Keeping Up with the Joneses
Families around the world are becoming more and more similar now a days through influence of the media illustrating an impression towards children and family norms. Throughout the history of human civilization, there has been a prevailing motif of neighborly competition. At its root, it is a drive for social acceptance. This is best shown by the advent of television commercials and the respective toy phenomena that now rock elementary schools all over the world. Before television and other forms of mass communication, neighborly competition was left to just that—neighbors. This predictably led to diversification among children’s toys across the world. This can be shown at almost any antique auction, where old handcrafted toys from exotic countries are kept in pristine airless boxes that exude their extravagant price. But here in the beginning of the twenty-first century, that diversification is quickly disappearing. Especially now that the internet is merging with television through complex video gaming systems like the Xbox 360 and Play station 3, kids are playing the same games all across the world with each other. And thus, the difference between a family in Japan, a family in Bosnia and a family in America is evaporating.
Culture generates through interaction, and before mass media the only interaction possible was physical. From small and subtle things like borrowing spices to gathering together to sing Christmas carols, a sense of neighborhood grew up slowly and in tightly-knit circles. These days the physical boundary is no longer an obstacle, starting with the telegraph and moving all the way to talking via satellite telephones, electronic mail and blogs. Unfortunately, however, this technology is still only available to countries with sufficient infrastructure. Many countries lack clean drinking water, hospitals and highways. In these impoverished nations, establishing a steady and accessible internet connection is not a practical project. This is especially an issue considering the rate at which technology advances; the best computers twenty years ago are now hardly useable. This leaves those countries completely in the dust, literally generations behind countries using the digital superhighway. This creates a drastic difference in appearance between societies with this technology, and those without. And so while connected countries become much more tightly bound, other nations and other people are falling farther and farther behind both economically and socially.
As humans and our societies evolved, being in good standing with your neighbors was a matter of life and death. As many Calvin and Hobbes cartoons gleefully pointed out, we humans would not last long in the jungle. Our survival depends on using our largest evolutionary advantages, namely our tool-making hands and complex language systems. Being a social outcast during cave-dwelling eras would quickly mean extinction, and so humans have been conditioned both genetically and psychologically to avoid being a social outcast. As global cultures converge and are subsequently capitalized, the scope of a neighborhood goes beyond physical bounds. The children of the past few decades born in these societies are especially affected by this. This is because of commercials. As any parent of the television age knows, children’s commercials are incredibly effective. And now children from all over the world are being shown advertisements for the same products. These products are also so complex and versatile that their appeal does not fade over time. So the children growing up with these digital neighborhoods will grow into a full-fledged online community, as we are already seeing today.
Is this new trend of assimilation a step up from the differentiated cultures that dominated at one time? How far will the wealthier countries lead over the less developed? Will the idea of a universal ideal family emerge out of this digital neighborhood?
By Jamie Goulart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPh_CHP77kohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAfANb2Cs9Q
To answer Jamie's Question:
ReplyDeleteWith digital media and rapidly-changing technology, some amount of assimilation is inevitable, but I do not believe that communication technology itself will entirely change many vastly different world cultures to create one homogeneous world culture. Before one is capable of using a t.v. or a computer, and to understand the messages and images that one encounters, one must first learn how to communicate: speak, read and write. These skills are not taught through a screen, but through interaction with adults in a particular culture in a particular time and place. Early socialization does not occur in a cultural vacuum, and even if later in life children are less-connected to their immediate environments, having that connection early in life results in vary unique experiences,perspectives and beliefs. Also, cultures have been exchanging information and ideas as long as people have existed. I l believe people will likely do what they have always done: accept things from other cultures that they see as beneficial, reject the rest, and prescribe to their own unique world view.
