Week 3: Diasporas and Identity

I found this week’s discussion and reading on diasporas an interesting topic to consider. As Professor Hayden pointed out, deterritorialization is the idea around which diasporic communities are defined. When you no longer have that shared physical space of culture, ideology, and nationalism how does your identity transform and evolve? So much of our identity is formed around our learned behaviours as children growing up in a very culture-specific environment. Even the instance of the homeschooled little boy who is grows in a homogenous WASP-dominated town, and who many public school-educated urbanites would view as a bit of a philistine, has his own sense of identity based around the ideas he was fed in his development. No matter how comfortable we are in our nation, when that space is lost and we are placed in a new one, internal identity crises are bound to occur. One doesn’t shed their own cultural skin just by being in a foreign environment, some find it easier to adapt than others, but the effects of our cultural systems can still be seen in the way we interact with others in our new environment, or the way we portray that cultural aspect of our identity.

So far graduate school has strained my ability to think, but one question that I think deserves a little space to dwell amongst the mess of theories still settling in up there is-what is the difference of forming identity between diasporic communities who have consciously made the decision to be detached from their motherland, and those who are forced to find a new space?

There isn’t the space, and I don’t have the mental capacity to consider how identity is formed among those immigrant populations who willingly took the risk to settle in a new place. There are a very high number of factors to consider-the accessibility of the new place they are assimilating into, the personal openness to compromising their identity for a new one, the exposure of their distinct culture they provide future generations in their families and communities, etc. It’s a lot to consider, and one that I don’t have the experience to write on.

But obviously choice plays a role, I’m sure Sudanese refugees in Chad aren’t trying to fully embrace their new surroundings. Their situation is much too tenuous, temporary, and uncertain. My situation pales in comparison, but as a Korean adoptee, I can reflect a little on what it means to be part of a diasporic community that did not consciously choose to be placed into a new cultural context. It is a bit of a unique situation to be in, we truly fill that ‘3^rd space’ mentioned by Homi Bhabha in the Karim article, and this crisis in identity affects some adoptees much more than others. Unlike ethnic communities that make up our cities, we have a much more fractured and intangible sense of shared identity. For those who it is a formidable part of their identity, the struggle to reconcile the pull of two motherlands can be just that, a struggle. For others, there is no issue, they are obligated to identify themselves as an adoptee but it is secondary to the other parts of how they view themselves. Regardless of these sorts of identity dynamics, the underlying common point remains.

What I have seen living both here and back in Korea is the formation of a true diasporic community with a voice and an agenda. I think just as when immigrants unite around issues that affect their ethnicity, Korean adoptees have done the same. This has manifested itself in a pretty powerful way, the adoptee population in Korea has succeeded in changing the citizenship laws in South Korea so that holding dual citizenship will be a possibility of next year. This effort was led through media outlets and creating public pressure on the government via tools of mass media. It is a strong example of how one diaspora has not only strengthened its sense of self, but affected actual political change. The foundation of the movement is all about the idea of choice. One of the primary arguments is that adoptees were not afforded the choice to abandon their motherland, and many want to find their way back. Korea is definitely not quite ready to comfortably embrace them, or to confront the ongoing issues of transnational adoption in their country. But the power of the adoptee diaspora has succeeded in not only the legislative aspect, but more importantly opening a space for a new controversial dialogue in a generally rigid and conservative society.

Lastly, there is an irony in all of this-if the adoptee community in Korea succeeds in their goal to reduce the number of transnational adoptions, they are simultaneously working for the reduction of their own community.

Week 3 New Deceiving Propaganda Tactic: Framing Propaganda under the frame work of Global Public Sphere and Global Governance.

New Deceiving Propaganda Tactic: Framing Propaganda under the frame work of Global Public Sphere and Global Governance.

The post 911 propaganda of the Bush Administration was compared as no difference to the Nazi’s propaganda, according to Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky argued that the concept of democracy is attacked by the U.S. post 911 propaganda. He said “What honest people are saying is that ‘paying attention to our own crimes and stop committing it” and should not jump into others’ homelands to kill millions of people leaving a country devastated and the people suffering from chemical wars.

From my understanding, the nowadays’s globalization trends created a even harder battle for those anti-propaganda. To better understand the argument, I would like to take a step back for now and look at the bigger picture.

