MediaSpace Wiki

Intercultural Spr2006 Sess12

Reminder

Students who have not yet turned in their exam 1 are reminded that it is now overdue. Submitting an exam late is far better than not submitting it. I return the exam to class today. If you do not turn in your exam at the beginning of class you'll need to talk to me, as it will no longer be possible to submit this exam for grading.

Agenda

• Collect any overdue exams
• Discuss individual questions from exam
  • See "My answers" below. There were many correct ways to answer the questions on the exam.
• Return exam (see Notes on exam', below)
• Answer questions about exam and grades
• Collect questions based on todays readings
• Collect short paper 1 (due today)
  • Quickly reviewed papers (see Notes on Short Paper 1, below)
  • Students were given the option of revising their papers and resubmitting on Thursday based on this discussion. Most took advantage of the opportunity.
• Talk about todays readings (see "Notes on Readings" below)
  • Answer questions based on readings

Notes on Short Paper 1

• Only three of the submitted papers included references (see ApaStyleGuide for information on referencing), even to the text that was being examined.
• We discussed several elements of the paper that relate to references
  1. The purpose of references, including referencing the text you are viewing (e.g. how do I find it)
     1. Allowing the reader to find the text
     2. Making you look smart
  2. The value of references beyond the text
     • Where did you get the ideas that you discussed for each of the three differences in the paper. Did you use ideas from the course readings? If so, you should cite and reference them.
     • And what of those differences? Would your paper be better if it discussed those differences in relation to ideas we have already discussed in the course? If it discussed other ideas that you picked up in other courses? If so, you should cite and reference them.
• There was some class generated discussion of the detail provided for this assignment, which was left purposely vague beyond the details of the two index card assignments that set it up and an in class discussion of the structure of a five paragraph essay. Here is a resummarization of that brief in-class discussion:
  1. In the first paragraph, start with a generic theme that introduces the essay in general terms. All cultures differ in observable ways. Introduce the culture you are examining and the text you are using to examine it. End with a thesis statement that states specifically what the essay is about (differences between the culture that produced the text you are examining and the culture you live in now).
  2. In each of the middle paragraphs, examine one difference between the text's culture and our culture in detail. There are bound to be interesting things you can say about each difference. Do so. Reference the content of this course (and other materials you are familiar with) if it makes sense to do so.
  3. Start your conclusion with a recap of our thesis. In this essay I have ... or something like that. Review and extend your argument. What have I said. What else could I have said. What would I like to look at if I did more research on this culture/text.

Notes on Readings

• Three readings
  • Jewish-American Identity
  • Afrocentric identity ("Happy to be Nappy")
  • Intercultural relationships
• Common themes
  • The origins of identity in culture (all)
  • Properties of cultural identity (Intercultural Friendships)
    1. Avowal - enactment of cultural identity - versus
    2. Ascription - assignment of cultural identity by others
       • External identification and the stereotyping and barriers that can accompany it
       • The tension between avowal and ascription is key to understanding covering
         • Closeting (Jewish-American Identity)
       • Ascriptions can go well beyond anything we avow
       • And can have lasting implications in our lives
    3. Enduring - we tend to think of cultural identity as stable - versus
    4. Changing - but out cultural identity changes over time
       • As it does for the author of "Happy to be Nappy"
       • History is an important element of who we are
         • It can grant us unearned privileges (or deny us earned privileges)
       • Standpoint Theory
       • Culture by Descent (Jewish-American Identity)
    5. Content and
    6. Relationship
       • All messages have content and relational dimensions
       • Cultural identity is, in effect, a message
    7. Multipleness - we are all members of multiple cultures
       • some of our memberships are involuntary
       • others are voluntary
       • Culture by Assent (Jewish-American Identity)
       • and in consequence of that, both
    8. Salience - we make cultural selections based on the needs of the situation we are in - and
    9. Importance - some aspects of our cultures are so important that we aren't willing to compromise them
       • Dialectical tensions are an inevitable result
  • Stories provide a way of understanding these levels of identity (Happy to be Nappy)
    • and of resisting the dominant culture
  • The individual emerges as a function of these tensions
    • between culture and self
    • between dominant culture and subculture
  • We construct our own reality
    • Using the tools at hand
    • Which are often provided by the dominant culture

