In Response to YSCHO’S BLOG Question 1: “...Are there any other medium besides images that show “clash of civilization”? If yes, what are they? Do you agree with Cloud that the USA had a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women? Explain why? Can another tactic be more effective to rally the public than using the image of a savior who is helping the hopeless? And in your own words, define how you understand the burden of “white men” and how it can be used in a rhetorical manner to convince people of something.”
Please excuse this response, it might be a little longer than the conventional response but more questions are being asked and I would like to respond to each in an effective manner.
In response to the first part of the question, yes I believe there are other mediums aside from images that can show “clash of civilization” but they will not be easy to find, they won’t present the “clash” as clearly and will take a level of competence that most Americans don’t have. In reading a recent article by Gary Brown titled, “The Power of Saddam Hussein’s War Rhetoric” another effective medium that was used and represented was the medium of radio and newspaper journalism. I think it will be universally agreed that Saddam Hussein doesn’t represent the ideas of western capitalism for many reasons but that is another conversation. The point is that Saddam Hussein’s radio broadcasts in themselves are perfect examples of the “clash of civilization” as described by cloud. They are religious in nature and encourage other Islamic leaders to fight against the idea of western capitalism. However, this also ties into the second and third part of my answer. The question is: How will the American people hear Saddam’s Rhetorical address to the people of Iraq. The answer is: most American people won’t and or don’t care to be competent and read an article such as the one published by Brown on understanding how Saddam used rhetoric to gain support of the Iraqi people. This isn’t to say that American’s are dumb but the sources of Saddam’s radio address probably won’t be on the 5 o’clock news or easily accessible. Secondly, it would be in another language and would require translation. This is why the medium of radio or journalism isn’t used in American mainstream media. This is why you see images instead but I do believe that there are other mediums besides images that show this “clash of civilization”.
Does the USA have a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women? I would say that the US portrays a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women but it misrepresents the images due to lack of cultural competence. The images and rhetoric the US used to justify the war according to Cloud imply an interesting image toward Afghan women. It’s an image that these women want to be a position of leadership and show their strength but are suppressed by the men with guns. It implies that Afghan men have a disrespect for the place of women other than having children and looking after them. Women are seen more so as objects and nannies. These last few sentences are the general American understanding of women as viewed from the eyes of Afghan men in an American context. This is not culturally competent. Afghan women may still be viewed by Afghan men as respected and honored but the contextual understanding is much different. This is coming from a culture where it is socially acceptable for men to beat women if they misbehave and have power over them. Americans view women as having a much different purpose. They view them as the person in charge of running the family and that holds a very paternal aspect. This is the reason for a paternalistic bias.
Another effective image other than “…the image of a savior who is helping the homeless” might be the image of an Afghan woman protecting her child by holding them. This could evoke the idea that Afghan women are protecting the future and literally holding the future in their hands. I feel this image would be much more effective due to its emphasis on the future and the role of women as protectors of that future. It encourages Americans to “act now” to change the future and we live in a high context society that is future oriented.
Lastly, I understand the burden of “white men” as having great responsibility to promote justice and equality. Statistically, white, middle class men represent the majority (or controlling) power in society. Women have made great advancements such as: the right to vote, increased pay and positions in the corporate world. However, it is still (sadly, because women have a much different and better psychological understanding than men as to the purpose of working together to achieve a common goal) true that fewer women in the corporate world are in positions of power. It is still true that a woman with the same qualifications (or in some cases better qualifications) then men earn less money. It is still true that women are expected to: dress, act and possess a different and more socially judged/accepted behavior then men. The list goes on. The point is: women aren’t held to the same standard as men and men can get away with far more and it is still considered socially acceptable. All of these are reasons why I feel the burden of “white men” is to promote justice and equality. I feel I have used this point IN A RHETORICAL manner to illustrate the point and I think it can continue to be used in the SOCIOLOGICAL FACTUAL manner to justify the position. It is the responsibility of MEN to identify these inequalities and use our SOCIETAL power to MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE.
No comments:
Post a Comment