Celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a celebrity should not lose the right to privacy. Discuss what you think determines whether or not celebrities should lose their right to privacy.
___
The obsession with celebrity and the Hollywood lifestyle are hallmarks of twenty-first century American culture. Paparazzi constantly follow stars and regular people buy the magazines to follow their everyday moves and private relationships. Many women have plastic surgery to look more like celebrities and even mimic their manner of dress and talk. Indeed, celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy. They are fully aware of the culture's fixation with Hollywood and realize the costs of seeking fame. Even the Constitution makes it more difficult of celebrities to seek damages for invasion of privacy. Of course, there still exists some legal limits as to how far a celebrity's privacy can be invaded.
Celebrities realize that taking part in high-featured films and attending star-studded events will increase their fame and desirability in the media. They also raise their chances to take part in more prominent roles in the future. Celebrities realize that growing their careers will necessarily involve increasing interest in their private lives. Many celebrities also go out of their way to seek fame by releasing sex tapes and making themselves readily available for paparazzi shots. Of course, these types of celebrities should have absolutely no expectation of privacy. Other famous people exhibit more dignity and respect for themselves by avoiding unneeded attention. However, many aspects of their lives are still deemed fair game, including where they go out to share dinner with their loved one and where they happen to shop for groceries.
The Constitution makes it more difficult for celebrities (as opposed to private citizens) to sue on the basis of libel and defamation. If a smut magazine wrongly links an actress to her co-star, she will not be successful in claiming damages in court. Specifically, she has the additional burden of proving malicious intent of the authors. Regular citizens, on the other hand, need not prove this burden to sue successfully. The law, however, still grants celebrities basic privacy rights. For example, paparazzi may not enter the private homes or cars of celebrities.
Indeed, Americans should realize that their deified celebrities are people who have feelings and faults. They also have children they want to protect and wish to be treated with the basic dignity that every human being deserves. Some magazines have crossed this line by taking shots of children and even chasing cars. Paparazzi are also known for climbing walls and trespassing on private property to get "money" shots of stars sunbathing in the nude. These types of privacy invasion should not be tolerated and expected by celebrities. Unfortunately, Americans feed the demand for these pictures and are more likely to support publications that show stars in revealing positions. As spying and communication technologies improve, celebrities will find their privacy being compromised in more ways.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime
A nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
___
In a period of economic hardship, citizens of wealthy nations question why their strained budgets continue to make room for foreign aid. As the government slashes its jobs by the thousands, many insist that aid to developing countries should be halted or placed in the backburner. However, wealthy nations do not aid poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Rather, there exist quid pro quo agreements that help advance the donor's various economic and national security interests. While donors can benefit greatly from giving foreign aid, they still must make sure that the resources go to countries that help themselves. When operating a system that encourages corruption and/or dependence, donors cause great harm to the receiving countries.
It is well known that foreign aid often does not reach those who really need it. Indeed, the majority of poor nations are ruled by corrupt leaders that end up hording the aid for their personal enrichment. Donor countries are aware of this problem but do not do much to resolve it because the corrupt leaders are the decision-makers that can help expand markets and also influence domestic policies. Wealthy nations, however, should help further transparency in these countries by minimizing corruption in government. By turning a blind eye to the mishandling of aid, donor countries further the corruption problems.
Donor nations should make an effort to make sure they give a "hand up" not "hand outs." For instance, if the donor nation continually gives out bags of food on a consistent basis, receiving countries will become dependent and not make enough efforts to develop their own industries. These bags of food also skew the economic balance in the receiving country by putting farmers out of work and adversely affecting local industries. Instead of giving hand outs, donor nations should promote development programs that help local people build knowledge and skills to become independent and compete in the world.
