Hegemony & Marxism

OK so I'm just going to be a nerd for a (non-racial)minute and talk about Marxist theory. For all of you guys who don't spend their time going through other people's textbooks (ahem,terrence) / don't love Marxist theory, Hegemony is an idea formulated by Gramsci, an Italian marxist.

Hegemony also describes what Sian is talking about in her Obama rant about race and class. Anyhow, I see the parallels. Because Marxism is a class-based theory that describes the cycle of exploitation that occurs under capitalism, Hegemony is best described as a cultural ideology that surreptitiously ties the needs and desires of the bourgeosie to the needs and desires of the working class so that both classes become devoted to maintaining the status quo, even though it's only the bourgeosie that benefits. By creating such an interdependency within a capitalist system, the workers unknowingly "buy into" their own exploitation by perpetuating the system that abuses them. This is an ideology that is aimed at maintaining the status quo and that also sadly pits workers against eachother in the spirit of competition, and that also supports a mentality in which dissenters are socially pressured by their peers to stick to the norm - the same "norm" that exploits everyone. And so it becomes a cycle.

So I'm tying this into the whole race/class thing because I find that the race dichotomy in the U.S. where white = rich/powerful and black=poor/exploited is a mode of hegemony because it is an ideology that people have willingly adopted and in so doing have exacerbated the social problems of the country and thus the social problems that result from an increasing distance between upper/middle and lower classes AND from the lack of distance between race and class. And of course, because of the ideology, the class issues are confused as race issues, thereby distracting the most disadvantaged people in the whole system by mixing a cultural identity with a class identity and thus reinforceing the inferiority of that identity within society as a whole. And, of course, this also encourages a mentality that seeks to preserve a status quo that generally sees a popular, successful and smart "black" politician as a freak of nature and an anomaly. I think the same ideology is to blame for the massive number of black kids who are dropping out of school because they are convinced that they cannot succeed. When this damaging kind of normality is supported because it is confused with a cultural/racial identity, it's hegemony in practice. So what many people see as racial domination is in fact class domination that uses the concept of race as hegemony in order to maintain a capitalist cycle of exploitation that recruits a "worker" population in its own social and economic impoverishment.

Umm so this is just my nerdy 2 cents and I think you all should read about Gransci and his theories about Hegemony because it explains how it's possible for capitalism to be a culture and a political system even though also an economic system....

btw the picture at the top is Gramsci. I also wanted to note that the only times I learned about Gramsci in depth was 1) while at mcgill in a Cultural Studies course, and 2) while reading through Terrence's coursepacks while in Montreal.