Cultural assimilation has many possible benefits,such as the sharing of medical technology or insights into the connection between lifestyle and life expectancy. It also has the potential negative consequence of weakening the social bonds of local communities and creating an environment where the images of culture that are most circulated are normalized, and all others are devalued. There is the obvious fear that, because most media images circulated around the world are Western in origin, this will lead to the promotion of western ideals and images above others. I believe this common assumption to be false, and could only come from a western consciousness, because it assumes that when other cultures come into contact with Western ideas, it is inevitable that they will desire to change to fit our norms and ideas, not the other way around,as if we have nothing to learn from others. Also, this view assumes that individuals in other cultures have no self-agency, and must live their lives in a static-state, never changing and always remaining true to the "traditions" of their cultures. Traditions are important and have their place, but it is not for anyone but the individual to decide which traditions form their culture are important enough to continue, and which ones are not. Denying this to other cultures, when we pride ourselves on change and innovation, is hypocrisy and, frankly, demeaning to individuals in other cultures.
As long as there is desperate poverty in some parts of the world and relative affluence in others, there will be a discrepancy in the availability of media technology. Unlike clothing or medicine that can be air-dropped in at any time, media technology requires a sophisticated infrastructure,an educated and literate populous and enough money to finance the construction and maintenance of both. As long as poor countries remain poor, they will never be able to "catch-up" to more developed countries in the areas of access and spread of media technology. The only way this will change is if the laws and norms of international loans to poor countries are changed. Poor countries need to take out loans from groups like the World Band and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to try to build infrastructure, create jobs, and to build things needed by communities, such as hospitals and schools. Frequently these loans (given by developed countries, mostly the United States and Western Europe)require poor countries to balance their check-books, so to speak, and cut all funding that is not geared towards the economic growth of said country. This could mean cutting funding to schools and and health and nutrition programs from populations that desperately need these services, and in the long run, will have to BORROW MORE MONEY, because uneducated, unhealthy individuals are less able to support themselves, their families and their communities. In addition to creating these additional problems, International loan organizations set interest rates on their loans that are so high, and are extended for so long, countries will frequently be paying back twice what they initially borrowed. So loans that are intended to help alleviate poverty actually create or worsen the conditions of poverty in many cases. When the laws and practices surrounding international loans to developing countries are changed, perhaps they will have the resources available to build infrastructure, communities, and get needed resources to the people so they can live long, healthy and fulfilling lives.
I do not believe that advances in media technology will result in a universal ideal of family. Cultures have interacted as long as cultures have existed, and individuals create their families in the circumstances of very specific cultural norms and with their own unique understanding of what a family is and what family means. In some cultures, the nuclear family is the ideal, others, inter-generational are the norm. We can examine our own family structures, and those of other cultures in an objective way, allowing individuals in all cultures to determine what is the right family form for them. If anything, I predict that media technology will result in a greater variety of family forms, as individuals are made aware of how others choose to live their lives, and an understanding of the importance of choosing a family form that suits the individuals involved is made more clear.
-Devin Smith
Devin,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you understand the basic disparity between nations that do or don't have access to technology such as the internet. However, I would advise you to look again at the structure of what I had posted and I will try to clarify where I'm coming from a little more.
I never suggested that other societies do not grow, or live in "static-states," in fact I went through the basic steps of cultural progression in my second paragraph. The point that I was making was that technology such as the internet sped up the process of communication exponentially. Without mass-accessible long-distance communication technology, it just isn't possible to interact with a country on the other side of the world on a daily basis.
I also would disagree with saying literacy isn't taught through "screens," but interaction. First of all, there are thousands of programs on all sorts of mediums teaching literacy, either for a foreign language or straight-up childhood literacy learning. Some examples being Sesame Street or an ad for the Rosetta Stone foreign language program? Multi-media education has proven again and again to be incredibly effective--it can reach students in all sorts of different ways. Computers are incredibly interactive, allowing students to be proactive in their learning. Abstract concepts can be turned into tangible simulations. Computers have completely revolutionized education. Secondly, communication technology IS communication. The methods we use to communicate are constantly changed and refined, but what we are saying isn't. They're just newer, more efficient ways of doing what we always do. I'm not saying that progression started with the internet, it just accelerated immensely after the internet came about.
