Awhile back I said I would be conducting an independent study through the j. school / Gabriela Martinez regarding cultural anthropology + intercultural communications. Nowhere near complete, as this is just the beginning of my studies, but here’s the progress thus far:
In my four years in the School of Journalism and Communication (SOJC), I have realized that those in my field have an amazing opportunity to influence and educate. I have a particular interested in cultural anthropology and its relation to international communication, specifically between the United States and Latin America. Under the mentorship of SOJC Assistant Professor Dr. Gabriela Martinez, I began my study about intercultural relations and international communication.
I was interested to study the history and progression of international communication, so Gabriela suggested I explore Latin American folklore – the first story I investigated was that of “Pishtaco.” As I investigated various “Pishtaco” interpretations, the effects of folklore and storytelling continued to be more transparent. It’s amazing how a story such as this can open so many doors to insights of cultures, race, ethnicity, and traditions and additionally, how these stories have continued to travel and influence far beyond the original storytellers. The Pishtaco symbol holds a great deal of power and significance as it represents Andean culture on both a micro and macro level and for generations, has continued to pass along stories, history and tradition through storytelling.
In addition to folklore, I also watched a number of documentaries – some of which Gabriela produced herself, others based on recommendation. One of the films I watched was Gabriela’s documentary entitled Women, Media and Rebellion in Oaxaca. This was a powerful and meaningful way to bring life to and tell the story of the situation and difficulties of the women of Oaxaca.
Just like the United States, each region of Mexico has a unique social, cultural, and political identity. Applying this to the context of international communications, the most powerful insight I drew from this documentary regarding the relationship between Mexico and the United States was that it is important to not pigeonhole either country into a larger stereotype, as each state within the respective countries has a unique set of traits. Just as we know that Oregon, South Dakota and New York have their own respective traits, states in Mexico such as Oaxaca, Queretaro and Michocan all have distinct characteristics and situations as well.
When viewing this documentary from an international communications perspective, I am reminded of the famous saying, “the whole is only as good as the sum of it’s parts,” meaning it is important for us to understand the smaller regions within Mexico and United States in order to fully understand the relationship between the two countries.
I also realized that media accessibility also plays a large role in the dynamic of international communications. In my situation, I have virtually unlimited access to media and information (documentaries such as these, for example), while people in other countries either do not have the means to access media sources or live in a censor-heavy location.
I also watched Y Tu Cuanto Cuestas, (So, What’s Your Price?) a 2007 documentary by Mexican director Olallo Rubio. Rubio investigates the connection, power and effect of media on consumer culture in both Mexico and the United States.
The documentary features street interviews in both New York City and Mexico City, revealing dual stereotypes both Americans and Mexicans have of one another. I believe some of these stereotypes are based on truths, but stereotypes are only part of a whole story.
I do not claim to be an expert; however, I have spent time in as well as studying both New York City and Mexico City and there is clearly much more depth to both cultures and societies. Recognition is the first step to problem solving and this documentary is a perfect awareness piece to help both American and Mexican cultures understand one another on a more holistic and well-rounded level.
In this documentary, I again noticed the difference between Mexican media and the United States media. It appears that Mexican media is not as advanced as the United States media. This is also something I noticed while studying in Mexico, especially regarding new media, such as social media. Social media is one of the prominent sources of information and conversation among Americans; however, Mexicans are not yet at this level of citizen journalism. Because of this, the way both Mexicans and Americans receive information, as well as the credibility and accessibility is completely different. Understanding the difference in media culture is another huge insight into understanding the societal and cultural factors that influence international relationship.
Again, this is yet another realization I had to our lack of communication on an international level. This documentary was quite an eye-opening realization for me to understand the candid perspective of Mexicans and Americans of the Mexican-American relationship. Although not statistic-heavy, this movie was a true testament of qualitative research in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of our international relationship with Mexico. It’s extremely important to understanding not only what the media and textbooks tell us, but also what real-life “everyday” people are saying about the relationship in order to strengthen and improve the international relationship.
Following the documentaries, I read a CNN article, the main takeaway suggesting the need to incorporate big picture thinking into global decision making. According to Yale University professor of Engineering and Applied Science Mark Reed: “A scientifically educated global population will help us focus on the truly important problems, such as energy – arguably the most important crisis we as a species will face – instead of wasting efforts on petty squabbles for short term economic and political gain.”