rantabling

I've been meaning to blog on the discourse surrounding Obama's mixedness for a while, but since I'm not quite sure about what I think at this point, I just kind of want to think outloud and hear what you guys think.
What bothers me most about the whole thing is this assumption that the US is black and white. First of all, it's just not true and it ignores so much about the complexity of our history. Secondly, I think the black/white dichotomy is perfectly in line with reductionist ways of thinking which is why everything is us/them, republican/democrat, etc and it ends up just being rhetorical and getting in the way of the actual issues that need to be dealt with. Thirdly, the white/black dichotomy is often conflated with a rich/poor dichotomy that then associates blackness with poverty and everything that goes along with it (drugs, crime, prison, etc), which, aside from just being way too simplistic, essentially reinforces stereotypes, mostly cuz they're not just stereotypes, its more or less true that poverty is closely tied with crime and low education levels and unemployability, but when black=poor then we forget that black people arent the problem, its actually poverty that we have to deal with. (which is why as of now i think im opposed to race-based affirmative action because its way too superficial and doesn't address actual problems, though it pretends to.)
Anyway, back to Obama. A recent NY times article says, "But while many whites embrace Mr. Obama’s melting pot background, it remains profoundly unsettling for some blacks who argue that he is distant from the struggles and cultural identities of most black Americans." I'm going to try to articulate my problem with this...it's something i thought a lot about last year when i was writing this paper on the use of "race" and "ethnicity" boxes on US census/govt forms, and I found this woman who was trying super hard to get them to create a "multiracial" box (which they've done in GA, but im not sure where else) and basically her explanation for it was that she didn't want her mixed daughter to have to say she was black at all. So my problem is how blackness has been, and continues to be constructed and reinforced as basically the worst thing you can be. Not that mixed people should have to identify as black (I'm all for the "check all that apply"), but it really upsets me that people have developed soooo many ways to distinguish themselves from blackness ("acting white", "talking white", colin powell saying "I ain't that black", calling Barak "colorless", "you're not really black", the list goes on...) because even tho it might work for some people, it still reinforces the black/white dichotomy, though maybe with more exceptions, but the bottom line is that until its not seen as some kind of freak accident that Barak considers himself black AND smart, this dichtomy is still going to exist and it's going to continue to be just as harmful.
And when I say harmful, I don't just mean for people's own little identity crises (which are important, but in the scheme of things not that huge of a deal), but more importantly I think focusing on "race" diffuses concern for actual issues, and by actually issues I mean the real issues that divide societies, and by that of course I mean capitalism. Ok, let me slow down.
I think being in South Africa is making me think about this a lot differently. Mostly because apartheid was not just about racism, it was about socialism! So apparently, the point of apartheid was to cater to the white poor/working class and the way they did that was to basically eliminate black people from any kind of labor competition. So what this shows is that we can't dismiss these things as racism, because they just used the idea of race to draw distinctions between segments of the labor force, and color was an easy way to do that.
Ok, so let me try to relate this back to Obama. basically all I have to say is that although it'd be cool to have a mixed president, mainly his policies are good and take a reasonable stance on workforce development (which we talked a lot about in my child support task for last semester), and he recognizes the distinction between poverty and minorities, plus all of his rhetoric is about not sticking to the status quo and thinking beyond the dichotomies and dualities that have been constructed.
so yeah...ill stop now. but i want to hear what you guys think about anything I said, or the article i was talking about http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ex=1328072400&en=38b60b4769f06eb6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
but basically my thesis/conclusion is that talk about "race" just distracts people from real inequality and where it comes from and how to deal with it, and talk about whether barak is black enough or not does the same thing and divides people along ridiculous lines instead of thinking about his policies and what they'll actually do for people.
:)

Global Nomads/Third Culture Kids

Hey my peoples - so just a quick post. This morning it was such a surreal experience because I was in the car with my dad at like 5am driving to the airport and this program came on NPR about Global Nomads and Third Culture Kids and how there's a growing group of people around the world who find themselves returning to their "home" culture and finding that it isn't home at all, and that they have developed an identity entirely different from that, but they struggle with the fact that they are often held to the "norm", in terms of cultural knowledge, views, notions of nationality, etc. And I was listening and I was like that's me! And it was just cool to hear that it was something that NPR was putting out there and telling people about. And also apparently it's a new anthropological and psychological field of study, and that's how the terms Third Culture Kids and Global Nomads (which is apparently what you become as you grow up, because you feel you have more of a 'global' identity than a conventional national identity). I kind of wish I had written my thesis about it.

It also just felt good to hear a radio program saying basically that it's "okay" to be SO in between and to feel so unattached to the US and its culture, and to feel more attached to a global culture, even if it's a somewhat undefined/fuzzy thing.

It was the coolest and so I found a couple websites about it. You can also google it and find coolness. I'd be more interested to read like academic articles about it and stuff though, I think. :
http://www.gnvv.org/
http://www.worldweave.com/GN.html
http://www.myspace.com/globalnomadsgroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Culture_Kids

US's global role poll

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
Just thought I'd post this. The BBC did a poll on perceptions of the US's handling of different issues, and apparently internationally and domestically approval ratings are going down. Surprise surprise.
I looked at a similar poll a couple months ago, and I thought it was interesting that people Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines, and of course the States generally support US policies.
No rant for now though.
:)

Double Standard

So today was my first day of classes at UCT. I'm excited about my classes in general, but there's one thing that kind of makes me wonder and I wanted to run it by you guys. So basically all my classes focus on South Africa or southern Africa (though the course titles don't necessarily say so), and basically I'm just wondering if it's a double standard to expect American (state) schools to teach at a more internationally-minded level if the same expectation isn't really present in these classes. If I were to answer this myself, I think it seems like American and British (and other) cultures and perspectives are so accessible here that it's just as important to offer an alternative to them. Does that make sense? I guess I'll have more to say about this when we actually have class and I see how things are done, but I'm just kind of worried that UCT is way more western than I want it to be. Sorry, I dont know if any of that made sense, but I'll stop and maybe pick this up later when I know what I'm saying, but lemme know what you think.
:)