Granted, not all countries have access to this sort of education and we both agree that the root of the problem lies in countries without stable economies. You say the solution for these countries is for the entire international loan structure to be changed, and try to erase poverty from the top on down. What you fail to see is that technology is the answer to these countries. Many nations become far too dependent on international aid. What these countries need is direct investment to actual entrepreneurs in the country, not the government. As evolution has taught us, you build from the bottom to the top. The problem is the rest of the world has moved on so far technologically that these countries have little to offer, at least at first glance. But progress is being made already. Organizations like the One Laptop Per Child project work to bridge the gap. Also, technology that was once exotic becomes commonplace. For example, it is possible to create a three-dimensional interactive digital whiteboard using just a $40 Nintendo Wii remote controller. This is technology that was previously unavailable except for the most prestigious and affluent of academic institutions that is now economically feasible for even the most tightly budgeted schools. There are places in African countries where slightly unofficial banking systems have sprouted up using cell phones and prepaid phone cards. Technology invites innovation and innovation invites progress. Countries do not need to be turned into ultra-modern societies overnight, they just need a foothold and individual efforts will take it from there.
My main fear in what I wrote is not that it is impossible for cash-strapped nations to develop the technology necessary to compete on a global scale. It's that it may SEEM impossible due to the other problems those countries face, and that countries with this technology will neglect those left behind. It's through refining this technology to making it accessible enough for everybody that the solution will come from. And considering that this will just mean more money for the companies that develop these products, it is in their best interest to make their products ever more accessible. I am not asking countries with money and power to use them differently on a fundamental scale, instead I am asking individual, non-governmental organizations to function even better.
But the root of the issue, what direction is this new technology going to send us into? You say that it will make societies more diverse, when the evidence to the contrary piles up every single day. I'm not suggesting that countries will drop everything to become "Western," or that Western nations have nothing to learn from other countries. The relationship between the United States and Japan is a good example about how two very different cultures come together to create a fluent system of cultural interaction both economically and socially. It's not that Japan is becoming more American or vice versa, it's that they unite through using similar methods. I'm not saying that in the future you could walk through Tokyo and mistake it for New York City, but that households in both places will become more and more similar. Half the entertainment systems in America are Japanese. True assimilation comes through genetic cross-breeding, when two different societies literally come together and create a hybrid. That isn't what's happening now, what's happening is a unification of methods of competition and cooperation. Whether someone in Mexico and someone in Kyrgyzstan ever visit the same website is irrelevant. What's relevant is that they're both using the same method to find whatever it is they're looking for. The beauty of the internet is the way it catalyzes the process of information gathering and, more importantly, sharing. As the size of the internet grows and becomes more and more accessible around the world, global changes and trends will begin occurring. Throughout the history of time, no two families have ever been the same and that will not change. Obviously society is made up of individuals. This is exactly why mass technology will unite, rather than diversify. It's not that all families will look the same, it's that they will all use the same things. There's a Wii in my house, there's a Wii in the White House. My family does not resemble the Obamas, but yet we are united by the things we do. People come in all shapes and sizes, but the things people need don't. That's why cultures are converging and become more similar, because what we are talking about here aren't moral codes or anything else of that nature. It is simply a more efficient way of surviving, and if there is an overall rule to the universe it seems to be "go with what works." What works is self-interest, and the peak of enlightened self-interest is doing good by doing well. Companies are already trying to increase sales, it's what they do. People in poverty are already trying to make money, it's what THEY do. All that's needed is to focus those two efforts together, and everybody wins.
-Jamie Goulart
Wii hacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgKCrGvShZs
One Laptop Per Child
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_dollar_laptop
African Aid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfobLjsj230
To answer Jamie's question-
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the media and TV commercials have a huge influence on our society and on children. I do agree that by showing the same advertisements on TV across our nation this is bound to create a society where the majority of people tend to accept or use certain products. I think that the media also sets standards and norms for how children should act and how teens and adults should act as well. I feel that the media has different norms shown for the way that males and females act, too. For example, there are many commercials featuring women and focusing on the person's beauty or physical features whereas men tend to be active in commercials (driving etc). In short, women are objectified much more than men in the media are. I think that when children watch TV and they get these ideas placed in their head repeatedly throughout the years they are bound to be influenced both consciously and unconsciously. Many children want to copy what they see on TV. For example, the children I babysit for watch Hannah Montana. They try to copy Hannah and act like her. The media needs to take responsibility in knowing that they are setting these norms of behavior for children. For the most part, I find the media influence to be sexist and degrading but I do think that in some ways media is helpful. For example the anti drug commercials also influence children. I also am happy that we have the technology we do today for medical reasons and for educational reasons. However, I do worry that there will be less face-to-face interactions because of the constant use of technology in our daily lives. In short, I believe that technology advances are great and should be used but that parents and adults, and the media should take responsibility for monitoring the information that is being sent to the children. The adults in society need to help the children sift out the "garbage" in the media to the true facts shown on TV. Then I think that our society will not be threatened to become homogeneous because everyone will have their own opinion about the information they get from the media and they choose to do with it, as they like.