Granted, wealthy nations should feel obliged to give aid in certain cases regardless of whether the receiving country takes steps to help themselves. From time to time, sudden, major natural disasters strike and leave millions without food and water. Governments cannot handle the overwhelming demand for aid and wealthier countries step in to support humanitarian efforts. The Haiti earthquakes and Asian tsunamis in the past decade are examples where wealthier people of the world and governments exhibited their magnanimity and sincere concern for the victims.
In times of sudden national disasters, foreign aid is essential in preventing the death of millions of victims. Foreign aid, however, serves more purposes than purely humanitarian ones and can help wealthy nations influence policies in their favor, among other things. These donor nations should, however, be cognizant of the effect that the aid has in receiving countries. They should ensure that the aid reaches those who really need it and verify that receiving countries are doing their part by taking real responsibility for their own problems.
Describe a specific situation in which a nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.
___
In a period of economic hardship, citizens of wealthy nations question why their strained budgets continue to make room for foreign aid. As the government slashes its jobs by the thousands, many insist that aid to developing countries should be halted or placed in the backburner. However, wealthy nations do not aid poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Rather, there exist quid pro quo agreements that help advance the donor's various economic and national security interests. While donors can benefit greatly from giving foreign aid, they still must make sure that the resources go to countries that help themselves. When operating a system that encourages corruption and/or dependence, donors cause great harm to the receiving countries.
It is well known that foreign aid often does not reach those who really need it. Indeed, the majority of poor nations are ruled by corrupt leaders that end up hording the aid for their personal enrichment. Donor countries are aware of this problem but do not do much to resolve it because the corrupt leaders are the decision-makers that can help expand markets and also influence domestic policies. Wealthy nations, however, should help further transparency in these countries by minimizing corruption in government. By turning a blind eye to the mishandling of aid, donor countries further the corruption problems.
Donor nations should make an effort to make sure they give a "hand up" not "hand outs." For instance, if the donor nation continually gives out bags of food on a consistent basis, receiving countries will become dependent and not make enough efforts to develop their own industries. These bags of food also skew the economic balance in the receiving country by putting farmers out of work and adversely affecting local industries. Instead of giving hand outs, donor nations should promote development programs that help local people build knowledge and skills to become independent and compete in the world.
Granted, wealthy nations should feel obliged to give aid in certain cases regardless of whether the receiving country takes steps to help themselves. From time to time, sudden, major natural disasters strike and leave millions without food and water. Governments cannot handle the overwhelming demand for aid and wealthier countries step in to support humanitarian efforts. The Haiti earthquakes and Asian tsunamis in the past decade are examples where wealthier people of the world and governments exhibited their magnanimity and sincere concern for the victims.
In times of sudden national disasters, foreign aid is essential in preventing the death of millions of victims. Foreign aid, however, serves more purposes than purely humanitarian ones and can help wealthy nations influence policies in their favor, among other things. These donor nations should, however, be cognizant of the effect that the aid has in receiving countries. They should ensure that the aid reaches those who really need it and verify that receiving countries are doing their part by taking real responsibility for their own problems.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Teachers must Accept Responsibility for Student Failure
Teachers must accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
Describe a specific situation in which a teacher might justifiably not accept some responsibility for the failure of a student. Discuss what you think determines whether or not teachers should accept some responsibility for the failure of one of their students.
___
For the past decade or so, the quality of American schools has increasingly drawn scrutiny. Student scores in math and reading in most states have dropped relative to other countries in the world. Americans fear that the abilities of students in rising economic powers, such as China and India, have surpassed those of the United States. In effect, the legislature has passed several laws in attempt to raise standards in American schools. For example, the "No Child Left Behind" act has focused on teachers and the need to make them more accountable to student performance. In a sense, the reforms force schools and teachers to accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
To an extent, teachers should accept some responsibility when the students fail. The concept of "failure," of course, can be subjective. Each class has different structures of grading---for instance, what qualifies as a B in one class may be an F in another class. Federal reforms have attempted to level the playing field by holding schools and students to the same standards. Namely, national standardized testing helps judge whether schools and teachers are doing an adequate job. The failure of students on the test has resulted in schools not receiving funding and teachers being fired. In a sense, it is important for teachers to know whether their students are meeting standards. By taking responsibility for student failure, a teacher can start to modify his teaching style and reach out to at-risk students in order to improve future results. By not accepting responsibility, a teacher become complacent and feel that there is absolutely nothing she can do to positively affect a student's future.