Canadian Internment Camps

For anyone interested:

In 4 days, it'll be the 65th Anniversary of the signing of EO 9066, which enabled the Japanese-American internment. Though this topic is relatively obscure in mainstream education, I thought I'd share something even more obscure: the Canadian Government had their own camps that forcibly relocated and looted the belongings of over 20,000 naturalized or native-born citizens (and a few thousand resident aliens). Unlike the American camps (which still sucked), the Canadian camps did more separation by sex, so families were actually split up by males and female/children. Conditions got so bad that even the Japanese Red Cross and Japanese citizens (the then enemies) felt compelled to provide aid.

Anyway... just thought I'd share this historical footnote

Valentines Day

I won't even be as trite as to say "Happy Valentines Day", because this is an anti-Valentines day tirade. Although I guess it's ok to express your love to your partner/family in general, I think that it should be expressed 365 days of the year, not just on this one day. I'm opposed to Valentines day because it has turned into this huge industry that does 2 horrible things:

1. Commercializes love and giving, and results in a capitalist system using and abusing cultural symbols of love (roses, hearts, cupid)as commodities to be bought and sold.

2. Creates a gross gender dynamic within this whole capitalist bonanza by pressuring women to buy products focused on their bodies (implicitly suggesting that they do so for men - i.e. discount liposuction, makeup on sale, and the biggest seller - lingerie), and pressuring men to buy expensive gifts that are supposedly representative of their love, like expensive chocolates, roses, and diamonds. The end result is a reinforcement of antiquated gender stereotypes, where the more money a guy can spend, the easier access he has to a woman's body, which is made more presentable (better smelling, better clothes via sexy underwear) in anticipation.

And then the religious imposition of it all with St. Valentine, and the historical origins of this ridiculous ritual....and how it has been exported globally...erg. Do the research.

It's freaking me out - sorry for reading so much into it for you peoples who like Valentines day, but I just don't like being pressured to buy and sell love, and to put a price tag on how much someone feels about me. Speaking of which, let's not even get into how many couples will fight over not getting, or not getting a "good enough" Valentine today.

Families & Cultural Colonization

So I really didn't know what else to title this blog, but I'm sure the title will make sense to everyone by the time they've read this post. I know "colonize" is a strong word, but I just don't have a better word to use.

Since we are on the topic of families and how the concepts of culture and nationality come together through marriage (which is another 'mixing' mechanism I guess) and family, it seems to be a pretty common trend that we find ourselves, as mixed kiddies, navigating between both sides of the family, which is all the more complex because of cultural or racial or national issues and issues concerning stereotypes and identity.

Basically, I increasingly get the impression that my dad's side of the family("white", American) is trying to colonize my mom's side of the family (Rwandese), and that my own immediate family, because it's essentially in between the two sides, is becoming alienated by certain parts of my Dad's family. Granted, I don't want to give off the impression that they are bad people. They are good and nice people, and I love my cousins, and all of my family, regardless of what cultural "side" they are on.

So this all began when my mom started agitating for my cousin, Muhoza, to come live with us in Nairobi to learn english and go to USIU (a California university with several overseas branches) so that he could eventually move to the US and continue education there. Because my dad had US government hook-ups, he made it happen, and my cousin moved over to the US. Because my family was still in Kenya though, it was necessary to find a "sponsor" family for him, who wound up being my American aunt's best friend, and my aunt was the sponsoring relative.

Now, there has always been tension between my Dad's side and my mom, leading to tension on my mom's side. This is essentially due to stereotypes : "an African woman would only marry a white American for money". This tension was exacerbated when it became clear that my cousin, upon moving to the US, drifted farther and farther away from my mom (and thus the Rwandese side of the family) and closer and closer to my Dad's side of the family, resulting in the general feeling on my mom's side that he (my cousin) was not maintaining family obligations, which is an essentially Rwandan concept.

So in a way my Dad's side has somehow discouraged my cousin from coming to visit us, and has discouraged him form maintaining close contact with my mom, which is an issue. So in a way, it seems like that side of the family that claimed cultural ownership over my cousin.