Public Sphere is first introduced by Habermas meaning “an area in social life where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action.” (Hauser, Gerard 1998) And in accordance with the globalization, the Global Public Sphere is usually interpreted by scholars as “through global media and Internet networks is the most effective form of broadening political participation on a global scale, by inducing a fruitful, synergistic connection between the government-based international institutions and the global civil society. This multimodal communication space is what constitutes the new global public sphere.” (Castells, Manuel 2008) It is usually understood in the frame work of Global Civil Society, which is popularly interpreted as “rise of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with a global or international frame of reference in their action and goals.” (Castells, Manuel 2008)

Global governance is another concept that can help us better understand how the
propagandists deceive in making use of the global civil society. Global governance can be understand as due to “the increasing inability of nation-states to confront and manage the processes of globalization of the issues that are the object of their governance, network states ad hoc forms of global governance and, ultimately, to a new form of state, examples are as follows: APEC, ASEAN, United Nations International Monetary Fund, World Bank, NATO.

After examining these concepts in the bigger picture, let’s look back at the argument. So the globalization brought up the trends of Global Public Sphere, and the Global Governance. These tendencies simply created scopes for the deceiving democracy imperialism to take place under the cover of them. Look at these organizations: Voice of America – broadcasting the blocked news to the people living in the non-democratic countries, NATO – all the NATO members were involved in the Gulf War and most of them directly or indirectly sponsored the Iraqi and Afghanistan War. APEC and ASEAN have been accused of being instruments of Chinese government economic bullying on the Southeas Asian member countries.

The National Endowment of Democracy (NED) is a cannot-be-better example. The NED funded international NGOs in the name of advocating for democracy and many of which are international NGOs, such as the Fa Lun Gong, and the World Congress of Uyghur. They which are categorized by Chinese government as “Terrorism groups” and “Religion Extremists”.

It might sound ironic, but please imagine and do this comparison:
U.S. -- Al-Qaeda--“terrorists” - war --while China’s is accused of being “behind Iran and Palestine”
China –Dalai Lama and Radeer - “Terrorism group” and “religion extremists” -- U.S. based NED is sponsoring Dalai Lama and Radeer.

According to Castells, Manuel there are three features characteristics of the international NGOS must be emphasized: “In contrast to political parties, these NGOs have considerable popularity and legitimacy, and this translates into substantial funding both via donations and volunteerism. Their activity focuses on practical matters, specific cases, and concrete expressions of human solidarity: saving children from famine, freeing political prisoners, stopping the lapidation of women, and ameliorating the impact of unsustainable development on indigenous cultures. What is fundamental here is that the classical political argument of rationalizing decisions in terms of the overall context of politics is denied. Goals do not justify the means. The purpose is to undo evil or to do good in one specific instance. The positive output must be considered in itself, not as a way of moving in a positive direction. Because people have come to distrust the logic of instrumental politics, the method of direct action on direct outputs finds increasing support. Finally, the key tactics of NGOs to achieve results and build support for their causes is media politics (Dean, Anderson, and Lovink 2006; Gillmor 2004). It is through the media that these organizations reach the public and mobilize people in support of these causes. In so doing, they eventually put pressure on governments threatened by the voters or on corporations fearful of consumers’ reactions. Thus, the media become the battleground for an NGO’s campaign. Since these are global campaigns, global media are the key target. The globalization of communication leads to the globalization of media politics (Costanza-Chock 2006).”

These interpretations mean that
1, Goals do not justify the means, no matter what cover that propaganda is using, propaganda is propaganda.
2. Through the frame work of global civil movement and the influence of global public sphere, it’s very easy for propagandists to take advantage of public’s trust on such medium and play the new persuasion game.

Micro-Look:
Is it working?
I took a look at the NED funded NOGs based on China mainland. Many of the listed names are in the government’s black list, from my belief, which means that they cannot reach out to the public almost “at all”. This trigger the question—so how do these blocked NGOs work? Are the NED’s efforts working in China? This could be my question for further research.


