can we live without communication technologies

All of us have at least a television at home and some of us might even have subscribed to starhub cable and bought all our favourite channels to watch. Some or almost all of us carry mobile phones, be it iphones or blackberries. What about the internet and all the things we do it with such as join social networks and use emails to send out messages in split seconds. Can we actually live without all these for say even a day? Well i know that i can't. 

Is it not just amazing how all these communication technologies have helped us to communicate across physical and psychological 

strains and barriers and in this day and age it is hard not to use something that is a communication technology device. With this in mind, i would like to talk about the impact of social networking online and the flipside of it where it might not be so beneficial in the end. A form of CMC(computer mediated communication), social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, MySpace and what not has given us the opportunity to be whoever we want and be able to connect with people whom we know in re

al life and people who we might not know that well all on cyber space. It is indeed something that has invaded our lives and has allowed us to be able to interact with people setting aside time and place factors. For example, i keep a faceboo

k account so that i can keep in touch especially with friends i do not get to see anymore or who i hardly get the privilege to meet in person. Some of these people are overseas studying or some have graduated from school and have moved on. Previously, during our parents generations, they never had things like this. It was harder for them to keep in touch with their old schoolmates and even if they did only one or two would keep in contact. However, now we have a entirely new platform ton cyberspace which helps us to find friends such as through facebook or tweet' about what's happening in our lives and keeping our social circles updated without any hassle. Social networking online is there a unique and powerful method of CMC. 

However, there are also downsides to using such social networking sites.  A few years ago,  an American teenager, Megan Meier, committed suicide after being harassed and bullied online by a boy whom she supposedly has a close relationship with. She communicated with him regularly via MySpace, another famous social networking site and she eventually started to receive verbal abuse from her the person she was communicating with. This is reflective of of how CMC has changed human communication. Where in the past there was schoolyard bullying, now there is cyber bullying, where anyone can take on a different identity virtually and in reality. Even as we participate in relationship building virtually, all these things come into play when it comes to communication and the switching of identities. For example, we might not know if a stranger we meet online is who he or she claims to be in reality. Hence,such issues are hence prevalent in our day and age, where anything can happen in a virtual world. Where anyone can be anybody they wish to be. Perhaps that is also one factor which makes virtual communication a little bit more risky and impersonal.

Despite all this, CMC has contributed to fast access to information and people  and has advantaged mankind in helping us to communicate across time and space borders. However, we must also be careful of the wiles of the internet especially when more younger people are starting to communicate with large groups of people in social networking sites which span across myriads of countries, nationalities and time zones.

agenda setting

Recently or till today, the news has been reporting on a certain salient issue that has been happening since the beginning of last week: The Iran protests and its Twitter revolution.

In the American News, from the New York Times to

 CNN and from other important news sources such as BBC, we see headlines covering the Iran Protests which were sparked off last week. In seeing this, we can really understand the powerful and evident agenda setting function of the media. 

This entire week , the focus of the American media has been on the violence on the protest while last week the media talked more about how

 the protests brought the Iranians together in use of social networking sites such as Twitter to plan and execute whatever they needed to. This shows how the media changes what it deems as important over time in a certain issue. 

If you refer to the links below, you will see that the NY Times (online) talks about this issue on its front page and and the news story is seen to be very prominent when you first visit that website. Secondly, the article is referred to as 'Iran Tense Day after Violent Clashes'. It framed the issue in such a way that presented the Iran Protests as extremely violent and uncontrollable such as by saying that "militia forces used guns, truncheons, tear gas and water cannons to beat back thousands of demonstrators" and that "large numbers of have demonstrated their willingness to risk injury and even death". We can therefore tell protestors by the choice of words used in the articles by journalists on how they want to frame the issue to the public and in this case the framing it in terms of its rampant violence. Also if we looked at the other articles, the messages are all framed in a similar manner. This shows the ability of the media to set the agenda for the public which in turn becomes policy agenda.

Agenda setting is hence something that is not that obvious to the media consumer but something that is powerful enough to get people talking about certain issues while  de-emphasizing other issues that might be of equal importance to people, which in more technical terms, is called priming. Just as i have picked out the example of the Iran protests issue and the media's coverage on it, there are many other examples of agenda setting such as the local H1N1 case. The media steps up its coverage on the issue when things supposedly get more serious, which then gets the public talking about it. Here, the media uses its influence to set the topic for the public and gets people talking. This is then typical of the moderate effects of the media through its agenda setting function. Unlike direct effects theories of media effects, agenda setting is on the other end of the pendulum where the effects are indirect, meaning that the effects of the media does not come through a one-step flow of information but rather a two-step flow of information from the media to the people. Here it means that the media, through agenda setting, can affect interpersonal channels of communication as well by setting certain issues above others. 