Now the colonizing thing comes in. First, my Dad's side kind of took advantage of the Rwandan side of the family in order to better my cousin's chances of getting into college by sending her to Rwanda to work in an orphanage. They paid for me to go as well, for which I am grateful. However, it seems like this trip was offered to me out of necessity, because I was the only one in the family who was able to navigate both sides of the family (my cousin was working full-time and unable to go). So in a way, I felt like this was part of the process of the American side claiming ownership over, or "colonizing" the Rwandan side, by using and exploiting that side of the family for personal purposes.

And NOW is a more alarming trend. They (my Dad's side) have now decided that they will begin some sort of charity project at my cousin's (very rich, very "white") private school which would entail TAKING ANOTHER ONE OF MY COUSINS from Kenya, where he is living with my Rwandese uncle and going to school there. They are planning to bring him to the US and give him an American education, ostensibly as a charity project for the private school (which definitely costs like $20+k/yr), as well as being part of a plan of having him eventually emigrate officially to the US. Because no one consulted my family or the Rwandan side about it (my Dad just heard about it), my guess is they plan to have him live with them in Connecticut and Americanize him as well. And eventually alienate him from my part and the Rwandese part of the family as well.

Do you see why the word colonization came to mind? I feel like somehow there is an underlying (probably unconscious) assumption on their part that the African side of the family needs to be civilized somehow, and that it's impossible to build a life for oneself and get an education in Africa or Europe (which is where my cousin will go, thanks to my Rwandese uncle, if he doesn't go to the US). And it's not like he has a bad life either. My uncle is rich and has a huge, gorgeous house on the Kenya coast as well as being the president of a thriving business that transports goods across east Africa.

So what the hell is happening here? Maybe I'm freaking out, but I definitely think that there is something bizarre and dysfunctional going on, and I use the word "colonize" because of the historical assumptions it entails regarding Africa, and "whats best" for Africans.....

Lemme hear your thoughts on this, it's an interesting multicultural family conflict, in which it appears as though the only really multicultural side of the family is being marginalized because we (my dad, mom, me , my bro) are unable to take sides.

In Short...

Hello friends/friends of friends,

For anyone interested, here’s my background:

‘Race’: I am ‘racially’ (Sian, this word I use for lack of any better one) 1/2 Japanese, 1/4th German, and 1/16th Irish, Scottish, French, and English.

'Nationality’: I am American. Both my grandparents fought in WWII for America, so there was certainly a level of patriotism in my upbringing- especially my Japanese-American Grandpa. That side of the family was sent to internment camps (in fact, my Great Grandma even died there due to inadequate medical facilities). Interestingly, the family response was this: we left Japan to be American, and right now things suck, but we’re going to prove ourselves to be loyal. So began a wave of expedited assimilation.

‘What I call myself’: The internment caused my family to affirm the distinction between ‘race’ and ‘nationality’. Thus, I am Japanese-American/ German-American/ Irish-American/ etc. I once wore a Japanese flag pin before realizing this crucial distinction, which really offended my Japanese-American Grandfather. He fought so hard so that we could be American and enjoy the things that came with it (and inherit the ability to fix its problems; Clinton quote- “There is nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with America”).

Culture (1): I pretty much defaulted to not caring about culture until 9^th grade, which meant I adopted the mainstream culture, which meant I was White (and there’s no problem with that). At some point, my old man picked up the bagpipes (as he’s ‘racially’ half ‘Celtic’ and half German) and began playing with an Irish pipe band. My sister and I both joined the band playing drums and became this weird breed of half-Japanese Irish-Americans. I certainly felt more Irish-American than anything because of this upbringing. Nobody thought my sister and I were of Irish descent, but who cares; we knew all the drinking songs and had the whole regalia (kilt and all)

Culture (2): I had to ‘pretend’ to be Japanese-American in order to get a college scholarship (my being Japanese-American was simply a matter of fact; not experience). This is basically because I’d never really known any ‘others’ beyond my cousins (who are all ‘Hapa’; or ‘half’), but then the organization sends me to this conference in Hawai’i and I see hundreds of people who look like ‘my people’ (Hapas); the ones I’d never really known about. I also realized that we had similar family immigrant stories, the internment experiences, the post-war assimilations (Japanese-Americans are perhaps the fastest ‘out-marriage’ groups in America- some 30%+), and the fact that once our ancestors left Japan, both they and their still-in-Japan counterparts diverged. Any words or customs that came to us kids are now antique and basically deleted from contemporary Japanese speech. It means something very different to be Japanese-American than it means to be Japanese.