References:
CASTELLS, Manuel. "The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance".The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 616, No. 1, 2008, pp

Hauser, Gerard , 1998 "Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion", Communication Monographs 65 (2): 83–107 Page. 86,

Culture Industry

In the Thussu reading he brings up the theory born from the Frankfurt School of ‘culture industry.’ The theorists from the Frankfurt School argue that the commodification of ‘cultural goods’ helped advance the capitalist structure while simultaneously subduing the rise of alternative forms of socio-political behaviour. While I can see the logic of opposite views that argue the concept of culture industry is overstating the influence of mass media and understating the individual’s agency over how they disseminate information, as a broad way to describe a recent step of our cultural evolution, I think it is an appropriate and accurate description. If ‘cultural goods’ is describing the mass distribution of books, film, and music-as it was in the UNESCO report of 1982, then I would say culture industry has become an even more significant trend since the original theory was put forth.

The formation of global and national media conglomerates has definitely narrowed the space available for other alternative forms of media. In some countries, 3 or 4 daily newspapers act as the main source of news information, and are sometimes produced by the same parent company. Musicians signed to major recording labels are at the mercy of their producers and label in terms of dictating the direction of their music. Movies are written and pitched to studios with money so filmmakers have the same sort of relationship to mass media markets as musicians do. The New York Times bestseller list, Billboard charts, box office charts, whatever form is used to track what is selling-always reflects culture industry. Our cultural products have become as Marcuse says, ‘one-dimensional.’ Yes, people have agency and an ability to make their own choices, but it seems like a large majority of people, myself included in some instances, choose to be part of the ongoing, deeply embedded consumption cycle. Isn’t this pattern of behaviour passive like Thussu states, and haven’t parts of global societies become subordinate to those in power and with control? Artists with cultural messages have themselves become subordinate by choosing to be a part of this structure.

And of course there is room for subculture movements, and there always has been and always will be. Maybe subculture can be seen as a response to this system, kind of like punk rock was, or indie is (but even elements of these subcultures leak into the mass media industries when the artists can no longer resist the monetary reward of engaging in it). Some people have less of a psychological need to engage in what everyone else is, but others lack such a filter. The mass media markets have capitalized on those populations and exported the same structures out into other countries. When I was living in Korea, I found it astounding that my little first-grade female student was listening to the same song and held it with the same level of cultural value, as a forty year old man. How can this be? It is because Korean media markets have followed the Western models and created media conglomerates that systematically can manufacture culture while at the same time strengthen the society’s idea of corporate power structures. It is even easier to implement in a place like Korea which is based around collectivism and psychological needs have much greater value than intrinsic ones, because of this idea of collectivism and moving/identifying as a mass.

One point that leaves me confused in the culture industry argument is that the theory seems to suggest that cultural values were once communicated in a form apart from a commodified good. Obviously, cultural messages are exchanged in the home and as part of our interpersonal relationships, that hasn’t changed. But, what form did the exchange of cultural messages take before media? Weren’t they still marketable commodities in a way? For example, cultural values distorted through messages from the Church, or values promoted through policies of the nation-state, or values perpetuated by inflexible social hierarchies. Although those cultural messages weren’t being packaged and sold in the marketplace, they were still benefitting the ‘ruling elite.’ I have a hard time wrapping my head around cultural messages and values that may have been transmitted before the advent of some sort of media, it just seems like the theorists are suggesting some great space of cultural value was lost because of the nature of mass media today. What and where are these marginalized voices? Some examples would have helped clarify to what extent the effects of cultural industry can be felt, and what exactly it means when our culture is being marginalized. To me, they are talking about lost opportunities to form artistic subcultures or anti-capitalist movements. These chances are out there and available but have just become diminished.

Week 2: The Impact of Time and Space

In our discussion of cultural approaches to communication in class yesterday, there were two forms of media that defined societies, namely, time-biased and space-biased media theories developed by Harold A. Innis. Both of these ideas rest on the physicality of the medium itself in determining a particular society’s development and impact on the rest of the world.

Time-biased media—the heavy, immobile forms of media such as stone tablets or the pyramids in Egypt, were long-lasting, and encouraged the expansion of empires over long periods of time, according to Innis. Societies which used time-biased media tended to be more moralistic and customary, facilitating social hierarchies with their constant reminders of the status quo.

Space-biased media, in contrast, because of its lightness and portability, afforded empires the opportunity for conquest, and although these media didn’t last as long, they were rapidly expansive. Thus, Innis says, space-biased media societies tended toward militaristic and territorial.

