Essay 1 - The Language of Discretion in a Global Village PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay 1 for Professor Tina Crafton's class on The Language of Discretion in a Global Village....

Description

Scheuer 1

Amanda Scheuer Professor Tina Crafton MLA I - RVCC October 6 2016 The Language of Discretion in a Global Village Dean Barnlund’s essay Communication in a Global Village  focuses on the notion that the greater physical proximity between two cultures, the greater the tension between them. He insists that what he calls “intercultural collisions” are caused by this proximity. Even though achieving his idea of a “global village” could be successful by interpreting and understanding each culture’s “norms that govern face-to-face relations,” he clarifies that this is hardly possible due to the ethnocentrism in every culture. Amy Tan, on the other hand, contradicts much of what he is saying in her essay The Language of Discretion . She believes that “sorting” and categorizing languages by culture involves making broad generalizations of the individuals within those cultures. She declares that this is very dangerous, and that this in itself will cause cultural clashes between groups. Barnlund and Tan share similar focuses throughout each of their essays, but Tan’s more modern view of surviving in such a world with vast cultural differences seems to be more realistic and well-informed. Amy Tan refutes Dean Barnlund’s ideas by suggesting that comparing languages leads to dangerous generalizations, criticizing the Chinese stereotype by Americans, and proving that culture and nationality are two separate entities. Barnlund’s essay revolves around this idea that we must identify and understand the differences in each culture’s linguistic meanings in order to ease the tensions between people from different nations. While he admits that it would be nearly impossible to rid the world

Scheuer 2

completely of “ambiguous” and unpredictable meanings between cultures, he insinuates that this is the first step towards survival in a “global village.” Tan, however, contradicts this notion by stating that she tends to be, “suspicious of any comparisons between the two languages,” because, “the language being compared is always in danger of being judged deficient or superfluous, simplistic or unnecessarily complex, melodious or cacophonous.” Growing up as a Chinese-American, she learned first-hand what it’s like to grow up bilingual and bicultural in what is thought to be the great melting pot of the world. Her concept of learning about the “language of discretion,” how Americans view the Chinese language, is similar to Barnlund’s “norms that govern face-to-face relations,” but she specifies that sharing these expectations within a community i s a completely attainable objective. It isn’t necessary, as Barnlund suggests, to focus on whose culture is whose, or to differentiate between the multiple identities within bilingual individuals. Tan may have been Chinese and American, but that didn’t mean she had to distinguish between her Chinese identity and her American one, which she protested greatly when she said, “Reject them all!” To compare her Chinese self to her American self is to base her character on what we think  is Chinese-American, rather than defining her character as who she really is. Tan’s argument against this kind of stereotyping is critical of the very premise of Barnlund’s understanding of culture. In Barnlund’s essay, he compared Japan to the United States in regards to language, religion, architecture, rituals, and many other aspects. Although he is American, he has a certain fascination with Japan that leads him to describe these differences with immense bias. The general descriptions he gives each nation are somewhat true and relatively harmless, but it is the not so subtle undertone and implied meanings that portray many

Scheuer 3

dangerous stereotypes of each culture. According to Barnlund, the Japanese “are modest and apologetic in manner, communicate in an ambiguous and evocative language...and prefer inner serenity to influencing others.” On the other hand, Americans are, “impatient with rituals and rules, casual and flippant,” and we, “display a missionary zeal for changing one another.” Because he compares the two cultures so dramatically and so extremely, it may lead an uninformed individual to assume that every Japanese person is secretive and submissive. Since Americans are so “direct” and “impatient,” Barnlund’s descriptions paint a picture of the ignorant American stepping all over the sheepish Japanese. Regardless of whether or not these stereotypes hold any truth, there is no certainty that if you are Japanese you must fit into this category, and the same for Americans. Culture is important, and so is language, but every individual has an identity that is more important than that, and Tan agrees that we should reject those expectations. She clarifies that, while learning the language of discretion within one’s community is important, that doesn’t mean one must separate the two languages and make assumptions in order to understand them. What she calls the “sorting out of language and behavior,” and what Barnlund calls, “gaining entrance into the assumptive world of another culture,” are both very dangerous according to Tan. Each culture can have their own norms and rules that may seem secretive to the outsider, and it is acceptable to share cultures between groups. However, problems begin to emerge when the outsiders are the ones doing the comparing, sorting, and categorizing of the culture they are not a part of. The assumptions one culture makes about another is what turns into stereotypes; they eventually manifest themselves into negative traits of the culture being compared. This, according to Tan, is much of the reason behind why, “there are few Chinese in top management positions, in mainstream political roles;”

