When asked the question "What is more important - happiness or self-respect?" my initial thought was "Self-respect".
This response is directly related to the fact that I am taking a Personal And Social Adjustment Psych class this semester as well, and at the moment we are reviewing the theories that state that one must love and accept yourself before you can love and accept others, which in turn allows you to form relationships and find happiness. I completely agree with this and would probably keep to my answer, but then I analyzed this question based on the book "Reading Lolita In Tehran". It was put into a different context as follows:
...these characters depend to such a high degree on their own sense of integrity that for them, victory has nothing to do with happiness. It has more to do with a settling within oneself, a movement inward that makes them whole. Their reward is not happiness...but self-respect.
As I read this I realized that maybe my answer cannot be as simple and as straight forward as I thought. "Loving and accepting oneself" sure sounds a lot like it could be "a movement inward that makes [oneself] whole". So what is the correct answer? Does it depend solely on the context in which one reads it? And then, is this context based on a culture that is different from mine? A person that believes in a different god or who went through different experiences in life? Could it be the extent to which a person places dependency on something? In the novel it states that they "depend to such a high degree on" it.
Obviously, these questions will produce different answers for everyone, but for me, although I do consider the fact that people come from different backgrounds and cultures that view happiness and self-respect differently, the one can never replace or suffice for the other. Yes, these characters in the book put more emphasis on self-respect, but that does not mean they do not yearn for happiness. You can not respect yourself if you are not truly happy. I could never live a sad and lonely life (which to me means being unhappy), yet still wake up in the morning thinking "I am such a strong, respectful person. This is how I should live." You can not be truly happy if you do not respect yourself, as stated by the theories above. People need self-love to be happy, but also self-respect to be accepting of oneself.
What comes to mind is the example of the Japanese warriors who do not know what failure and defeat means, who, if they are not victorious, will literally kill themselves. To these warriors, fighting for their country is the most respectful thing one can do, and that is why victory is a much. Are these warriors truly happy? OR do they, just like they cannot fathom failure, not grasp the concept of happiness without being victorious. Obviously not, because if they lost, they would not kill themselves but instead retreat to their life and what makes them happy. This case makes me wonder once again, can you have only happiness or only self-respect?
Many more of these examples exist and it is impossible to come to a "right" answer. One can only look at the context, focus on the individual case, and understand that people are so different, in their culture and in their point of view.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Boys and Girls
I work at Starbucks and my shifts consist mostly of working in drive-thru where I take orders or make drinks. One thing that I have gained from this has been the ability to pick up and interpret the nonverbal communication received from customers who are ordering. There have been few times in which I wasn’t sure if I should say “Thank you Sir” or Thank you Miss”, few times when I wasn’t sure if the customer was furious or happy, confused by what they just tasted or excited to drink something delicious. The point is, without seeing their faces, I know what gender they are, what mood they are in, and what to expect when they drive up to the window….all thanks to the different nonverbal cues that men and women use.
In my previous blog I discussed the fact that we are dependent on nonverbal communication more than we realize and that it is a constant balance between language and nonverbal cues. Given this fact, it is also important to acknowledge that gender plays a big role in this balance because, even though we don’t think about it, we analyze and interpret communication and cues based on what is expected from each gender. A few of the cues that are very gender-based include tone of voice, pitch, volume, facial expression, and touch. Some people may disagree with this, but when a man says something and his voice is as high pitched as a baby’s scream, I am a bit taken aback. Why? Because the norm in our society, based greatly on biological and anatomical facts, is that a man will have a deep voice, while a woman will be soft spoken with a higher pitched voice. The norm does not just include these anatomical differences, but also influence our idea of the different genders in that a man should have an angrier facial expression, speak louder, and be rough and not as willing to take part in any physical touch with other people. A woman must have a kind expression, a soft volume and smooth tone, and should be willing to hug and show affection toward others. Because if these norms it is sometimes difficult to analyze a person who does not follow it, and we often jump to conclusions about the individual if they are not “normal”.