Our reading on Innis stated that “empires are characterized by the media they use the most effectively,” with truly stable societies finding a balance in between the two. But something I found interesting, which I’m sure will be addressed in greater detail as the class goes on, is the role that geography plays in determining what media is available, and thus whether a society becomes time-biased or space-biased.

Innis’ discussion examines how media and information technologies affect political and social structures and practices. But Innis also states that “Monopolies of Knowledge” are derived from, among other things, control of raw materials for media. Rome’s conquest of Egypt, for example, gave it the greater access and control to papyrus, which could be seen as advancing its space-biased media and aiding Rome in further conquests.

In applying the time- and space-biased media theories to today, geography is still reflexively involved. Despite its flaws, the dependency theory of communication explains the world is designed in such a way to keep some countries dependent on others, namely, the “Third World” dependent on the “First World.” This is directly tied to colonialism. Imperial countries took over areas of the world because of the commodities they offered—thus, geography was the determining factor.

The space-based media of colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries assisted their occupation of territories around the world. But it’s interesting to note what happened at the decline of colonialism, and the decline of colonial powers. As Innis said, an empire reaches its greatest height just before it falls. And when colonial powers fell, the newly independent societies were left with a skeletal infrastructure, and skeletal media base. Thus development was slow-coming, particularly development of media. It will be even more interesting to see how time- and space-based media develop in the former colonized areas of the world, and how that affects the powers of their societies.

Week 2 The Application of the Communication Theories

So, this week's readings basically dealt with theories and concepts, and we have learned:
Bullet Magic, Spiral of Silence, Social Validation,
Cultivation Theory, Mc Luhan's "Medium is the Message", etc.

I am most interested in two theories: The Cultivation theory and the "Medium is the message" school.

Cultivation theory basically addresses to the phenomenon that the more exposure to TV shows, the more likely the receivers are to incorporate the ideas in the shows in their daily life. More importantly, this theory implicates that when young adults are exposed to violence on TV, they are more likely to pick up such violent behavior or embrace the ideas of violence. The theory has critical meaning for contemporary communication studies because it tells the TV industry to be cautious about the impacts of what they broadcast on air.

The” medium is the message” tells that communication technology has important meaning for communication scholars because it was the first in its time to point out how important the changes of medium and technology mean to both the senders and receivers and how technology can drastically changed the way individuals are connected and communicate with each other. For example, the arising of internet and the Web 2.0, social media application have shaped the way even the language people communicating. Social media has created a digital platform where individuals meet and interact with friends and in more cases, “strangers” and “stalkers” at a level that no era before can compared. Individuals feel it is much easier and faster to interact to people in long distance. More importantly, individuals are getting used to a “customized” medium—Blogs, My Space, Facebook, Twitters, Foursquare and so forth. Extremely, by examining a person’s facebook, myspace, foursqure and bloggers, you can effortlessly see through this persons’ personal life. The boundary between reality and digital world has never been so ambiguous. You can argue the negative impacts of such technology changes making people’s privacy vulnerable. However, on the other hand, the level and the scale of such communication style changes is the one at a time and no compare in the history. It even gave birth to a new communication school “Digital Communication”.

In summary, I think both the Cultivation Theory and the Medium is the message tell me that both the content and the medium of communications matter to the receivers and one cannot live without the other for making impacts.

Contemporary Theories

Theories in communication are novel since the discipline relatively new. And because communication plays vital role in different aspects of life and encounters various variables, scholars need to reexamine these theories to validate, invalidate or recast them. Scientists have studied communication and its influence at different levels such as individuals, groups, societies, and states as well.

Since various life aspects incorporate communication; the participants, the media, and the messages that are essential components in the communication process play prominent role analyzing the process of communication. In addition, there are other crucial factors that contribute in the communication process such as, coding, noise, and feedback. Thus, theorizing communication stem from hypotheses that have been observed by the scientists who are concerned about their particular field. Communication is an essential artistic tool that is needed for politician, educators, sociologists, and all professional practitioners. In order to communicate successfully, communicators are required to obtain a complete understanding about their audience and the ways in which their messages are effectively delivered.