Granted, there are some cases where a teacher might not justifiably accept some responsibility for a student's failure. It can be argued that the failure of some urban schools to meet national standards is a systemic problem. Teachers cannot be blamed in these cases where a number of obstacles stand in the way of student academic success. Some of these factors include poor family environment, endemic drug use in the community, lack of respect for education in a cultural setting, etc. All these obstacles converge and essentially ensure that children will not become productive members of society. Undoubtedly, there is not a lot that teachers can do to intervene in this downward spiral.
While there may exist "hopeless" cases, teachers would better serve their students if they take responsibility for their student's failure. Teachers may not have the ability to motivate an at-risk kid to attend college and receive a degree. However, they can nurture practical life skills that might just prevent them from joining a gang or selling drugs. Just the simple act of showing that they care may make even a slight difference in the future of children who have been neglected their whole lives. Indeed, a system that allows teachers to just sit back and accept failure in their students further contributes to America's downfall and inability to compete in the world economy.
Describe a specific situation in which a teacher might justifiably not accept some responsibility for the failure of a student. Discuss what you think determines whether or not teachers should accept some responsibility for the failure of one of their students.
___
For the past decade or so, the quality of American schools has increasingly drawn scrutiny. Student scores in math and reading in most states have dropped relative to other countries in the world. Americans fear that the abilities of students in rising economic powers, such as China and India, have surpassed those of the United States. In effect, the legislature has passed several laws in attempt to raise standards in American schools. For example, the "No Child Left Behind" act has focused on teachers and the need to make them more accountable to student performance. In a sense, the reforms force schools and teachers to accept partial responsibility for the failure of any of their students.
To an extent, teachers should accept some responsibility when the students fail. The concept of "failure," of course, can be subjective. Each class has different structures of grading---for instance, what qualifies as a B in one class may be an F in another class. Federal reforms have attempted to level the playing field by holding schools and students to the same standards. Namely, national standardized testing helps judge whether schools and teachers are doing an adequate job. The failure of students on the test has resulted in schools not receiving funding and teachers being fired. In a sense, it is important for teachers to know whether their students are meeting standards. By taking responsibility for student failure, a teacher can start to modify his teaching style and reach out to at-risk students in order to improve future results. By not accepting responsibility, a teacher become complacent and feel that there is absolutely nothing she can do to positively affect a student's future.
Granted, there are some cases where a teacher might not justifiably accept some responsibility for a student's failure. It can be argued that the failure of some urban schools to meet national standards is a systemic problem. Teachers cannot be blamed in these cases where a number of obstacles stand in the way of student academic success. Some of these factors include poor family environment, endemic drug use in the community, lack of respect for education in a cultural setting, etc. All these obstacles converge and essentially ensure that children will not become productive members of society. Undoubtedly, there is not a lot that teachers can do to intervene in this downward spiral.
While there may exist "hopeless" cases, teachers would better serve their students if they take responsibility for their student's failure. Teachers may not have the ability to motivate an at-risk kid to attend college and receive a degree. However, they can nurture practical life skills that might just prevent them from joining a gang or selling drugs. Just the simple act of showing that they care may make even a slight difference in the future of children who have been neglected their whole lives. Indeed, a system that allows teachers to just sit back and accept failure in their students further contributes to America's downfall and inability to compete in the world economy.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Following a Hunch as a Researcher
A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.
___
In American high schools, students are introduced to research methods in science classes. These guidelines encourage them to solve problems in an objective, disciplined manner--as opposed to a random, unfocused study of subjects. However, as a student advances in his scientific career, he realizes that creative solutions to solving research questions may involve following one's intuition and stepping outside the boundaries of the common methodology. Following one's hunch to arrive at a solution can be applied not only to academic research but to problems in the real world.