As if communication between two women and two men is not hard enough already, opposite genders must try and figure each other out, considering everything we know and learn from society on how a man is or how a woman thinks. Unfortunately, there are many unsuccessful attempts. I am asked whether or not I believe that men and women indeed speak different languages…
Yes, I believe they do. I also believe that it is not impossible to understand each other. In my relationships with the opposite gender, it has become clear that I must be the one to sit him down, state my confusion as to what he meant by a certain cue, and then patiently wait while he explains. I have also found that being the one to explain what I meant (since men are just as confused by what we women sometimes cue) is truly a miscommunication preventer. It is a fact, just by looking at how men and women behave, carry themselves, and express their emotions, that we communicate differently, and since we have this knowledge we also have the power to make use of this in communicating better and making an effort in understanding each other.
In my previous blog I discussed the fact that we are dependent on nonverbal communication more than we realize and that it is a constant balance between language and nonverbal cues. Given this fact, it is also important to acknowledge that gender plays a big role in this balance because, even though we don’t think about it, we analyze and interpret communication and cues based on what is expected from each gender. A few of the cues that are very gender-based include tone of voice, pitch, volume, facial expression, and touch. Some people may disagree with this, but when a man says something and his voice is as high pitched as a baby’s scream, I am a bit taken aback. Why? Because the norm in our society, based greatly on biological and anatomical facts, is that a man will have a deep voice, while a woman will be soft spoken with a higher pitched voice. The norm does not just include these anatomical differences, but also influence our idea of the different genders in that a man should have an angrier facial expression, speak louder, and be rough and not as willing to take part in any physical touch with other people. A woman must have a kind expression, a soft volume and smooth tone, and should be willing to hug and show affection toward others. Because if these norms it is sometimes difficult to analyze a person who does not follow it, and we often jump to conclusions about the individual if they are not “normal”.
As if communication between two women and two men is not hard enough already, opposite genders must try and figure each other out, considering everything we know and learn from society on how a man is or how a woman thinks. Unfortunately, there are many unsuccessful attempts. I am asked whether or not I believe that men and women indeed speak different languages…
Yes, I believe they do. I also believe that it is not impossible to understand each other. In my relationships with the opposite gender, it has become clear that I must be the one to sit him down, state my confusion as to what he meant by a certain cue, and then patiently wait while he explains. I have also found that being the one to explain what I meant (since men are just as confused by what we women sometimes cue) is truly a miscommunication preventer. It is a fact, just by looking at how men and women behave, carry themselves, and express their emotions, that we communicate differently, and since we have this knowledge we also have the power to make use of this in communicating better and making an effort in understanding each other.
Friday, March 18, 2011
"I get what you are saying...but what are you doing?"
Nonverbal behavior is a communication device that most people do not give credit to. Imagine having a conversation with someone whose voice stays on one tone throughout the conversation, or trying to discuss something with someone who looks at everything and everyone but cannot hold eye contact for more than a second. These are behaviors that do not cross our minds until we are struggling to stay awake, or wondering if there is something on our face that the person is trying to avoid.
In my experience, I have found that, like many others, I do not pay attention to this, until someone strays from the norm and once this happens I find it very difficult to contain my frustration or hide my confusion. What we do not realize is that, although language use is very important in communicating well, it is a constant balance between this language and nonverbal behavior that we consider, without even realizing it. Think about it this way…if a person is busy telling you how excited they are that they just got engaged, but their voice is cracking, their arms are folded, and they are looking at the ground, would you truly believe their excitement? If a person is smiling while telling you that their grandfather just passed away, would you feel confused? Of course! These examples are coming from both sides of the balance and are proof that language is dependent on nonverbal behavior and vice versa, in order to fully convey the message and emotion of what is being said.
Once you think about it, there are many signs and signals that you need to see or that you feed off of when having a conversation with someone. If I am discussing something very serious, I need the other person to be paying attention. I can be reassured that they are doing so if they are turned towards me, holding eye contact, maybe even nodding their head in agreement. People have always told me that I am funny because I really get into a story when someone is telling it. I nod my head, raise my eyebrows, change my facial expression, etc. and that is how I express that I am there and listening. As soon as I don’t do this, they ask me if I am listening or if something is wrong!
