Genital Mutilation

Well, this is just going to be a quick post, because this topic has already been so widely covered. We spoke in class on Monday about female circumcision and its atrocities... I think Kasey and I were the only ones in the class with this "what?" look on our faces. I have spoken before in my posts about cultural differences what not, and I think this is just another example.
There are various types of female circumcision. It can be a removal of the labia, a removal of the clitoris, a stitching of the vaginal opening, or any combination of the three. It varies from culture to culture. I think that as westerners, when we hear about these things taking place, we see it to be a form of violence against women. And yes, the practice of female circumcision, in some cultures, is related to female oppression. The removal of the clitoris, in some cultures, is done to remove sexual temptation. However, in order to deal with this issue accurately, we must understand other cultural aspects that revolve around female circumcision. For instance, many of the cultures that practice this (and many cultures around the world, period) place a high value on female virginity. Our own culture is guilty of this idea, although perhaps to a lesser extent in recent years.
In conjunction with this idea, the economic success of individual families is many times highly dependent on their ability to "marry off" their daughters, as they are not financially prepared to take on a life long obligation to their female children. The stitching of the vaginal opening is symbolic of virginity, and those women who have not undergone this procedure are deemed unfit to marry, as it is possible that they have been sexually active. The stitching provides insurance that the woman is still a virgin.
In the instances where a woman has not been circumsized, she then cannot find a husband, and many times is not eligable for any kind of work that includes a decent income, due to the fact that she is female, and hence, her parents are left with the financial burden of caring for her for the rest of her life.
Personally, I do have one big beef with female circumcision as it stands, and that is that in many countries, it is performed not by medically trained physicians, but by midwives who have only apprenticed and use only local anesthetic (and in other instances, twigs and rocks are used as tools for the procedure). If a culture is intent on practicing female circumcision, I believe it should be a standardized practice, performed by individuals with extensive knowledge of the human anatomy. That is just my western opinion however.

And now, onto male circumcision and how it relates to this discussion. Our American opinions on male circumcision could be termed surprisingly simular to those attitudes applied to female circumcision in other cultures. Many people seem to think that men who are uncircumsized are unclean, despite the fact that this has many times been said to be a myth. Is this really so very different than, perhaps middle eastern ideas involving the "uncleanliness" of a woman who could POSSIBLY have had sex? I don't think its a far cry. We may not term uncircumsized men unsuitable for marriage, but we carry a simular belief in WHY we think men should be circumsized.
And there are cultures where men have a FAR worse deal as far as what is expected for their genitals. In one culture, the men bleed their penises once a month because they believe that menstration is a cleansing process, and because they do not naturally menstrate, they cause what they believe to be a simular occurance.
The fact of the matter is that, in a perfect world, we would all be allowed to make our own decisions about what is done to our bodies, without our culture or our government or our families telling us what is right. Male, female, whatever, it shouldn't matter. I am not lobbying for any kind of genital mutilation, and I am not attempting to give my opinion on the practice one way or the other. I just think that if we are going to talk about other cultures, we need to really delve into the issues, instead of just analyzing things through our own culturally biased set of eyes. And we cannot help but be culturally biased. I think that in some ways, it is natural to assume that your culture has it right (false though it may be). But as we talked about in class today, we are all different, and it is important to really come to understand those differences.

Acceptance

Well, today's assignment for our blogs was to speak with another classmate, with whom we have not previously spoken, and to attempt to discover differences between ourselves and the other person. Kimberly and I spoke for a while, and I hate to say it, but no severe differences popped up! However, here is what I learned about Kimberly, and I will see if perhaps there are differences beneath the surface. I learned from our conversation that Kimberly is 22 years old, although says that she keeps referring to herself as being 23 by mistake. Funnily enough, I did the same thing for months prior to my 25th birthday. I know that for me, I was just so shocked that my 25th birthday was looming that everytime my age came up I couldn't get the number 25... 25... 25... out of my head. It finally came last week, and guess what... I feel older.
I also learned that Kimberly is from a small town called Groesbeck, and that she was brought up in a Southern Baptist household. I was raised in a (quazi) Catholic household. However, due to exposure to other things, I have become more eclectic in my religious philosophies, and Kimberly seemed to share the same inclination. She is still conservative in some respects while liberal in others, and believes in the need for personal growth and seemed to have an aversion to blind obedience. I have to say, I agree. We didn't go into great detail about particular issues, but we both agreed that our political affiliations were issue based.
Kimberly also told me that she plans to move to New York after graduation to experience a "more wordly and open-minded" atmosphere. Again, funnily enough, years ago when I was a photography major, New York had been my big dream as well. I thought that I would move there and take my very best shot at becoming a photographer for the Rolling Stone office. I think that there is something beautiful about New York and it's reputation for having such a fast paced, cut throat environment. Even moving there and failing seems romantic.
Because we had limited time to discuss things, I can only identify so much. I know that Kimberly and I, at the least, share simular veiws on how we frame our beliefs, i.e. openmindedness, a lack of blind obedience to, or a lack of wholly identifying with, any religious or political organization. As for differences, she was raised in a small town and brought to a larger city in pursuit of education. I was raised in a suburb of a big city and found my way to a smaller town in pursuit of education. She was raised in a Southern Baptist house, and I was raised in a Catholic house. However, again, due to exposure to other ideas we both became eclectic in our beliefs. I do have to say, however, that my upbringing did not really include strict Catholocism. My mother was raised in an Irish Catholic household, and we attended catholic church, but those veiws were never pushed on me.
During class today, one woman was talking about how exposure to others who are different than ourselves contributes to tolerance, and I think that this is a very true statement. We are all college students, and it doesn't take more than one or two anthropology classes to drill into your head the idea that most of what you take to be true is culturally and societally created. Once you realize this, it makes discriminating negatively between individuals a little pointless.