There is merit in following established methodology in conducting research. An array of scientists throughout time have established best practices for what works in the laboratory. Their experience and guidelines help move forward the research of today's scientists. Indeed, applying lessons from the past entails discipline and thorough examination of the question at hand. In particular, the trusted "scientific method"--a template of inquiry involving systematic observation, hypothesis, experiments, etc.--has been used by researchers for hundreds of years to solve various questions.
The scientific method has served as a general guideline for going about research but it is a fluid process; sometimes luck and hunches play significant roles in new discoveries. That is, use of the creative mind allows a researcher to go where no other has gone before. Merely following the exact paths taken in the past will not allow the researcher to come upon a new discovery. This statement can be applied to other areas of life where taking great risks may result in greater outcomes (or if unlucky, a worse outcome). Following a hunch and veering off a common path may result in some ridicule from peer researchers but there may be a chance to stumble upon a new discovery.
Indeed, successful researchers do not limit themselves to proven methodologies. Of course, they have mastered what is known as the best practices and have proven to be disciplined and painstaking in their research. However, they possess an entrepreneurial spirit in that they are not afraid to follow their intuition and follow a path toward new discoveries.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.
___
In American high schools, students are introduced to research methods in science classes. These guidelines encourage them to solve problems in an objective, disciplined manner--as opposed to a random, unfocused study of subjects. However, as a student advances in his scientific career, he realizes that creative solutions to solving research questions may involve following one's intuition and stepping outside the boundaries of the common methodology. Following one's hunch to arrive at a solution can be applied not only to academic research but to problems in the real world.
There is merit in following established methodology in conducting research. An array of scientists throughout time have established best practices for what works in the laboratory. Their experience and guidelines help move forward the research of today's scientists. Indeed, applying lessons from the past entails discipline and thorough examination of the question at hand. In particular, the trusted "scientific method"--a template of inquiry involving systematic observation, hypothesis, experiments, etc.--has been used by researchers for hundreds of years to solve various questions.
The scientific method has served as a general guideline for going about research but it is a fluid process; sometimes luck and hunches play significant roles in new discoveries. That is, use of the creative mind allows a researcher to go where no other has gone before. Merely following the exact paths taken in the past will not allow the researcher to come upon a new discovery. This statement can be applied to other areas of life where taking great risks may result in greater outcomes (or if unlucky, a worse outcome). Following a hunch and veering off a common path may result in some ridicule from peer researchers but there may be a chance to stumble upon a new discovery.
Indeed, successful researchers do not limit themselves to proven methodologies. Of course, they have mastered what is known as the best practices and have proven to be disciplined and painstaking in their research. However, they possess an entrepreneurial spirit in that they are not afraid to follow their intuition and follow a path toward new discoveries.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Does Praise teach Better than Criticism?
Praise teaches better than criticism.
Describe a specific situation in which praise might not teach better than criticism. Discuss what you think determines whether praise or criticism teaches better.
___
News articles have brought attention to certain characteristics of American children growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Namely, they have been described as coddled and self-absorbed--unable to take criticism, not so resilient during hard times and perhaps more susceptible to depression and drug abuse. These characteristics have often been partly attributed to a cultural focus on raising self esteem in classrooms and recognizing the "uniqueness" of each child. Indeed, praise can prove effective in reinforcing positive behavior; however, children need constructive criticism in order to understand the true nature of their abilities and also build "thicker" skin to withstand challenging situations.
Praise has the effect of encouraging people to pursue endeavors they believe they excel in. Praise often helps release a burst of energy in people--motivating them to continue deserving the positive words lavished on them. In reality, no one enjoys having their faults pointed out but most everyone appreciates genuine positive reinforcement. Especially for people (e.g., the 1980s/1990s children) not accustomed to criticism, praise often is more effective in maintaining positive behavior. The praise, however, must be genuine and not given solely for the sake of raising self esteem. One given underserved praise will eventually become disillusioned and upset upon learning how his abilities really fair against others.