‘Caught in Between’: I don’t feel that I’m caught in between, at least, not in a negative way. Clearly, I’ve defined myself as part of many ‘in-between’ sub-groups (Irish-Japanese-American, etc.). In fact, I wish I was more ‘caught in between’ cultures. Last year, there was an event called ‘Souk’ which celebrated the culture of the Middle East (minus religion and politics) and it was one of the most beautiful events at school. I decided that I wished that I was like 1/8th of eight distinctly different cultures so when I celebrated another culture, I could feel that I had ancestral claims to it. My reasoning was that if you had one ancestor from somewhere else, you actually had thousands of ancestors from there who lived, experienced, and shaped those cultures.

In the end, all the categories that exist are dynamic experiences that inevitably change. Hell, half of the practices of a ‘people’ are the result of some previous arbitrary decision by some random person. So, it’s all a choice and the choice… IS YOURS! (Captain Planet/American Consumerism manifested in Eco-Conscious kids show reference)

Brigcim

P.S. It's never really pointed out, but 'white' means hugely mixed; my Dad is really mixed: English, Irish, Scottish, French, German

"maybe it's both" - an anecdote

so last night we were carpooling with another group of int'l students. i feel compelled to explain: most of them were white, and there was one mixed girl (black/white is my guess). anyway, so some of the white girls started arguing about this area called Observatory and whether its shortened to Obz or Obs. They litterally debated it for 3 minutes straight, saying well i saw it with an s here, oh well i saw it with a z there, and on and on. and then at one point unintentionally in unison me and the other mixed girl say "maybe its both". I thought it was a funny little example of how there can be more than one way of doing things, they can both be right, and how it just so happened that it was the mixed people that pointed it out.

multicultural ice cream

So we had a lovely greek dinner tonight at the Cape Town waterfront (which btw is in the process of being bought by some development company from dubai, and there are issues with it because people are scared they'll make it pay-as-you-go with an entrance fee which would basically ban poor people). Dinner was yums and then we went and got ice cream at this place, and this is the poster they had, and i took a picture of it because of the interracial couple on the top left. we saw a similar ad yesterday at the mall, also with a white man and a coloured woman, and it seems like a uniquely post-apartheid south african thing. not too sure what the dog is doing there tho.

This is a picture of a gun in a knot (it took me a while to figure out what it was), it was "unveiled in support of non-violence". thought it was cool.

Identity Politics

FYI # 1: This is an essay. I know. I tried to make it short but couldn't.
FYI # 2: This is an annoying color, sorry. I tried to change it and couldn't.

Ok so I feel as though some here in the US people tend to try and make me feel guilty about being opposed to American politics. That's just my general impression, and so it makes me wonder whether I should feel guilty about rejecting the U.S. political system? That opinion just comes from constantly and actively resisting my "American" side, because I feel that it is always imposed upon me by others and obviously by the country I'm living in right now. By resisting that identity, I am also resisting the politics which accompany it.

So that's why I'm calling this identity politics. Though originally I thought "the politics of identity" was just an ideological/academic term, so I dismissed it, but now I see how pertinent it is to what I'm experiencing right now. I've always been somewhat opposed to the concept of being "political" about one's beliefs, because to an extent I always thought that being really "political" would inevitably result in holding people accountable to a system of ideas that they don't necessarily consider to be applicable to them. I think that viewpoint is true to an extent, but it's also pretty unavoidable. I also think that it comes from growing up in an environment where there was always a weird (and we come back to this America problem) American political undercurrent that would judge and treat people according to American beliefs, which tend to entail a disproportionate amount of political-ness. I don't know why things are that way, but I find that everything in this country boils down to politics and economy, and when you think about it, American economy = american consumerism = economic power = political power. In short, I always thought about politics in a more colonial sense. For all of you guys since you know more or less about colonial history, I'm referring to the way in which western political beliefs are imposed upon people and people were judged and mistreated based on a system that was essentially irrelevant to their way of life. Obviously this issue is more complicated these days with globalization, etc, and I recognize this but I don't want to go into it too much because then this post will last FOREVER.