Body language is another form of nonverbal communication and I think it is the broadest form of its kind. We live in a society where body language is something we use to categorize someone. A guy walking down the street with a limp and sagging pants, is immediately a gangster in our minds, or a girl standing a certain way with her hand on her hip has an attitude or is being bitchy. You could say that the way we carry ourselves is almost more revealing than the words that come out of our mouths. To show confidence you must stand up straight with your nose in the air, you must make eye contact with everyone and walk as if you own the world. When you feel uncomfortable you cross your arms, look away, twirl your hair, or hunch your back.
Nonverbal behavior comes in many forms and one of the many things that influence this is gender. I am a lady in my parent’s eyes and that is why I always sit with my back straight and my legs crossed. We girls always feel so special when a guy stands or walks in front of us with his head high and his chest out, because his nonverbal behavior is communicating the message that he is proud and protective over us. Don’t we automatically think that, when we see two guys holding hands, they are homosexual? These are all gender-based nonverbal behavior that goes against our norm.
Nonverbal behavior is a powerful tool that is as necessary as language, and if either one is used in a way that does not balance them, miscommunication is inevitable.
In my experience, I have found that, like many others, I do not pay attention to this, until someone strays from the norm and once this happens I find it very difficult to contain my frustration or hide my confusion. What we do not realize is that, although language use is very important in communicating well, it is a constant balance between this language and nonverbal behavior that we consider, without even realizing it. Think about it this way…if a person is busy telling you how excited they are that they just got engaged, but their voice is cracking, their arms are folded, and they are looking at the ground, would you truly believe their excitement? If a person is smiling while telling you that their grandfather just passed away, would you feel confused? Of course! These examples are coming from both sides of the balance and are proof that language is dependent on nonverbal behavior and vice versa, in order to fully convey the message and emotion of what is being said.
Once you think about it, there are many signs and signals that you need to see or that you feed off of when having a conversation with someone. If I am discussing something very serious, I need the other person to be paying attention. I can be reassured that they are doing so if they are turned towards me, holding eye contact, maybe even nodding their head in agreement. People have always told me that I am funny because I really get into a story when someone is telling it. I nod my head, raise my eyebrows, change my facial expression, etc. and that is how I express that I am there and listening. As soon as I don’t do this, they ask me if I am listening or if something is wrong!
Body language is another form of nonverbal communication and I think it is the broadest form of its kind. We live in a society where body language is something we use to categorize someone. A guy walking down the street with a limp and sagging pants, is immediately a gangster in our minds, or a girl standing a certain way with her hand on her hip has an attitude or is being bitchy. You could say that the way we carry ourselves is almost more revealing than the words that come out of our mouths. To show confidence you must stand up straight with your nose in the air, you must make eye contact with everyone and walk as if you own the world. When you feel uncomfortable you cross your arms, look away, twirl your hair, or hunch your back.
Nonverbal behavior comes in many forms and one of the many things that influence this is gender. I am a lady in my parent’s eyes and that is why I always sit with my back straight and my legs crossed. We girls always feel so special when a guy stands or walks in front of us with his head high and his chest out, because his nonverbal behavior is communicating the message that he is proud and protective over us. Don’t we automatically think that, when we see two guys holding hands, they are homosexual? These are all gender-based nonverbal behavior that goes against our norm.
Nonverbal behavior is a powerful tool that is as necessary as language, and if either one is used in a way that does not balance them, miscommunication is inevitable.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
A New English Language.
It is true that, as soon as you enter the international world, there is only one safety that you can rely on for familiarity. This safety is the English language. English has become the planet’s language and is used globally in technology, commerce, and power. Its globalization has allowed people from different cultures and backgrounds to communicate, form relationships, and become educated at a level that was not possible before. Although these are all good things, the question must be asked, “How does this globalization affect English itself?” The English we use today might seem as strange to future generations as Shakespeare’s English is to us!
In her essay, Not The Queen’s English, Carla Power states that “new English-speakers aren’t just passively absorbing the language – they’re shaping it.” She continues by listing some of the “new Englishes” that have been formed in different regions of the world, including Spanglish, Japlish, Englog, and Hinglish, that are all threatening the traditional English standard as we know it. The idea is that people are forming a language that allows them to communicate and form new identities with each other, and because English is well-known across the world, these new languages can easily be based off of English. So should they even be considered as English then? To a native English speaker, it would be difficult to understand a foreigner who learned English in their own country, because there is no enforcement or real need for this foreigner to learn the “right” English. They can get by on what they have learned.