Scheuer 4

there are very realistic and very harmful downfalls that come with making generalizations about a culture. Just because an American does not understand the Chinese language doesn’t mean that Chinese people are passive, secretive, and ambiguous, as Barnlund would say, and that doesn’t mean they can’t be assertive and straightforward. Putting languages and cultures into different categories like this is an infallible way of shoving individuals into boxes that are labelled with judgments and generalizations that speak nothing of their true character. This mistake, contrary to what Barnlund would say, will cause intercultural collisions that prevent the survival of a global village. Throughout Barnlund’s essay, he equates culture and nationality as if they are interchangeable, but Tan uses her multiple identities to prove that they are two separate entities that contribute to one’s character. Barnlund stated that, “there are few cultural universals, and the degree of overlap in communicative codes is always less than perfect,” which does hold some truth to it. It is difficult to find a common ground between people of two completely different nationalities; however, culture does not necessarily refer simply to the nation an individual comes from. Amy Tan was born in the United States, and her parents were Chinese immigrants. While her culture includes C  hinese-American language, beliefs, and customs, because this is part of her nationality, her cultural identity is not limited only to the Chinese parts of her and the American parts of her. Tan’s culture comes from the traditions passed down from her parents, values shared with her peers, knowledge given by her teachers, customs shared by other members of society - there is an endless amount of influences on one’s identity that do not necessarily come from living in America with a Chinese background. Barnlund implies that it is next to impossible to enter the “assumptive world of another culture,” or to fully understand each

Scheuer 5

culture’s distinct language, behavior, and social contexts, without causing chaos. Tan grew up with Chinese parents who were already accustomed to their culture, but were not blind to American culture, so she herself grew up with pieces of both. She embraced American culture because she was surrounded by it from birth, and thus she succeeded in entering the assumptive world of that culture. Moreover, her sense of culture does not end there; she shares the culture of every group and every subgroup that she is a part of. For Barnlund to liken her nationality and her culture is to ignore every other part of her identity that is unique and important besides those characteristics. Tan proved in her essay that culture and nationality are distinct from each other, and while both are crucial to make up a person’s individuality, there are more important elements to one’s identity than the stereotypes assigned to us because of where we come from. Dean Barnlund’s perspective in Communication in a Global Village  has some valid concepts and some significantly ignorant ones; Amy Tan contradicts most of the latter in her essay The Language of Discretion. Her descriptions of her experiences as a bilingual and bicultural woman living in America were enough to refute what Barnlund had to say about the conflicts that are bound to emerge from two cultures coming together. She also made it clear that his idea of entering the assumptive world of another culture is acceptable until people start sorting out and labelling others based on their language, nationality, and culture. Tan would agree that the physical proximity of two cultures is not what will cause great cultural collisions, as Barnlund would say, but rather this dangerous practice of categorizing individuals and making broad generalizations about those categories. Amy Tan’s more modern view of culture goes against everything Dean Barnlund suggests in his more antiquated essay. She does this by proving that comparing languages leads to dangerous generalizations, criticizing the stereotypes

Scheuer 6

that emerge from those generalizations, and using her own experience to support the fact that culture and nationality are two separate elements of one’s identity....