Job Discussion Forums

[october]

relics from the past are still important today, and should still be a part of our life, that is why there are holidays and festivals, to celebrate the past. we love to dance to Jewish music, and we love to participate in cultural festivals and to wear funny skirts (kelts...hope i didnt offend anybody) and do things that symbolize the past we are a part of or just joined into. I love pleasant nostalgia.

[october]

relics of the past are still important today. that is why there are holidays and festivals that we love so much (most of us anyway)

[johnslat]

This is, I think, developing into a rather interesting thread. What IS culture, after all? It's all the things mentioned so far and more, I'd say. But how " attached " are we to our various " cultures ". More than we might know but less than we think, perhaps. That may be especially true of us - people who leave their " home countries " to live/work in other cultures. There's no place like home, but then, you can't go home again, can you? Personally, while I like living in the USA, I'm pretty sure I could live with equal satisfaction in any other culture that had, more or less, the same " democratic values " I value so highly: the freedoms and liberties are what I'm mostly talking about. Excessive " patriotism " I find very distasteful - those who flaunt their nationality in a " We're the BEST " fashion. It's almost as though they were claiming credit for an accident of birth. There are many things I DO love about the USA, but there are also a good number of things I'm not so crazy about and some things I downright hate. I don't know - loving one's country sometimes seems rather ridiculous to me, but then, so does the idea of " owning land ". We're all here, just passing through, and getting all excited about coming from one place rather than another or actually believing a very temporary resident like, say, myself, can OWN a piece of the earth, well,
it all stikes me as downright funny.
Regards,
John

[Gordon]

John said

[johnslat]

Dear Gordon,
Well, how much violence have you seen in " real life "? Despite all too many years of TV and movies, it seems to me, anyway, that I'm just as
" sensitized " to violence now as I was way back in the '60s. But I don't think that means I'm " strong ". Maybe it's just that I don't seem to have a problem separating fantasy from reality. In fact, I'd say that many people who experience " real-life " violence for the first time are amazed at how very, very different it actually is from TV and the movies.
Regards,
John

[denise]

[Alitas]

I like that comment--about the interaction between you and a clerk. It takes enormous amounts of finesse or whatever you might call it to have a social interaction such as that outside of your own sphere of culture. Maybe that's where the cliche broadening your horizons comes in. It means you can talk to someone and they don't thinkof you as a foreigner (nor you them).

Having said that, and being able to converse in 4 different tongues and feeling pretty native at three of them...I was living down south when my husband and I decided to drive into the country for a cheaper repair job on our vehicle. We dropped it off and spent the afternoon wandering through town. At the hardware store while I was browsing dusty shelves, in walked what I presumed afterward to be the most local of men. "Those g-d- Yankees," he snarled at the clerk while glaring at me. "I hate those g-d- Yankees."

How did he know I was from the north? I don't know. But he knew and I knew and we got out of there fast.

Culturally, there are a lot of differences within different regions of our country. It's amazing to me that I can fit in on another continent better than I can in another state.

In another post I'll dissect American contributions to haute cuisine. Here's a hint: humble and local.

[Gordon]

Alitas said

[guest of Japan]

While I lived in America I felt that America was indeed culturally vacuous, but after 3 years in Japan I no longer hold that opinion. Culture is usually a characteristic of the rich. During much of the America's history all things cultured came from Europe. However during the 1800's America began making great strides in literature. Distinctly American authors include Edgar Allen Poe, Henry David Thoreau and Emerson. It wasn't until the 20th century that the US began to introduce highly distinctive styles in painting adn sculpure. An example here would be Georgia O'keefe. Musically it was the African American population which put a distincly American stamp. This was Jazz.

I contend that America's greatest cultural feat is mass culture. It is in this way that America has taken culture out of the exclusive domain of the rich and placed it into the hands of the common man. It is easy to say that this is crap compared to the far more enriching works of Mozart and Leonardo. However, mass culture not only appeals to the common folk, it also draws from it. Jazz, rock, folk, impressionism, pop-art, modern art, literature. Whether born of mass culture or merely changed because of it, they all now enjoy diversity in ideas and style.