However, there are variables within communication that play role in altering the communication process with time. For example, the advancement in communication technologies, and the cultural and social changes today are very influential in characterizing the current interactive players in the communication system. Interactive media available with Internet have empowered online users to become not only recipients but also source of information. Individuals are able to express themselves by broadcast, and participating in whatever they wish, and actually be able to expose themselves at the World Wide Web by digital multimedia. They are able to publish their ideas, and find audience anywhere at any time, and on the other hand, get themselves exposed to others.

Under the rapid developments in information communication technologies, and the other variables that affect communication, former communication theories can be strongly refuted in today’s communication environment. Some of these theories may be valid to certain extend, but the current variables would lead to modifications to make these theories valid today. For example, modernity, and transnational influence on people have increased the level of complexity of audiences. Publics are no longer simply recipients. In addition, psychological, and social implications of these effects contribute heavily in understanding the behavior and attitudes of these individuals. Therefore, communication theories concerned about people may need to be completely reexamined to fit in the system of communication today.

Some communication scholars may find the theories of communication valid as concepts. But many of these theories may need to be modified in order to fit within the description of communication in the contemporary and the future world atmosphere. Therefore, the reexamination of the communication theories in a consistent manner is needed for the verification and validity of these theories.

Week 1 Technology and the New Era of Global Communication

One interesting found from last week's class is that I remember the girl in front of me stated that "Globalization is not just a concept but rather, an ongoing process." in regard of my question.

My original question was "Does the new era of communication, thanks to the new technology, facilitate the process of globalization or hinder it? And following that "how do we define the essence/nature of globalization:is it encouraging more variety and diversity in a synergy fashion? Or is it encouraging more similarity and becoming a 'one world'?"

From my point of view, I think by examining how communication technology evolves over the decades is a good way to find out what exactly the globalization means to us. In short, I believe the evolution of international communication techniques and devices is a reflection of globalization process.

Before the appearance of newspaper, people were living under "unknown social circumstances"--they were not informed with much social, political and cultural actions and even if informed, not in wider dimensions and in-depth level. The coming of newspaper changed the political dynamic--public were more informative than before and they started paying attention to what was going on around their life. Kings and politicians found it more difficult to hide the news, and found a need to communicate with the people and the outside world in order to maintain the governance.
The birth of telephone dramatically shaped he way people communicate with each other. One no longer need to travel across half of the city or the entire country just to get their word out--They were using Telephone. Generally speaking, telephone and telegraph shortened the cultural and social distance between each individuals.

The emergence of telegraph changed the dynamic of international communication and it was the key factor in the World War I information battle. It was from this turning point that governments realized the need of communicating both with their allies and enemies. It was from there Propaganda has been putting into use. It was also from then, history witnesses the emergence of the 4 oldest international news agencies and the agency news era. It was from there that the international community realized the need to setting rules, common agreements and regulations on the international communication. In this regard, technology self-evidently changed the social, cultural and political construction of the world and the world became more and more synergized.

The coming of Television and Radio drastically changed the way people received information. People no longer highly reply on the reading or the listening, but rather than the vivid visual messgaes in terms of communication. It was from there the term "Mass Communication" actually started making the most profound meaning and Mass Commnucation, and Mass Media have became study subject for the scholars.
More importantly, it was also from there, the international communication was facilitated by this form of a gatther of sensual and visual emphasized communication medium. It is instant, fast and generally efficient. We now can also see that most of the communication medium of the AL-QAEDA are based on radio and video. That tells something.

The arriving the internet swayed the TV and Radio dynasty and has almost totally changed the way people live, communication and get together. Along side it's arrival was the new strategic communication strategy which is based on the social media. It has never been such a time in the history that the non-face-to-face, digital,virtualized and customized communication has taken a large proportion in the total amount of people's daily communicaton. The issues of individual privacy, copy rights, national security, information security arising along with this new communication techniques have also forced nation states to rethink about digital communication, it's essence and impacts, and also think about the public diplomacy strategy in this new era.
In the age of digital communication, the world has synergized more coherant as we witness individuals now have more access and various source for information. On the other hand, we also witness individuals could feel even more isolated and the feeling of alienation.

In summary, international communication is in a new era which new technology is playing a role more important than ever. Governments should pay more attention to it and make the best of this trend.