The evolution of English is definitely something that is affected by its globalization. It seems that native speakers of English have the most to lose as they are stuck with the “old” version of this language, while new versions, among which includes an international Standard English (different from the English we speak), are spreading. Is it really such a horrible thing though? Would it be a disaster if English was revolutionized into something completely different? One theory explains the idea of a “Tri-English world”, where a person would speak local English which consists mainly of dialect, a national English that would be used in schools and work, and an international Standard English that would be used for international business. Now it seems that, with all the enthusiasm for learning the language and making it usable for all, this theory wouldn’t be impossible.
It is clear that English is changing under the circumstances of globalization, and because of this we must ask ourselves if we are willing to conform. English is global because it is the language of power and technology and if we as Americans sit back and ignore the idea that the English we know might not be the international English required to compete and succeed globally, we could fall off the wagon that leads the way in revolutionizing our world. There is much opportunity in embracing whatever comes of this globalization. The market for English teaching has become so large that most countries spend more than $1 billion on it yearly. English is the common linguistic denominator between culture groups and nations and only time will tell whether or not globalization will swallow the English we know so well and produce a new global language that only hints to the familiarity we find comfort in.
In her essay, Not The Queen’s English, Carla Power states that “new English-speakers aren’t just passively absorbing the language – they’re shaping it.” She continues by listing some of the “new Englishes” that have been formed in different regions of the world, including Spanglish, Japlish, Englog, and Hinglish, that are all threatening the traditional English standard as we know it. The idea is that people are forming a language that allows them to communicate and form new identities with each other, and because English is well-known across the world, these new languages can easily be based off of English. So should they even be considered as English then? To a native English speaker, it would be difficult to understand a foreigner who learned English in their own country, because there is no enforcement or real need for this foreigner to learn the “right” English. They can get by on what they have learned.
The evolution of English is definitely something that is affected by its globalization. It seems that native speakers of English have the most to lose as they are stuck with the “old” version of this language, while new versions, among which includes an international Standard English (different from the English we speak), are spreading. Is it really such a horrible thing though? Would it be a disaster if English was revolutionized into something completely different? One theory explains the idea of a “Tri-English world”, where a person would speak local English which consists mainly of dialect, a national English that would be used in schools and work, and an international Standard English that would be used for international business. Now it seems that, with all the enthusiasm for learning the language and making it usable for all, this theory wouldn’t be impossible.
It is clear that English is changing under the circumstances of globalization, and because of this we must ask ourselves if we are willing to conform. English is global because it is the language of power and technology and if we as Americans sit back and ignore the idea that the English we know might not be the international English required to compete and succeed globally, we could fall off the wagon that leads the way in revolutionizing our world. There is much opportunity in embracing whatever comes of this globalization. The market for English teaching has become so large that most countries spend more than $1 billion on it yearly. English is the common linguistic denominator between culture groups and nations and only time will tell whether or not globalization will swallow the English we know so well and produce a new global language that only hints to the familiarity we find comfort in.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
I was never the kid in class who, as soon as the teacher announces an upcoming essay, would fall down on the floor, wailing as if death is upon them and continuing this wailing as they are carried out of the class on a gurney. Essays don't scare me. Writing doesn't intimidate me. Of course, this doesn't mean I am the best at it...far from it. I guess it is just easier for me to sit down and start a paper, and I feel that doing this is something that many people struggle with. However, when I read "Writing For an Audience", by Linda Flower, it dawned on me that I have never really considered my audience. Flower discusses three main ideas in her essay that will "create a momentary common ground between the reader and writer", which should allow the reader to see things the way the writer sees them. I read this and thought, "Well, why does this matter? I have never considered this and have done quite well." Flower replies to my question by explaining that a good piece of writing "closes the gap" between me and my audience, and this will make what I write more effective. The three ideas pointed out in this essay include the knowledge that the reader has about the topic, their attitude about this topic, and finally their needs.
