tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post9214550787361132315..comments2023-06-22T07:08:38.329-06:00Comments on D'Caffeinated Pickle: Is popular culture ruining our young people?Increasing...http://www.blogger.com/profile/04415949902147061601noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-22178406417962834292008-09-29T23:12:00.000-06:002008-09-29T23:12:00.000-06:00I think your class discussion would be interesting...I think your class discussion would be interesting indeed. It's curious that you mention the idea of human nature as being implicated in the choices we make. Having just finished Sartre's 'Existentialism' my ears perked up at that comment. I think it would fair to say that Sartre would claim that even our notion of human nature is 'informed' by a type of socialization and in that way constructed. That you would attribute notions of safety and comfort as essential natural qualities of human reality would go against Sartre's ideas. And in a sense I can see it. It occurs to me that even those things that we consider safe or comfortable are only so as a result of the influence of others. I'm not sure if I buy all of Sartre's thining here but allow me to expand an example. Let's take the idea of safe and stable eating options. We have a set of guidelines that inform what is safe (ie. rawness vs. well cooked/cows instead of horses... etc.) And we know that those are not choices we make arbitrarily but are a product of how we have been conditioned to respond. The essential nature of what is safe or stable is defined then by external forces at work in the social process. but it is even greater than that because how do we know to place a priority on defingin safety or stability unless we again are socially informed and directed.<BR/>And for Sartre even an inaction is still a choice in the arena of life. So that even being ignorant of the election north of the border is an action for which you alone are responsible for. However it is only an ethnocentric action as it is defined by others. sorry for rambling...Increasing...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415949902147061601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-20909783096035303452008-09-29T15:29:00.000-06:002008-09-29T15:29:00.000-06:00You would probably be pretty interested in the dis...You would probably be pretty interested in the discussion this week in one of my classes. We are talking about ethnocentrism in institutions - my professor had this good example, when we travel internationally where do we eat? McDonald's, the hotel, places like Hard Rock cafe... in other words, we ACT like we are experiencing other cultures, but in reality, we are staying within the confines of our "owness" as much as possible. Anyway, I don't know much about the elections happening up north right now besides that one has been called, so I can't comment much on that. (Accuse me of ethnocentrism!!! lol...) But, I do think your observation about Harper staying away from Bush Doctrine is another prime example of what we're talking about here. I wonder how much of this is just human nature though, and how much is socialization. I mean, to some degree, we will always cling to familar because it's safe and I think we are hard wired to desire safety and stability, yet it clearly cannot be an excuse for total ignorance of the world around us.Natashahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938401809178521137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-86927314670352339182008-09-25T23:36:00.000-06:002008-09-25T23:36:00.000-06:00Sure Natasha...I think that both 'arrogances' have...Sure Natasha...<BR/>I think that both 'arrogances' have a different trajectory. I also think that a generalization as grand as this one is far too essentializing to be evidentially credible accross an entire national social context. It is clear that the politically at least there are at least two different frameworks that are competing for acceptance in this election(USA). Generally speaking the rhetoric of Obama seems to frame the national identity as less arrogant than McCain does. However, even within that construction it is clear that there conceptualizations of American identity within the Democrat party that would prove otherwise. <BR/>And if the argument is supportable it should be possible to extend this American arrogance toward other countries as well.<BR/>On the other hand, the only fear that Stephen Harper has to deal with in any serious way is how much his policy reflects 'the Bush Doctrine' - which itself is a reference to an Americanization of his politics. If anyone could successfully tie Stephen Harper to American values his political career would be over in this country at least. And what this tells us is that Canadians do have at least an antagonistic regard for almost all things American. Whether again that is actually to be labelled arrogance or just plain bitterness is hard to tell.<BR/>Again, as this discussion has pointed out essentializing is difficult project to make 'stick'. While I think that Bibby is undertaking just such an essentializing project in some of the generalizations he is making - i think the subtext of his comments reflect a 'slice' of how our relationship with the USA is negotiated - which i find legitimate and for the most part believable...Increasing...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415949902147061601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-1029283429856568852008-09-25T16:57:00.000-06:002008-09-25T16:57:00.000-06:00Lol... I didn't read that guy's commentary, just t...Lol... I didn't read that guy's commentary, just these comments here, but I have to say I laughed when reading JC's comments because I could identify all too much. I too, (an American) have been informed MANY times of the War of 1812, of the superior low crime rate in Canada, how arrogant we must be to label something in our sports the "world series", and how Canada is just all in all, way better than the US. If I'm being honest, I would have to say that I feel many Canadians are hell bent on putting me in my place as soon as they learn that I am American - not all, but a decent number. These are personal interactions, however, and I think that what Canadians don't always understand about Americans is that we as people are NOT our institutions. There should be made a clear distinction between institutional arrogance and societal arrogance among individuals.