I'll also condend that all the aforementioned are cultural by-products and not actual examples of culture. For me the culture is that of optimism and individuality. Americans value their ideas and are bold to express them. They are quick to define justice. They are quick to react and innovate. They tend to demand their rights based on both religious and humanistic precepts. They value freedom and individuality more than collective harmony. They continually adapt to changes in the society whether it be social make up or economic realities. They dare to dream of the future and make radical changes in their lives to insure that the future be that of prosperity for themselves.

The aformentioned characteristics often seem brash to people of other cultures. And Americans often lack sensitivity in dealing with other cultures. They are a bold and selfish people, but I no longer see them as culturally vacuous. I can now honestly say that I can identify my own American attributes and find value in them.

[Roger]

Most of you left today's most important cultyure-defining aspect out of their considerations - it is how a country is run.
The fact that Westerners, including Americans, have a say in who is at the head of their nation-state is an experience that is intricately linked to culture in an embracing sense.
Whether we live under a one-man show or have the right to vote the wrong guy (sometimes the right guy) out of office impacts on our daily lives more than what movies we watch, books we read or fast-foods we eat.

[johnslat]

Dear guest of Japan,
An interesting post that raises a number of issues. Is " mass culture " truly culture, for example? Or another - was it the advances in technology and a higher standard of living that took " culture out of the exclusive domain of the rich and placed it into the hands of the common man. ".
I wonder whether the USA, a mere 225 years old, can have already reached the " point of accumulation " that nations/societies probably need to attain in order to present a recognizable, identifiable " culture " to the world. And is the culture of the USA unique in that it consists, in large measure, of contributions from so many other, older cultures? Is what you've called culture - " the optimism and individuality " of Americans all of it - or is it a major part of it - or is it an expression of it? Maybe it's brash ( another American characteristic? ) to try to identify just what the culture of such a young nation is - perhaps culture forms in layers, over long periods of time. When I think, for example of countries such as China, Iran, Greece and Japan, countries where culture has had so many centuries to grow and evolve, it makes me wonder whether trying to define American culture may not be a premature effort.
Regards,
John

[Seth]

A lot of American culture is little bubbles of different cultures here and there. Cities like New York and Chicago are immigrant towns with distinct neighborhoods and their own little microcosms. Chicago has a huge Polish neighborhood and any American with a Polish surname is probably from there. A lot of my family is from Andersonville, a suburb of Chicago founded by Swedes as two sets of my great grandparents were Swedish immigrants. But all that is fading quickly, hence my earlier post. Few people in Andersonville speak Swedish anymore.

Northern is different than southern, then there's Cajun, New England, Midwestern (which is mine), etc. My mom is, in fact, afraid of Southerners and some view the South as a brutish, backwards place. I don't, necessarily, but I would never want to live in the south, especially Texas.

I used to think like guest of Japan. I thought the US was a corrupt, vacuous place (but I was quite an idealist and activist). Then I went abroad for a few years and came to appreciate my country a bit more. Now I'm back in the US, at a happy medium between love and loathing having seen everything inside and out.

[guest of Japan]

Johnslat, you do have a lot of questions. Let me see if I can answer some.

Let me begin with your most far-reaching question of whether it is brash to prematurely define culture of such a young nation. I don't think so. I at no time made any comparison to any older or younger cultures. Perhaps I did imply though. America began the effort to create and define its culture while still a colony of G.B. It's a natural phenomenon to try to define your culture in order to define yourself.

Is mass culture really culture? I'm sure it would not be difficult to find people to argue the opposite of me. I believe it is. I don't think there is a person in the English speaking world who would not hold up Shakespeare as an extraordinary example of English culture. But, his plays were written and performed for the masses. Chaucer is the foundation of English literature but his tales were hardly written for the high-minded sophisticate.

Certainly advances in technology are reponsible for mass culture. The same can be said for the printing press. It was the printing press that enabled the merchant classes of Europe to breach the cultural divide. Just as recording technologies, TV and film have enabled the poor to have access to what was once the domain of only a select few.

I agree that culture forms in layers much like an onion. But a young onion is an onion nontheless. In history we talk of midieval culture, Incan culture, Mesopotanian Culture, and so many more. Many of these civilizations have even shorter histories than that of the US. So why should it be taboo to talk of American culture?

