What's in a Name?

Our names are our past, our present, and our future. They connect us to the history that has made us, our circumstances that in part define us, and sometimes, the possibilities that will be open to us.

Theodore Roosevelt said, "The only thing I want to leave my children is an honorable name." How thoughtful of him. But also, how privileged of him. 

When I stumbled across this Al Jazeera cultural series spotlight, "What's in a name," it was an idea I just couldn't shake. Thoughts of ascribed identity, historical implications, social mobility, and gender assignment, among other things, flooded my mind. These names we are given speak so much about who we are, but yet, leave so much out. One hundred years ago, a name would delineate our gender, our bloodline, our nationality, our ancestry, and sometimes, our socio-economic status. Now, arguably, none of that is true. But, nevertheless, names link our thoughts to ideas about the world. Without ever meeting a person, a name can paint a mental picture of what that person looks like. It can generate discriminatory thoughts. It can incite racial profiling. It can regionalize, nationalize or racialize people. Think about when you hear/see first names like Shemiqua, Bobbie Sue, Jesus, Josefina, Ahmed, Vladimir, Olga or Francisco. Immediate types came to mind, right? And last names, which are passed down through time, mean so much to some people. But in different ways, I would argue. 

In this article http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/namestories/#intro , Al Jazeera highlights 4 main stories. The first, is Emily Tanaka, a half Caucasian (her mother), half Japanese (her father) woman. When she travelled to Japan to visit family, no one would believe she was actually Japanese, because she looks very Caucasian. Everyone was convinced she was married to a Japanese man. So when she got married (to a gentleman by the name of Smith), she dealt with an internal struggle of sorts as to whether or not she should keep her last name, take her husbands, or hyphenate. By taking her husbands, she felt she would lose part of her cultural identity, the part that she so proudly felt represented her father. The second is Cecilia Gentili, an Argentinian woman who when born, was named Alejandro Gabriel Gentili. In her 20's Cecilia decided she would move forward with a complete gender re-assignment (from male to female) so her body would reflect who she was on the inside. Through much of this time, friends referred to her as Alex or Alexa (nicknames from Alejandro). Once her surgeries were finished, Cecilia decided it only made sense to legally change her name. To her, Alex was so androgynous, commonly used as a name for both men and women. She wanted to affirm her identity by selecting a name that was unmistakably female, much as she was. Her name and her identity finally became aligned, and ultimately helped her to define to the outside world her true identity. The third is John H. Doe's story. He is a Korean American from New York City, New York whose given name at birth was Jang Huan Do. When he was in grade school, he urged his family to change their name to Doe, because it would help Americanize them. Also, he was tired of people calling him Jang (how it rhymes with sang), and Do (like to do, instead of Doe). In efforts to assimilate, his family did change, and from that point forward he went by the name John. In 3rd grade, while reading the dictionary, a friend pointed out his name was actually in there. John Doe was listed as a "legal, fictitious identity which does not exist." 

The meanings of their name differs in each story, but all represent part of their identity. Identities that these three have found equate to negotiations of who they are with society.

I feel on some level, I understand the struggle with ones' name and identity. Being adopted slightly later in life, I was completely cognizant of my name change. And so was everyone else in my grade. Having to explain why in 4th grade your name was one thing, and in 5th, another, is interesting to do for a 9 year old. But more than that, the change of my name signified a change in my identity. I was no longer Chelsey Bowen from Texas, I was Chelsi Hudson from Tennessee. I was, from that point forward, a Hudson. My "family" signified those currently in my life, that shared my name, instead of those in my past, who no longer did. I had to learn a new way to sign my name, and become used to responding to a different one. Eventually, I became used to it, as did everyone else, but that awkward time sticks with me. 

So, although names are always subject to others interpretations, it is not always indicative of who they are, where they come from, or what they believe. 

Inovation in Education

One of the most defining characteristics of a successful organization and/or business is its ability to be innovative. Innovation in today’s business world is key in order to stay relevant in an industry and to remain attractive to constituents. Innovation though, looks different in every industry. If its the technology industry, like Apple, constant inventing of new technological ideas, such as the iPhone, is a necessity to hold the lead in the industry and strongly retain consumer base. However, when an organization is no longer innovative, they slowly become irrelevant as the industry evolves.