One more thing, this makes me think of the book "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury. That is the ultimate threat it seems like Jamie is pointing towards where nobody thinks for themselves and believes only what they see on the television. That is why I think that it is important that adults teach children to sift, and question the media, and be critical thinkers and think for themselves and then technology will be a positive asset.
I have another question for the class blog about this topic: Do you think that the advancements in technology are possitive, negative or both, and why? Also do you think that the media should be censored to protect children or not?
Thanks, Taylor
To answer Jamie's Question:
ReplyDeleteBeing assimiliated with foreign nations has both positive and negative consequences. International communication is enhanced via. the media, which also strengthens economic and military support systems globally. There is also more awareness raised and thus less bias towards diverse cultures through the global interconnectedness that the media can bring. However, if countries become too assimilated into the global culture, then their own cultural beliefs and values risk being forgotten. The loss of valuable historical cultural traditions is a negative aspect of globalization.
As Jamie mentioned, the prevelance of the mass media in industrialized nations only leaves nations without this advanced technology further behind. The media has largely influenced trends, values, and ideals in societies throughout the world. Nations without access to television, radio, and the internet are "left out of the loop" per se, and will only be left further behind as technology advances in industrialized countries.
I think a Universal model for the ideal family could potentially emerge through the media. As we have discussed, portrayal of the ideal family in the media has largely influenced American's notions of the idealized family, and some of television shows that we watch here are aired internationally. Thus, it would be easy for citizens of other nations to develop the same idealized notion of families that we have. However, many developing nations can not even afford to fund sufficient health care and educational programs, so gaining access to the internet and other media sources nationally would not be at the top of their priority list. Therefore, i believe that a Universal image of the ideal family is, although possible, a long way off.
-Julie Conton
To answer Jamie's question:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the assimilation of our culture and other developed nations can be both a good thing and a bad thing. I can keep in touch with my grandfather in California and my best friend who lives in Paris. Through the internet, I can talk with people from all around the world if I wish to. I can read up on the news from Japan with the click of a mouse and I always feel "connected" to the rest of the world. However, when I wake up each morning with nine emails on my blackberry, I feel like I can never escape and just disconnect.
I think that your point about neighbors was an interesting one. One would think that with such technological advances, we would be more connected to those in our community. However, this is not the case. I don't even know the names of my neighbors: there's the people with the kids and the guy who always rudely honks at me when I pull out of my driveway. If my grandparents ran out of milk or eggs, they would have gone next door to ask their neighbors if they could borrow some. If I run out of milk or eggs, I drive to the store and get them myself. I imagine that there is more of a sense of community in cultures where people must pool their resources in order to survive. Though there are definite advances to our new connected culture, I would not necessarily say that it is a "step up." I believe that it is just a shift in a different direction.
I believe that the wealthier nations have a definite advantage over those that are less developed. 26% of the world is non-literate (http://www.sil.org/literacy/litfacts.htm). American children have far more advantages than children in developing nations. Even an American teenager who graduates near the bottom of his class (or even graduates high school at all) has more advantages than a teenager in a developed nation who has received no formal schooling. If a nation has a dearth of educated teenagers and young adults, its future will definitely suffer.
I do not believe that there will be a universal ideal family any time soon. As other developing nations begin to watch American television and movies, they may begin to assimilate to our version of an ideal family (which we all know is not realistic). Even in developed, affluent nations there is no ideal family. The ideal" American family is different than the ideal Spanish family or Italian family.
Bonnie Bryant