Links to my Case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240001

http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1550399,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2121910.shtml

This one is a video clip of both Fox and Limbaugh
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/25/olbermann-gives-us-the-visual-to-limbaughs-attack-on-michael-j-fox/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/michaelj.fox.campaign.ap/

Video clip of Fox responding to the comments:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/25/fox-limbaugh-parkinson/

And I can't figure out how to get my picture onto this blog...

Globalization

Globalization... What a difficult thing to define. I suppose the broad definition would be the merging cultures to create one large global culture (which would obviously be detrimental to the diversity of the human race). I found it somewhat funny that the discussion in class today revolving around "globalization" somehow moved directly to ethnocentrism and culture shock, but only within the context of our own culture. Even within the concepts of culture shock and ethnocentrism, which are issues dealt with thin the spectrum of globalization, we did not begin to touch the tip of the proverbial ice-bergh. All that seemed to appear and reappear were differences existing between city life and country life in America. While these could be considered two subcultures within our overlying culture, common threads of culture run through both. For example, personal space issues: whether you live in the city or in the country in America, there exists the same concept of personal space. If someone enters your "bubble" you feel uncomfortable, and usually enough to step back to regain your space. However, what is considered to be an appropriate amount of personal space varies from one country/culture to the next. I visited Portugal this summer (my fiance is stationed in a group of islands called The Azores, which Portugal owns) and the concepts of personal space on the island were different than what I have grown accustomed to. While standing in line at a restaurant, I actually had a man MOVE ME. No "hello", no "excuse me". He just put his hand on my back, and pushed me in the direction that he wanted me to go. As an American, of course, my first reaction was to be offended. This is not the standard of respect that I grew up with. However, to this man, I was simply in his way, and so, to get by me he just repositioned me. Within the context of his culture, this was not offensive.
The point that I am attempting to get at is that, within the context of globalization, THIS is culture shock. Throughout all cultures, subcultures, such as college campuses, country life vs city life, etc., can be found. The merging of cultures within the context of globalization would refer to the merging of primary cultures.
Another important issue, relating to our class this semester, are the differences between cultures regarding the concept of the importance of the individual vs. the importance of the group as a whole. I will just talk briefly about this, since it is such a large issue and not terribly relevant to ethnocentrism or culture shock. It is just something that I happen to find interesting, and something that I believe greatly contributes to ethnocentrism.
When we veiw other cultures, we are veiwing them through eyes that we are not even aware that we have. Certain ideas, such as the importance of individualism, are so ingrained into our being and our ideas of self that we take them to be universal truths. However, the importance of individualism varies. Some societies are more focused on the community as a whole, and less focused on the reality of the individual. When this is true, things that we find to be terrible and autrocious are, in these cultures, more accepted, because the same concept of empathy for the individual is not as strong. This is not to say that empathy is non-existant in these cultures. It is merely to say that it is not present in the same way that it is within our culture.
I bring this up because when dealing with issues of ethnocentrism and culture shock, it is important to critically think about, and then to maintain awareness of, where our ethnocentrism might come from. And if one is going to practice global business, and in particular to us, global PR, one must be prepared to encounter major differences in cultural standards.

Another point that I would like to talk about is the article that was brought up about the child in Africa who was sold into slavery, and is now shoveling water out of a boat all day. While I, as an American, do find this very offensive and inhumane, within the context of globalization, relating to ethnocentrism and culture shock, I want to mention the idea that the attachment that we have to children is a western concept. As Americans, we have been brought up to believe that "the children are our future", and that childhood is precious and that children are to be protected from all "evils". I must again, throw in a precurser to what I am about to say: These are all values that I hold as well. However, these are not universal ideas. Not every culture has the same attachment to children and to childhood that we do in this country. In certain cultures that have very low infant survival rates, mothers do not name their children before they reach six months or a year in age. Simularly, in certain cultures, failure to thrive babies (which are more common obviously in cultures with low infant survival rates) are often stuck in a corner, so to speak, while the mother cares for the children who have a better chance at survival. Resources are alloted to those who will benefit most. Of course in these cultures the practices previously mentioned are formed out of necessity. And as westerners, these practices are appauling to us. They are, however, one example of a difference in philosophy regarding children between cultures.
Anyway, enough rambling. These are simply issues that occured to me as a result of class discussion today.