Notes on exam

• The average grade on this exam is 87.65, a B+. That is higher than I might have preferred by consistent with a take home exam. The lowest grade was a C+ (79). The highest was a solid A (95).
• Each of the four essays was graded on a 25 point scale:
  • 15: Minimal, but minimally competent, answer
  • 17: Poor, but more than minimal
  • 19: Fair
  • 21: Seems to really get some of it
  • 23: Seems to get a lot of it.
  • 25: Superb
• Getting it was being able to apply the requested course concepts to the article and support your answer. There is no right answer, but there are a set of things that should be done in an excellent answer.
• Overall I was pleased by the quality of the answers.

My answers to the Exam 1 questions (provided as examples of the kind of answers I was looking for).

• Answer two of the following three questions:

1. Discuss the article from the perspective of ideological or British Cultural Theory. How does power structure culture? Who naturalizes meaning and how?
   • The article discusses the behavior of covering in the context of several specific cases in which members of cultural minorities behaved in a manner that resulted in what appear to be discriminatory actions on the part of members of the dominant culture. These discriminatory actions have been upheld in the courts because they were based on individual behaviors (for which an individual theoretically has a choice) rather than personal characteristics (race, religion, etc) over which one does not have control. These kinds of actions, and the support they have received in the courts, is an incentive for members of the minority culture to minimize their cultural differences by "covering" (e.g. acting in a manner that doesn't draw attention to differences; behaving, as much as possible, in the manner of the dominant culture. Power therefore structures cultures by encouraging conformity with cultural communication patterns and norms. Members of the minority act to naturalize meaning in such situations. Members of the dominant culture will likely give this conformity, and its implications, little or no thought.
2. Discuss the Goldman case in terms of cultural dialectics like cultural/individual and personal characteristics/behavioral choices.
   • Goldman, both am ordained rabbi and an officer of the U.S. Air Force, acted in what one might expect was the only possible way he could act, given his religious beliefs. A yarmulke is a thin, head-conforming, covering that can be worn inside hats and helmets and which is often unnoticeable. One imagines that, when challenged and threatened with court martial for wearing a yarmulke indoors in alleged defiance of Air Force regulation, his reactions ran from "this isn't headgear" to "its not what the Air Force regulations meant" to, as he ultimately claimed in court, "this is a blatant act of religious discrimination and a violation of my first amendment rights. We find, in this likely thought process, a series of cultural dialectics and some likely inconsistencies. There is a cultural/individual dialectic in which the cultural expectations of the Air Force conflicted with and Goldman's personal religious beliefs. It is likely that Goldman had given considerable thought to this inconsistency long before it became an issue. Indeed, it is unlikely that he would have survived in the Air Force long enough to become an officer had he not encountered considerable tolerance of his yarmulke, much as many balding officers have undoubtedly found (and probably still find) considerable tolerance for wearing toupees. The series of events that changed this tolerance to a challenge are not recounted in the article, but the courst finding that allowing yarmulkes opened the door to other religious headgear is at odds with the relative inconspicuousness of the "headgear", which has much more in common with a toupee than with a hat or turban. This view of the case makes the behavior versus personal characteristic dialectic much more complicated, for a yarmulke is certainly more an extension of an individuals religion than a toupee is a preservation of one's appearance. If it can be argued that wearing a yarmulke is a choice, so it can also be argued that it its one of the most direct expressions of Goldman's religious belief. In this the courts decision seems overstated. By the same token, is seems certain that others with this problem can cover simply by wearing a hairpiece.
3. Discuss the Shahar case as attributions. What attributions are made about Robin? How and why do they shift from protection to blame?