If technologies didn't advance as quickly as they did America would be far easier to define as a culture because the lack of radical changes would have made American culture more streamlined and stagnant. It would be radically different than cultures of other lands because of the separation. But technologies did advance rather quickly and the US did not have the opportunity to enjoy long periods of separation from other lands. It became inundated with different people and values. It has become very pluralistic which sets it apart from most countries in the world. Certainly this is large facet of American culture.

How have Americans been able to adjust to so many sweeping changes? In my opinion it is the optimism and individuality of of the people. Overall Americans look forward to change. They believe that they can adapt. They believe that fortune can come to them. They still dream. Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the "rugged individualism" of the pioneers. After 400 years of history Americans still view themsleves as pioneers. Can you not call that culturally significant?

American culture will continue to layer, just as Japanese and Greek and Iranian will as well.

[arioch36]

All good stuff. as i read in rain soaked Henan.

America, like most countries has many cultures, often warring with each other for dominance. Right now I see Hollywood as the dominant culture, with the "christian" culture a distant second. The "liberal" culture of "saving" things (save the whales, whatever) is also strong. Interesting to me is that the "liberal" culture and "christian" culture are now antagonistic to each other, but spring from the same christian mentality of we are resonsible to help others. An action oriented culture.

To me, this is one of the keys to understanding one aspect of American "culture". It is a culture of doers. Individual people taking actions...ideally to help others, regardless of cost to self...Good Samaratin parable, etc.

The "first" (not quite true...but) religious activists, Mayflower, all of that. The country led itself to people who were willing to carve out a spave for what they believed in. Though religious freedom is on the wane in the US, it is still the heritage of the people. Some French guy coming to America in 1800 noted how there was a church on every street (Touriville or somebody?)

The "winning of the west" (and yes, many atrocities) was conducive to people taking direct control of there lives. Similar, immigrants coming to the country (yes, we are all imigrants, including the "native" indians)
A culture of directness, of belief that individuals can make differences, that we are responsible for what happens around us. Whether it is the "white man's burden" of "saving souls" and raising people out of "barbarianism", or politcal correctness trying (and legally succeeding) enforce their values on others..for the other person's good. Of course, Hollywood also incorporates these themes,ie one man saving the world, saving whatever)

Quite the opposite of the Chinese acceptance, saying ,"nothing can change, there is nothing I can do" etc.

I am not saying good or bad, by the way. Some, such as our
may see this as niave, interfering, etc. others can see it as caring about others, and wanting to make a difference

[arioch36]

Hollywood..the world culture!

I think it is almost factual to say that Hollywood does glamorize violence and "gratutious" sex. They do it knowingly. It has been shown through enough of the studies Roger abhors. hollywood does it through secret screening of themes and movies, and they target young teens. They want the teens to identify with the lifestyles shown, especially to identify with the bad guy, which is usually seen as the most memorable role (ever watch soap operas. The most popular guy with the ladies is usually the villain..one ad said..."men fear him, the law hates him, and women can't get enough of him)

Not just because the teens have all the money, but because they are more easily duped, and if you can get them when they are young, you have them for life. (Hitler did it with his youth party, Mao, Boyscouts, everyone tries to reach the young people, good or bad ) (I am not admiring Hitler BTW. I am implying that the boyscouts have good motives and results, please don't say i am equating the boyscouts to the young pioneers) Their strategy (really!) is to get children separated from their parent's influence , and the from the influence of "traditional culture and societal norms". Record companies try to do the same. As teachers, of course, we are immune from this temptation.



Of course Hollywood is on the west of the US. On the east is Madison Avenue....headquarters of those responsible for advertising, for those who may not know. You think they don't deliberately target young teens and children to do what mature members of society thinks is wrong?

Just one example? Smoking? Not just, but most famously, the "Joe Camel" which specifically targeted young teens and younger to start identifying with smoking as a positive esteem image in their life. Targeting the children most at risk (ie children from broken homes, no strong parental influences)

These guys spend billions of dollars. US taxpayers actually subsidize a big part of the advertising expenditures of large companies. So while government support of public tv has been decreasing, their support of advertising has been increasing.

So today, Hollywood, motown, and Madison ave reign supreme as influencers of American and world-wide culture