<BR/><BR/>So Dale, based on your last comment, you are hinting that, when supported, the argument for American ignorance is there because one would say that America wants to be better than everyone, while Canadians only want to be better than Americans?Natashahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938401809178521137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-89608352043894416212008-09-25T12:46:00.000-06:002008-09-25T12:46:00.000-06:00jc,good perspective. Certainly, the notion of Cana...jc,<BR/>good perspective. Certainly, the notion of Canadian superiority could be supported both from the particular and the general evaluation of cultural attitudes and norms. i would say that in most cases this notion functions as cultural explanation rather than a focused trajectory of action in the relationship between Canadian institutions and individuals. So a Canadian would use that notion to explain why the relationship with Americans isn't the way they they think it should be. (eg. the Americans are ignorant and arrogant and we (Canadians) are better than they are because we are not.) The irony is not lost on me. But the distinctions between the two notions of arrogance are distinct. The American notion, if it can be supported, is a differentiation project that is aimed at reinforcing concepts of superiority whereas the Canadian notion, again if supported, is almost only limited to its relationship specifically with America and is essentially compensatory in its cultural trajectory. <BR/>That famous beer commercial is a great example of this...<BR/>I am Canadian = a comparison with America. American advertising would never conceive of a this type of project. A commercial that attempted to use national identity as a marketing tool would more like focus on reinforcing commonly held icons, values and symbols associated with national identity. In that sense it would be more descriptive than confrontational.<BR/>in any event our own expressions of arrogance require equal attention as any sense of the same in the American context...Increasing...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415949902147061601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-76777460434847696752008-09-25T11:32:00.000-06:002008-09-25T11:32:00.000-06:00Bibby's perspective of American's seems to widespr...Bibby's perspective of American's seems to widespread in Canada. I am not really sure why this is. Being American myself, I would say I rarely thought of Canadians at all while living there. Once in awhile my cousins would come down and inform me on all of the famous Canadians living in the USA, all of the things Canadians had invented, that Canadians burned down the Whitehouse the War of 1812, how awesome the Canada Arm was etc... When I moved to go to school in Canada my room mate again informed me of all of these facts and told me that if I could think of anything that was made in the States and in Canada the Canadian product would be better. Not that all Canadians are like this. Most of them are not I suppose. But from these anecdotal experiences I guess I could construct an argument that when Canadians interact with Americans they try to make them feel inferior because Americans have higher crime, a medicare system that is only half socialized, and they don't watch hockey. I don't know if I have a point here but I think generalizations like your professor's are somewhat susceptable to scrutiniy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-1697606947939330512008-09-25T09:20:00.000-06:002008-09-25T09:20:00.000-06:00Jesse - thanks for the response.First of all Bibby...Jesse - thanks for the response.<BR/>First of all Bibby seems to admit that his ideas need revision based on the personal interaction that he has had.<BR/>Second, I think that what Bibby is adressing is pertain to some of the macro cultural values and structures that inform American indentity. If you take his sporting analogies as an example - there is some arrogance in calling a championship the World Series when the teams are only from one country. And the term World Series is super-imposed idiomatically on other sports as well to indicate their prestige/status. (e.g. "This is the 'WORLD SERIES' of crokinole"). And obviously consideration needs to be given to the historical contest of the naming of the championship.<BR/>It strikes me that the cognitive connection between the name of the championship and the individuals conceptual framework of their national identity is at least loose if not almost non-existant. So your reflections on your own experience are easily accurate on a number of different levels.<BR/>However, what I think Bibby is playing with is some notion of influence. And here I think he has a point. The American trajectory, culturally, politically, economically, and internationally is largely self-informed which I think reflects arrogance toward other national and cultural perspectives...Increasing...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415949902147061601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15247127.post-57281839321263127212008-09-25T08:08:00.000-06:002008-09-25T08:08:00.000-06:00Great post Dale.As someone who has lived in the US...Great post Dale.<BR/><BR/>As someone who has lived in the US about the same amound of time as Bibby (and travelled to 45 out of 50 of the states), I've struggled extensively with my thoughts about American arrogance and ignorance. With regards to your professor's blog about the American Superiority Complex I must add that I disagree with a decent portion of what your professor states, especially the following:<BR/><BR/><I>"To interact with an American is to have the sense that one is typically working from a position of weakness, of inferiority."</I><BR/><BR/>Of the thousands of Americans I've met that I have told that I was Canadian, <B>not once</B> have I had the feeling of being inferior. In fact, the opposite has always been the case. I have discovered that most Canadians (myself included) have no idea how highly Americans regard them. Sure, there are often stupid jokes that are made and they probably don't know who the Prime Minister of Canada is, but I have never once had the feeling of being inferior.Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269707741458455677noreply@blogger.com