   • When Robin, a new hire who had previously interned with the state of Georgia Department of Law, announced that she was getting married and asked for a deferred start date for her new job, it was immediately assumed that her marriage followed the expectations of the dominant culture. This assumption was made despite the fact that she was known to be gay. She is encouraged and congratulated, with the deferred start date happily given. When, however, it was learned that her wedding was to another women, the attributions shift to the negative, causing a "stir". Her job offer is rescinded. In inevitable court case, her employers state that they knew she was gay when they hired her; that the decision to rescind the the job was based on her behavior (the marriage) rather than her gay status. The courts upheld this decision, holding that while her gay status was a protected characteristic, that her gay marriage was a choice that was not protected by statute. It is a fundamental of attribution theory that we protect those who regard as being "like us" and act with hostility to those who are not "like us". In this case Robin is protected and nurtured when she announces her "wedding" (perhaps all the more so given the assumption that she is, through marriage, assimilating into the dominant culture). When, however, the marriage turns out to be same sex, Robin is no longer seen as similar and the attributions turn hostile. The "stir" ultimately leads to her no longer being welcome to work at the Georgia Department of Law.
   • Answer 2 of the following three questions
4. Discuss covering in relation to the idea of deep cultural and surface culture using the concepts of values and behavior. How do values contribute to the need to cover?
   • Culture is rooted in values, but their are potentially many ways in which deep cultural values can be expressed at the visible surface of cultural behavior. Covering is very much a surface behavior. The term implies that one is hiding or covering up ones beliefs and values by adopting behavior that mimics, as much as possible, the behavior that is presumed by the dominant culture. Oddly, however, covering need not be obscuring any real difference in values. The culture of the minority that covers may have identical values to those of the dominant culture and still seek to preserve its historical surface culture. One cannot tell, when an individual covers, whether their behavior is mere conformity to the localized behavioral norms of the dominant culture or an obscuring of deeply rooted differences. Certainly, however, differences in values will both increase the need to cover and the dissonance associated with doing so.
5. What method is used in this article? How might an ethnography help us to better understand "covering"? How might a measurement approach help?
   • The primary method of this article is narrative. A series of stories is used to illustrate the reality of covering and the changing landscape of discrimination in our culture. The narrative is used in service of what can only be regarded as ideological theory. A dominant culture which used to discriminate against minority subcultures fairly openly continues that discrimination in more subtle ways that, at least for the present, pass constitutional muster. The article clearly seeks to educate the reader in a way that may stir them to outrage and, it is hoped, action. The article would be stronger if it was backed by stronger forms of evidence. Narrative is wonderfully illustrative, but can easily make the exception seem the problem. Ethnographic and measurement are two approaches that might usefully extend the article in the direction of more generality. The author does a limited autoethnography of his own experience of covering at a University. A more in depth ethnographic observation of covering in various workplaces might elucidate the boundary between tolerance of behavior that expresses minority behavioral preferences and the intolerance that is reported in this article. Understanding that difference might help us craft better solutions than those the courts have come up with. Measurement approaches, moreover, could give us a clear sense of how commonplace covering is. Is Goldman's experience the exception or the rule? There is no way to know based on a single case.
6. Discuss "covering" as a form of ethical negotiation of the boundaries between cultures. Is covering a harm? Why or why not?
   • The key to negotiating intercultural boundaries is tolerance. This tolerance is a two way street. It works best when people neither make an issue of the cultural differences they observe or go out of their way to make their cultural differences obvious. This is no less the case for boundaries like like those outlined in this article in which minority cultures are operating within a dominant culture than it is when too otherwise equal cultures interact at their borders. Covering is only a harm when one behaves in a manner that is inconsistent with ones beliefs and values. It is, in a very real sense, unethical of those in other cultures to "notice" behaviors that are rooted in ones beliefs and values. A Muslim is obligated to turn towards and pray in the direction of Mecca several times a day. There will be no ethical problems if we allow that to happen by not noticing. Muslim's help, of course, when they make their observances in a way that doesn't call attention to them. This "don't observe, don't flaunt" policy is more subtle then "don't ask, don't tell", but ultimately allows the same thing: the coexistence of two cultures.