The first, knowledge, is specifically chosen by Flower because if the reader has no clue about the topic of the paper, then there is no chance for success. When I read this, it reminded me of a recent speech I read in our group activity titled "The Semantics of Murder", by Amir Taheri, which had such an effective message and it was because Taheri explained and defined every single term or idea he used in his persuasion. Without this I would have been lost, but I was able to use the descriptions and explanations he gave to better my understanding of the issue and finally what his point of view on it was. Taheri used this technique because he knew that his audience would not be as familiar with the subject as he, a professional, is.
The second idea, attitude, is explained by Flower to come from a "cluster of associations" put together differently by each individual. She uses the example of a lake. Her attitude and image of a lake consists of rainy days and damp, wet nights, while her friend's attitude and image includes swimming, sailing, sun and happiness. If a suggestion is made about visiting a lake, it is obvious that each of these individuals would react quite differently to the suggestion, strictly because of the cluster of associations they have made with a lake. This makes sense. Why would anyone, having different life experiences, memories, and even gene make-up, have the same associations of something as I do? Flower perfectly puts into words what I realized about my writing after reading this example; "many people accept uncritically any statement that fits in with their own attitudes - and rejects, just as uncritically, anything that does not."
Finally, once one is able to identify the difference in attitude and knowledge of the readers, it is important to supply the needs of these readers based on this information. Flower makes a key point that these are the readers needs and that the writer must adapt to the reader. When I read this section, it seemed to me that one thing I could always ask myself, in order to identify the needs of the reader, is "why did I choose this audience?". An example of this is the speech that I mentioned earlier by Taheri. He wrote this speech to an American audience, because they had the need of knowing more about and understanding this issue in their fight against terrorism. By asking the question "why did I choose his audience?" Taheri could conclude that it is because their circumstances (attacks on 9/11) call for a greater understanding of these terrorist organizations, which in turn allows him to get a greater understanding of the knowledge his audience has on the subject and what their attitudes are. This is kind of a backward approach to what Flower was saying, but it definitely benefited me in having a greater understanding of how to analyze my audience, and also the importance in doing so.
The first, knowledge, is specifically chosen by Flower because if the reader has no clue about the topic of the paper, then there is no chance for success. When I read this, it reminded me of a recent speech I read in our group activity titled "The Semantics of Murder", by Amir Taheri, which had such an effective message and it was because Taheri explained and defined every single term or idea he used in his persuasion. Without this I would have been lost, but I was able to use the descriptions and explanations he gave to better my understanding of the issue and finally what his point of view on it was. Taheri used this technique because he knew that his audience would not be as familiar with the subject as he, a professional, is.
The second idea, attitude, is explained by Flower to come from a "cluster of associations" put together differently by each individual. She uses the example of a lake. Her attitude and image of a lake consists of rainy days and damp, wet nights, while her friend's attitude and image includes swimming, sailing, sun and happiness. If a suggestion is made about visiting a lake, it is obvious that each of these individuals would react quite differently to the suggestion, strictly because of the cluster of associations they have made with a lake. This makes sense. Why would anyone, having different life experiences, memories, and even gene make-up, have the same associations of something as I do? Flower perfectly puts into words what I realized about my writing after reading this example; "many people accept uncritically any statement that fits in with their own attitudes - and rejects, just as uncritically, anything that does not."
Finally, once one is able to identify the difference in attitude and knowledge of the readers, it is important to supply the needs of these readers based on this information. Flower makes a key point that these are the readers needs and that the writer must adapt to the reader. When I read this section, it seemed to me that one thing I could always ask myself, in order to identify the needs of the reader, is "why did I choose this audience?". An example of this is the speech that I mentioned earlier by Taheri. He wrote this speech to an American audience, because they had the need of knowing more about and understanding this issue in their fight against terrorism. By asking the question "why did I choose his audience?" Taheri could conclude that it is because their circumstances (attacks on 9/11) call for a greater understanding of these terrorist organizations, which in turn allows him to get a greater understanding of the knowledge his audience has on the subject and what their attitudes are. This is kind of a backward approach to what Flower was saying, but it definitely benefited me in having a greater understanding of how to analyze my audience, and also the importance in doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)