We have made some pretty amazing discoveries and advancements in the fields of science and technology. However, just because we have the knowledge and capability, does not necessarily deem the usage and application necessary or beneficial. “Though technology may be beneficial in many ways and we humans may adapt both intellectually and physically,” says robotics expert Joanne Pransky, “I question our ability to emotionally, socially, and psychologically acclimate at the same exponential rate.”
In my eyes, the source of this concern reverts to education – have we been taught to be business “savvy” and socially naïve? Have other societies been taught to be business naïve and socially savvy?
After concluding this article, I turned my investigation to an article in PSFK regarding post-consumerism. Analyzing the shift form consumerism to citizen values, the article discussed President Obama suggestion that we should borrow and spend less to save more and that we should not rebuilding the economy on the same sand but instead create an improved platform.
Dating back to the 1950s, President Eisenhower stated “The American economy’s ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods.” We saw this same ideology after September 11th, President George W. Bush encouraged Americans “To go out and shop.” The United States has been built on the principle of consumerism – that is until our recent economic downturn. It seems that we have finally reached a societal tipping point and are at a point of reevaluation.
From my research and observations, it seems that a point of contention in international communcation is due in part to a variety of core values of various countries. With this said, it appears that the United States is more economic-centric while Latin American countries are more social-centric. In Latin American cultures, the relationships and communication seem to be more focused on the quality of life, spending leisure time with family and friends and spending time in ways not tied to a wallet, while in the United States, it seems that communication, decision-making, businesses and education institutions are more business and economic-centric. Of course neither social nor business centric societies and cultures are better or worse than one another; however, it does help to explain the intercultural communication dynamic between United States and Latin American cultures.
It is also certainly important to recognize the influence of the Internet on the development of international communications. In his book entitled Tribes, author Seth Godin suggests that the Internet has created an international movement. Godin states that as the Internet usage has exponentially increased, geographical limitations have become less restricting, leading to more accessible cross-cultural unity. Godin states that the most powerful movement is composed of a variety of complementary elements, connected by a common bond. With the increased popularity of digital communication, the power of peer influence on cultural movements has and continues to increase exponentially.
I certainly believe there is some truth to this assertion; however, Brand Planner Paul Isakson raises caution in the rise of Internet popularity:
Much of the globe’s economies are in shambles because people got caught up in how to make millions tomorrow instead of looking at how to build wealth for the long term. And as Jon Steel discussed, CMOs have become focused on what they can do in the two to three years they’ll be in their jobs instead of what makes the most sense for the long haul of the company that they’re creating mediocre marketing at best. Further, the rise of social media has spawned new businesses with such a narrow focus on launching and “iterating” that they have no clue where the business is going nor how to make money from it if it takes off.
Then there is the ‘I said/thought/wrote about it first’ mentality of so many in social media. People are so focused on being the first to say something about the last five minutes that they aren’t looking to history to apply the wisdom of the past to today’s problems. It seems everyone is forgetting that human nature isn’t changing. It’s just the way we’re communicating that is.
Although the Internet provides countless opportunities to connect where physical location and distance had once interfered with international communication, it is also a concern that digital media will begin to mediate human relationships and face to face communication.
Following Isakson, I watched An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube, a documentary by Michael Wesch. Wesch, a cultural anthropologist, worked with a team to develop this documentary in order to “explore mediated culture, seeking to merge the ideas of Media Ecology and Cultural Anthropology.” After reading the ideas of Godin and Isakson, it was interesting to watch this documentary, as I was able to see how the theories of the first two fare in application. With the Internet, user generated content is now a large contribution to international communication. Some believe this dialog has helped developed international relationships, while others believe technology has separated us. Yes, there is more cross-cultural banter; however, is the content meaningful or has the Internet become clouded with trite content, creating a new generation of international communication issues?
At this point in my study, to continue to make progress, I believe my best option is to take the advice of Paul Isakson and look to history and apply the wisdom of the past to current international communication. Professor Gabriela Martinez and I had a few conversations regarding the importance and value of history, folklore, and storytelling in understanding international communication. At the conclusion of my ten week study, I have realized that rather than focusing on generating new ideas, incorporating the knowledge of the past to the current situation is best practice for long-term success in the field of international communication.