Criticism may teach better if given in a constructive manner. The way to give criticism is sort of an art that most people have not mastered. The criticism, for instance, should not directly strike at the ego but should be worded in a way that is sensitive and encourages positive change in a person. Criticism given in the wrong manner may ruin relationships of trust and even cause the receiver to act out in perverse ways. This art of giving constructive criticism grew out of the movement to raise self esteem in 1980s/1990s school children; however, many parents and teachers felt too protective of the children's feelings and failed to give out useful criticism to assist them in entering the harsh real world.
Praise often teaches better than criticism in that people readily receive positive words. Especially if unaccustomed to criticism, people will often shut down when they feel personally attacked. Indeed, a dose of criticism is necessary of everyone to gain perspective on their abilities and behavior. Too much praise and no criticism encourages over-inflated egos and an inability to handle challenges in life.
Describe a specific situation in which praise might not teach better than criticism. Discuss what you think determines whether praise or criticism teaches better.
___
News articles have brought attention to certain characteristics of American children growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Namely, they have been described as coddled and self-absorbed--unable to take criticism, not so resilient during hard times and perhaps more susceptible to depression and drug abuse. These characteristics have often been partly attributed to a cultural focus on raising self esteem in classrooms and recognizing the "uniqueness" of each child. Indeed, praise can prove effective in reinforcing positive behavior; however, children need constructive criticism in order to understand the true nature of their abilities and also build "thicker" skin to withstand challenging situations.
Praise has the effect of encouraging people to pursue endeavors they believe they excel in. Praise often helps release a burst of energy in people--motivating them to continue deserving the positive words lavished on them. In reality, no one enjoys having their faults pointed out but most everyone appreciates genuine positive reinforcement. Especially for people (e.g., the 1980s/1990s children) not accustomed to criticism, praise often is more effective in maintaining positive behavior. The praise, however, must be genuine and not given solely for the sake of raising self esteem. One given underserved praise will eventually become disillusioned and upset upon learning how his abilities really fair against others.
Criticism may teach better if given in a constructive manner. The way to give criticism is sort of an art that most people have not mastered. The criticism, for instance, should not directly strike at the ego but should be worded in a way that is sensitive and encourages positive change in a person. Criticism given in the wrong manner may ruin relationships of trust and even cause the receiver to act out in perverse ways. This art of giving constructive criticism grew out of the movement to raise self esteem in 1980s/1990s school children; however, many parents and teachers felt too protective of the children's feelings and failed to give out useful criticism to assist them in entering the harsh real world.
Praise often teaches better than criticism in that people readily receive positive words. Especially if unaccustomed to criticism, people will often shut down when they feel personally attacked. Indeed, a dose of criticism is necessary of everyone to gain perspective on their abilities and behavior. Too much praise and no criticism encourages over-inflated egos and an inability to handle challenges in life.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Government should not regulate scientific research?
The government should not regulate scientific research.
Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research.
___
Part of what has helped push the United States to the forefront is its leadership in innovation and research. In this democratic nation, citizens are encouraged to break scientific boundaries and pursue interests that improve the quality of human life. Regulation of scientific research by the government should be minimized in order to foster the spirit of innovation that defines America. However, some regulations are necessary in order to ensure public safety and national security.
One may view attempts at government regulation of scientific research with a skeptical eye due to the ubiquitous influence of special interests. Laws and regulations of the United States are sometimes proposed and passed as a result of lobbying efforts by powerful interest groups. These groups may not represent the best interest of the American public and they often can buy the votes of lawmakers who create policy and regulations. Some scientists may find themselves unable to move forward with research due to regulations pushed forward by these special interests groups. Indeed, it is important to evaluate the purpose of proposed regulations created by groups that do not necessarily represent the public interest.