As our world becomes smaller, and the pace of globalization continues to rapidly increase, will the American education system need to take an innovative step to make sure that their students remain relevant in the global workforce? As globalization continues to rapidly grow, business and organizational operations becomes more and more internationally flat. An organization’s opportunities are likely to be taken on by another country, which naturally brings people together from different countries. However, with out prior experience working outside of ones cultural norms, these individuals will be ill prepared for the task at hand. As organization’s operations become more globalized, a student’s skill set should not only be what they learned from their english, math, political science, and/or communication majors. A new skill will become necessary to remained relevant, cultural intelligence.

This skill set is not one currently largely provided across the American education system. Although some universities have begun to implement study abroad opportunities into their universities, they are only a sliver of higher education. A New YorkTimes article recently reported that 10% of American students studied abroad in 2012, which was a 3% increase from the prior year. Most universities have study abroad as an option and not a requirement. For education to remain relevant, will a level of cultural intelligence training be required?

For universities like the University of Denver and the University of San Diego (my alma mater), who are ranked in the International Institutes of Education’s topten institutions for study abroad participation, this idea of innovative education that I posed has already been implemented. For the American education system to ensure that its students can learn the necessary cultural intelligence, universities should begin requiring its students to have an abroad experience, those keeping them relevant and competitive in the rapidly growing global work force.

Other articles used: 

Harvard Business Review

American Commercial Accuritely Portraying Irish Culture

Today I was reading an article about an American commercial company’s accurate representation of authentic Irish cultural in a commercial targeted towards the US population. As I was reading the article I felt like it related well to Appiah’s idea that cultural interaction is what defuses conflict and brings people and societies closer.

RSA Films out of New York City created the commercial, “A Parting Glass”, which is advertising the Irish whiskey Tullamore Dew. I have attached the video below, however if you do not feel like watching it, I will give you a quick synopsis. The commercial starts of with four younger men in their finally dressed suits walking on a dirt path through green fields towards a church. They are singing the Irish song “A Parting Glass”, which the article explains to be a traditional Irish song sung as some one passes or departs a community. The commercial illustrates the importance of community and family among the Irish as these men toasts with a glass of whiskey to their friend getting married.

Laurence Dunmore, British director, shares the title of director, and the creative work, with Paul Opperman, owner of the commercial company. This film is authentically Irish because the two men took it upon themselves to know everything about Ireland in order to properly produce this short film. Looking at the logistics of the commercial I thought it to be a great representation that aligns with Appiah’s ideals of cultural interaction, and additionally contradict what the majority of this quarter’s readings have illustrated about the U.S. “one-way” media flow.

The commercial created by an American company, with a British director about an Irish culture is being accurately targeted towards American consumers. Not only does this represent Appiah’s theory from The Case for Contamination article, but also is additionally a great representation of cultural contra flows between the American and Irish community. Although potentially not Appiah’s original meaning towards cultural interactions, 

Here is the video link and article

China Bullying Everyone

It is a well-known fact that China censors their media outlets, and that those in mainland China are subject to what the government wants the people to know. However, China’s censorship may be traveling over borders, creating a larger scale censorship operation.

According to CNN, China overtly creates an atmosphere for censorship, like refusing visas to those reporting in the country, or giving strict orders not to publish or publicize certain news or information. Further, the latest and greatest avenue for creating censorship abroad is done financially.

China creates incentives for smaller media organizations to abide by China’s rules, by promising and delivering advertising, lucrative contracts with non-media enterprises, and access to broad audiences.  These financial incentives are what create a self-censoring media outlet. In order to receive the promises, these media sources must censor themselves, and make their money maker, China, happy. 

Closing out the quarter, learning about media and communication abroad, this issue is something that our media organizations must be weary of.  Is it possible with the growing influence of China to have all news organizations censored? While it may sound a bit drastic, it isn’t too far off. I ask you, my fellow classmates, do you think it possible for one nation to reach across all borders? 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/28/how-chinese-censorship-is-reaching-overseas/

A Different World?