Ok so back to the story: now and then my parents keep pressuring me to take American political jobs and do stuff in American politics. My mom keeps pressuring me to join the State Department, but the issues come mostly from my Dad because he is unable to accept my philosophy that I totally and utterly reject the american political system in this country. AND I think that deep inside he takes this as a personal affront (see how the identity and politics become personal?), which is why he keeps trying to make me accept them. He is always telling me to join political campaigns, and is always urging me to participate in local politics, and my own response is that it is almost impossible to listen to political views and thus participate in political organisations that you are constantly resisting because they seem so foreign to me. And so just the other day we had a semi-argument because I was telling him about my plans for the future, and he kept insisting that I either work for a congressman or work as part of a political campaign. And I guess it was rude, but my first response was "ew", because to me these jobs embody institutions that are misleading and oppressive and that are constantly trying to quash diversity (of culture and political beliefs, like my socialist self) in american society. On top of that politics and especially political campaigns have become so ridiculously capitalist in this country that politicians are for the most part only rich people and if they are not personally rich, then they have rich connections, which leads to general ignorance and lack of action regarding anti-poverty and pro-welfare policies. I could go on forever about this. And I am.

But essentially the confrontation between my dad and I represents a microcosm of my political experience in general, which I realized is closely tied to mixed identity. And so then I asked myself what politics I would truly espouse, and I realized that I will never be able to adopt the national politics of any country, period. I don't know why, but I know this. And so then it lead me to ask myself whether the realization that my identity is political is actually a cop-out. I was wondering this because the whole experience of being "multicultural" causes the whole experience of being in-between categories, and when that is converted into politics, and identity politics in particular, it leads to a questioning of where I stand exactly. And if having "universal" politics is actually possible, and if it's acceptable for me to take a political stance that will never align with any nation anywhere without appearing as though I'm just vacillating. This is why I want to do international law, because I feel like it relies on a system that needs to accommodate itself to, and mediate the spaces between, the national politics of the international community. It's kaleidoscopic :) Whew. So I'm asking now, is it a cop-out to be politically in-between? Is it unacceptable to reject the politics of a specific place or country without falling back on the politics of a different country as a defense? Is it possible to engage in these "identity politics" without appearing apolitical or unreasonable?

Whew. Lemme know what you think. Sorry this was so long!

Me, culture, and my thesis

After much prodding on Sandra's part :) I'm finally making a post. But in putting together something from a slightly academic perspective I'm setting up people for some major disappointment for future posts that I can assure you won't be nearly as thoughtful, cohesive, or enlightening...

So as you guys all know, I moved around every 2-3 yrs growing up. I've lived in 6 countries in all, and I always took my "wordliness"--or whatever you want to call it--for granted because everywhere I went I was surrounded by kids in pretty similar situations. When I went to middle school in the US for the first time (Texas, public, trashy, etc) I first became aware of America's gross level of intolerance and ignorance. Even as a kid, I was completely appalled. Granted, this WAS Texas, not exactly known as the liberal capitol of the world, but I know it still reflects the beliefs of a wide cross-section of America's public (judging by Bush's re-election, I think it's safe to say...) After that tragic two-year blip in my life, I moved to Tokyo where all was good and well, and cosmopolitan and DIVERSE and then, on to Princeton where I'm constantly being caught off-guard both by some people's over-the-top ethnocentrism and WASPishness, and other ppl's unbelievable acceptance of/enthusiasm for learning about ppl of different backgrounds.

And here's where I segue way into cultural psychology, the field of psychology of relevance to my thesis, because I'll be talking about that soon per Sandra's request :) My interest in psychology stems from my belief that physical human-to-human interactions lie at the root of all crossroads between cultures. Whether these meetings are of a business, diplomatic, or merely social nature, an appreciation and understanding for how humans think and perceive each other is critical to achieveing meaningful relationships. Through studying the intersection of culture and psychology scientifically, we have some substantial hope for realizing common ground between people of different backgrounds. Seeing the world through other ppl's lenses, putting ourselves in other ppl's shoes, understanding why we regularly face misunderstandings and are unable to draw the same conclusions when presented with the same information: all these important principles we've been taught (hopefully) since preschool, so why (without calling the opposition extremists or tyrants) aren't we able to put them into practice?