Regulating scientific research may also pose constitutional questions. A government's attempt at limiting research might infringe on a scientist's first amendment rights in certain circumstances. For example, the government may be acting improperly if it is trying to prohibit the growth of knowledge in an area of research. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, government officials may be receiving support from private industries and therefore represent their interests in pushing forward (or preventing) regulations.
The government is responsible for protecting the public and therefore, needs to set basic regulations on scientific research. For instance, vulnerable citizens should be protected from being used as human guinea pigs and certain guidelines exist to ensure that these people are aware of their rights. Scientists also may not conduct research in a way that causes environmental degradation. While the research itself may not cause any harm, the government might have a right to prevent projects that pose potential threats to the public.
There are several scientific areas that have been subject to controversy---among those include stem-cell research, genetically modified foods, and in vitro sex selection. The public has various opinions on how involved the government should be in regulating and funding such research. In the United States, citizens differ on the role of government and how far its power should extend. Most agree that the government should intervene in cases where scientific research pose an imminent threat to citizens. Its ability to regulate beyond that, however, may be questioned by citizens who believe in a "limited" government.
Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research.
___
Part of what has helped push the United States to the forefront is its leadership in innovation and research. In this democratic nation, citizens are encouraged to break scientific boundaries and pursue interests that improve the quality of human life. Regulation of scientific research by the government should be minimized in order to foster the spirit of innovation that defines America. However, some regulations are necessary in order to ensure public safety and national security.
One may view attempts at government regulation of scientific research with a skeptical eye due to the ubiquitous influence of special interests. Laws and regulations of the United States are sometimes proposed and passed as a result of lobbying efforts by powerful interest groups. These groups may not represent the best interest of the American public and they often can buy the votes of lawmakers who create policy and regulations. Some scientists may find themselves unable to move forward with research due to regulations pushed forward by these special interests groups. Indeed, it is important to evaluate the purpose of proposed regulations created by groups that do not necessarily represent the public interest.
Regulating scientific research may also pose constitutional questions. A government's attempt at limiting research might infringe on a scientist's first amendment rights in certain circumstances. For example, the government may be acting improperly if it is trying to prohibit the growth of knowledge in an area of research. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, government officials may be receiving support from private industries and therefore represent their interests in pushing forward (or preventing) regulations.
The government is responsible for protecting the public and therefore, needs to set basic regulations on scientific research. For instance, vulnerable citizens should be protected from being used as human guinea pigs and certain guidelines exist to ensure that these people are aware of their rights. Scientists also may not conduct research in a way that causes environmental degradation. While the research itself may not cause any harm, the government might have a right to prevent projects that pose potential threats to the public.
There are several scientific areas that have been subject to controversy---among those include stem-cell research, genetically modified foods, and in vitro sex selection. The public has various opinions on how involved the government should be in regulating and funding such research. In the United States, citizens differ on the role of government and how far its power should extend. Most agree that the government should intervene in cases where scientific research pose an imminent threat to citizens. Its ability to regulate beyond that, however, may be questioned by citizens who believe in a "limited" government.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people
Only after coming to know another culture can a person truly begin to understand its people.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to understand a people without knowing about their culture. Discuss what you think determines when knowing another culture is necessary for understanding its people.
___
Members of a community learn from each other through repeated interaction and through time, they develop a "culture"---or set of shared values, goals, and practices. In order to understand a community, one must get to know their culture. This is best accomplished actually living among the people for an extended period of time. Of course, one may glean aspects of a community's culture through textbooks and documentaries. However, it is impossible to fully understand a culture unless one has personal experience integrating into the community, as well as approaching it with an open mind.
By living amongst the people of a community, one gains a more nuanced understanding of the culture. For instance, by attending religious ceremonies, parties, and family gatherings, the outsider can interact with members and feel--not just see--what they value in life. They can observe what they prioritize as a community by understanding the type of work they do to make a living and what they do for diversion purposes. A community, for instance, may highly value their relaxation time while another may be run by a clock and the need to accumulate wealth. A community's conception of time, indeed, can truly be understood only if living in the community.
