would elect as most admirable would be Mohandas Gandhi and Pope John Paul II. Interestingly, both appeared on the Gallup’s List of most admirable people of the Twentieth Century, ranking thirteenth and eighth respectively. As neither of the two are business men, scientists or political leaders, this must mean that I trust spiritual leaders to be moral. You’d be hard-pressed to find something about Gandhi that you didn’t like – unless of course you don’t believe in non-violence and world peace. The Church has seen plenty of corruption since its establishment, and the Popes have either been the most godly men, or most godless men. While I don’t agree with all of John Paul’s beliefs, I still admire him for being consistent, and for being the most active Pope the Catholic Church ever had.

Everyone is born with morals and, for the most part, we share similar morals. We must be able to arrive at these morals on our own; otherwise the world would be much more violent and uninhabitable. Morals also, however, have an objective nature: some groups of people will justify violating their morals to achieve a greater end.

Harm, fairness, community, authority and purity are the five elements of authority. American’s would most likely value fairness the most. Western cultures, more so than Eastern cultures, tend to base their morals around the golden rule : do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our justice system focuses on treating everyone equally. Women and minority groups have as loud a voice as the majority, which is something that is uniquely Western.