CNN has an article assessing how the JFK assassination changed the world.  While I believe having the President of the United States, a super power, killed during such a crucial time in history does change things, it is interesting to contemplate how history may have been altered if he would not have been assassinated.

First of all, the article claims that Kennedy would have pulled troops out of Vietnam. Would that alter our perspective on the war? Save more lives?

It is easy to think and estimate what would have happened, since there is no way of knowing. However, if Kennedy would have lived, would it really have changed the world?

These are questions we could ask ourselves, especially on the 50th anniversary of his assassination.  

Here is the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/22/opinion/opinion-kennedy-world-badger/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here"

After writing my paper about how Muslim women are using the internet for a source of empowerment, I started reading a book called “Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here” by Karima Bennoune. The book is about the many untold stories of Muslims who are standing up to Fundamentalism.  So much coverage in western media is about the radicals, the terrorists.  And though Islamism is spreading through out the Middle East in recent decades, it is not the majority of the population.  I’ve found a few things interesting about the book that have related to our studies in International Communications.  One of which, is that the author like Appiah, correlates the fight between fundamentalists and cosmopolitanism.  She also believes that it is between these lines that conflict will persist, especially in Muslim majority countries.  She refers to the clash of civilizations and states that it is a clash of "right wings" not a clash of civilization.  Much of he discussion has to do with framing Muslims in the media.  Bennoune believes, rightfully so, that our media has failed us.  It is because of much of Western media that the religion is so misrepresented.  She mentions how on Fox News, a new correspondent said "The Muslims attacked us."  No wonder so many Americans think that if your Muslim you must be a terrorist.  Interesting, their are self critics within the religion.  For example, the American movie "Innocence of Muslims" criticized the religion.  The imam of Al Badr Mosque in Algiers responded "So Americans produce a film against Islam. Who cares?  it is up to us to make films defending our religion...None of us behaves in a civil manner.  And afterwords we complain about a film made overseas?" Some believe that Muslims need to respond to these movies with ambition and talent as opposed to violence.  This book focus on the self-critics, the millions that practice the religion peacefully and are opposed to fundamentalism.  It is these type of stories that need to be shared to change the reputation that has been created in America.  Unfortunately, these stories won't make headlines.

"Trolling" is a New Tactic for Powerful Corporations to Control the Message

While writing the final paper for our class on the use of social media in civil revolutions, I came across quite a few articles that talked about the response to the use of social media by governments being pressured to change.  One of the many critiques of the usefulness of social media in social revolution has been that these new tools and technologies can be used by government officials (not altogether different from our own issues with the NSA recently) to egregiously track, arrest, torture, and kill dissidents.

The problem with broadening both access to the communication medium and the ability to create it on an individual level, as the Internet does, is that it makes each creator responsible for their own communication.  Subsequently, the ability to track each person and target them is a real risk to participants.

On the same note, back-tracking against the use of social media for dissent does not then only apply to political upheaval against the state.  It also applies to upheaval against powerful businesses (I know, I know, there might not be much difference these days).  Aljazeera reports that, in the wake of British Petroleum's massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP used a contractor to do what is called "trolling" to track, locate, and harass users on BP's Facebook support page.

The outsourced company, Ogilvy & Mather, created false profiles on Facebook in order to conduct attacks against anyone who would speak badly about the company or its handling of the disaster.  These attacks ranged from simply posting alternative information, to using strong and disrespectful language against individual who posted to the Facebook page, to harassment via instant message, and eventually to the serious use of language that was intimidating or violent in nature.  Death threats were sent to several individuals.  One user described the attacks this way,

"They were racist, sexist, and threatened me and others with legal action and violence. They've insinuated that some commenters are 'child molesters', and have often used the tactic of mass reporting with the goal of having their targets completely removed from Facebook."

At this time, investigations are being conducted to hold BP and its contractors accountable for these abusive methods to control the public message about their company's massive blunder.