"Knowing" a culture involves fully integrating into a community. This entails, among others, speaking the community's language and being able to communicate directly with various members. Oftentimes, there may be certain ideas and sentiments that cannot be fully expressed in translation and having the ability to speak directly with members can offer valuable insights about a people. Integrating within a community also involves living in similar conditions as those of the members. For instance, if an American expat continues living a life of luxury among the African tribe he is purporting to study, he will not fully understand any struggles and conditions that motivate members to live life in the way that they do.
There have been numerous examples in history where outsiders have imposed their will on a group without truly understanding important cultural factors. For example, European powers in the 1960s partitioned Africa in a way that satisfied their own interests; that is, by placing rival tribes in the same country and splitting up friendly clans. The problems of genocide and famine that ravage Africa today are partly due to poor planning in the part of the European powers. They failed to understand the African people by ignoring cultural aspects that perhaps would have had great influence in the direction of the continent.
If one is truly interested in learning about a community, he will one way or another try to understand the culture. Granted, one may learn about people through studying textbooks describing history, geography and other facts. This, however, is a superficial understanding of a people since communities consist of much more than hard facts. Culture encompasses more nuanced aspects of a community. Often, aspects of culture cannot be adequately described in words but rather, can best be "experienced" through direct interaction with the people. Furthermore, one must also approach the other culture with an open mind and recognize one's own biases before making judgments.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to understand a people without knowing about their culture. Discuss what you think determines when knowing another culture is necessary for understanding its people.
___
Members of a community learn from each other through repeated interaction and through time, they develop a "culture"---or set of shared values, goals, and practices. In order to understand a community, one must get to know their culture. This is best accomplished actually living among the people for an extended period of time. Of course, one may glean aspects of a community's culture through textbooks and documentaries. However, it is impossible to fully understand a culture unless one has personal experience integrating into the community, as well as approaching it with an open mind.
By living amongst the people of a community, one gains a more nuanced understanding of the culture. For instance, by attending religious ceremonies, parties, and family gatherings, the outsider can interact with members and feel--not just see--what they value in life. They can observe what they prioritize as a community by understanding the type of work they do to make a living and what they do for diversion purposes. A community, for instance, may highly value their relaxation time while another may be run by a clock and the need to accumulate wealth. A community's conception of time, indeed, can truly be understood only if living in the community.
"Knowing" a culture involves fully integrating into a community. This entails, among others, speaking the community's language and being able to communicate directly with various members. Oftentimes, there may be certain ideas and sentiments that cannot be fully expressed in translation and having the ability to speak directly with members can offer valuable insights about a people. Integrating within a community also involves living in similar conditions as those of the members. For instance, if an American expat continues living a life of luxury among the African tribe he is purporting to study, he will not fully understand any struggles and conditions that motivate members to live life in the way that they do.
There have been numerous examples in history where outsiders have imposed their will on a group without truly understanding important cultural factors. For example, European powers in the 1960s partitioned Africa in a way that satisfied their own interests; that is, by placing rival tribes in the same country and splitting up friendly clans. The problems of genocide and famine that ravage Africa today are partly due to poor planning in the part of the European powers. They failed to understand the African people by ignoring cultural aspects that perhaps would have had great influence in the direction of the continent.
If one is truly interested in learning about a community, he will one way or another try to understand the culture. Granted, one may learn about people through studying textbooks describing history, geography and other facts. This, however, is a superficial understanding of a people since communities consist of much more than hard facts. Culture encompasses more nuanced aspects of a community. Often, aspects of culture cannot be adequately described in words but rather, can best be "experienced" through direct interaction with the people. Furthermore, one must also approach the other culture with an open mind and recognize one's own biases before making judgments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)