And now, even more on the importance of cultural psychology and some details: cross-cultural differences in decision making, social interactions, and cognitive processes have wide implications to business and diplomacy. Previous studies for example have shown that while Americans approach problems at work logically, those of Asian cultures are more attune to their intuitions and reason dialectically. Similarly, Asian cultures are more likely to attend to their environment and situational context, while Westerners tend to focus on individual people or salient objects within the environment. So far, the study of PEOPLE in psychology has been limited to the Western sphere of the globe, and for the most part the young, white, male sub-population of the western world. Does anyone see problems with this? As if you could take all the attributes of a young American male as the prototype of human existence and apply it universally to all people of all cultures... It's a rather obnoxious, selfish view of the world.

Maybe my interest in all this stems from my own background and the unique position I find myself in being "betwixt and between" different cultures, not knowing where to call home, and feeling like I don't quite belong ANYwhere...But anyways that's an intro justification for my thesis; more later.

intro

so i thought i'd go ahead and start writing something. for now all i have to say is that im looking forward to this semester in cape town and figuring out how things here work and all the little complexities of the place and its history. i'm also excited about the people i live with cuz according to my definitions we all have that inbetweeny thing going on.
i also want to point out that my having grown up with divorced parents is also an important inbetweeny thing, and that to some extent most people have some kind of experience of feeling between two things/places/people/cultures/countries/perspectives but the important thing is whether we realize it and how it affects the way we do things.
and the other thing i want to add to sanji's defiition is the importance of being critical of everything all the time. i dont know if its the best thing to make an unconditional statement like that, but yeah, i think a critical engagement with everything/everyone we encounter is pretty much vital.
the last thing, and im not sure how to phrase this, is love. and being open to loving people, and loving places, and appreciating things for what they are without being blind their flaws. how vague is that? but hopefully you know what i mean.
ok, the last thing is that i think everyone should read salman rushdie's books because as far as i can tell he does an amazing job of capturing the cultural/linguistic/national mixing that exists EVERYWHERE and writing about it beautifully.
oh yeah! and the other thing im loving about south africa is how theres afrikaans/dutch stuff everywhere and how everyone here speaks at least 3 languages and some people speak like 5-7 fluently. languages and how they mix with people is super cool.
ok, done now!
:)

So I have nothing nearly so eloquent to say. In fact, I don't even know what to say. I think I am very superficially multicultural, even before coming to Cairo I realized this. So this whole living in a vastly different, really crowded not like any city i've been to city is completely new to me. I'm still sort of frozen, I don't really even know what it's like to live in cairo...

Meanings

So I suppose vistors to this blog may wonder what this all means...What is multinationality? What exactly is a Multicultural Conundrum? Well now, let's get into it:

These terms refer to the perspectives and thoughts of individuals who share an identity and likewise a viewpoint that spans across cultures, nations, spaces and places. Generally speaking, I guess the multicultural conundrum is the experience of feeling that you are able to identify with a number of places and people all at once, but at the same time you find yourself unable to shake the feeling that by understanding multiple perspectives, you are perpetually unable to identify with just one, resulting in a notion that you, your viewpoints, and your personal experiences somehow exist in a space that lies "betwixt and between"(to use a favourite anthropology quote) the normative views of whatever society you might find yourself in.

This kind of splendidly schizophrenic sense of identity will unavoidably lead to various conundrums - I'd say it leads to more personal conundrums than the average person deals with on a regular basis. Multinationality is similar, referring to a sense of plurality when it comes to national identity and belonging (and probably a general repulsion to patriotism as a result).

Aside from the more general meanings of these silly terms I've come up with, there's also the idea that these terms lay the foundation for all the posts to come - from politics to fashion to random diatribes, we are all seeing the world through a multicoloured lens and from my experience we all feel a need now and then to share comments and thoughts that are inevitably unique and deviant from the norm. Which is a wonderful thing. In short, this isn't just about where we come from, it's about where we are, what we're doing, and where we're going. The whole multinationality/multicultural conundrum thing is just the mainspring.

So hemm. How does this lead to a blog? Well naturally, we're all individuals, and so the blog will act as a prism that differentiates and disseminates these balready multifaceted views, and incidentally we are at the moment spread across 4 countries, and so this is also a space in which we can share, connect, and discuss....without being interrogated as to why and how we come to the conclusions that we do.