In a nutshell, from the news media, we can tell how powerful the agenda setting function of the media can be and how the media can really get us to talk about something with our peers and to spread ideas and opinions just by making certain issues salient and others not. 

Links for Reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/middleeast/22iran.html?_r=1&hp 

(New York Times)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.election/index.html

(CNN)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8111352.stm

(BBC)

Phua Chu Kang: Cultural icon or cultural disaster?

Has anyone yet been able to catch the sightings of phua chu kang's yellow boots, inappropriately curly hair and a mole the size of a 50 cent coin? 

Well i have. On every SMRT train, unfortunately. Long gone are the days when i see Spongebob Squarepants filling advertising spaces. However, that is besides the point!

This Phua Chu Kang advertisement  however, did hit a home run in teaching me about how intercultural communication plays an important role in our lives and in a country like ours, where courtesy and manners is part of a core value instilled into Singaporeans through courtesy campaigns such as these recent Phua Chu Kang advertisements. That is one issue i will be touching on. Secondly, i will question how a famous fictional character such as the likes of Phua Chu Kang is chosen out of all the public figures we know, to reinforce and maintain these cultural standards that we have set for ourselves? 

Do you remember the courtesy lion? I still see him around too. As we all know the government has made sure that its people, the Singaporeans are given the chance to be educated on courtesy, politeness and simple manners. As if it wasn't enough that we were being taught those values in our traditional Asian homes with the help of the cane, the government has to whip out its own disciplining materials which come in the form of advertising campaigns directed at instilling a sense of cautiousness and conscientiousness in the way we behave in public. It reflects alot on our society and our Singaporean 'culture' which we can say is derived from traditional Confucius values and what not. Well, i could say without a doubt that this is what our country was built upon as well. Values that were passed down from our forefathers have been ingrained in our society such as filial piety, respect and most importantly public manners. Without this, our image as a well respected Asian country will be scarred and our cultural values will be lost. It will too save the tourists and guests to our country from gaining bad experiences in their trips here.

The Phua Chu Kang advertisement's purpose is simple. It is to make sure that every Singaporean learns how to behave well in public by learning how to stand behind the yellow line at the mrt stations and not to rush in like a pack of animals fighting for territory. Phua Chu Kang, as shown in the picture above, teaches how to let passengers alight before boarding the train. It wasn't enough that they started to draw the actual yellow line to direct passengers but people still did not listen. Therefore, they started this nation wide campaign telling people to behave! I personally found it an insult because as a Singaporean and being part of the of the Singaporean culture, i have already learnt to be respectful and courteous in the way i behave in public. In fact, i have been amused first hand at how Singaporeans still lack the courtesy to behave appropriately in the mrt stations despite this campaign.  There is probably a conflict in values here. The government pictures our country carrying values as such but at the end of the day it is up to the people to create the culture. We may have an 'image' of being courteous, polite and well mannered but when tourists and guests actually see our behaviour with their own eyes, they will see otherwise. What they will see is a culture where people do not really take into account their mannerisms in public. They will define our culture as one that is in the rush all the time, fast paced, inconsiderate even. The ultimate lesson i learnt from this is that we, the people, create culture. Together, we can also shape and redefine it, just like an organization changes its principles and guidelines to manage issues along the way. That is what creates its culture and redefines it along the way.

Secondly, is it not amazing how Phua Chu Kang has become a representative of the Singaporean culture? Singlish speaking, financially well-off, money minded, rough and tumble and a little not-so -sophisticated...etc . Would all of you think that he is a correct representative of the Singaporean culture? I would think not maybe 50% of him could be an accurate representation, especially the Singlish speaking, money-making part. However, as a Singaporean myself i would see myself as educated, sophisticated and polished. Or perhaps i do not fit into the culture here at all? I do not know really. Culture is really difficult to put a finger on, especially in Singapore where we have myriads of ethnic groups and people on different parts of the ladder in society. For example, in my parents days, according to them at least, people did not behave like this. People had a bit more manners, were hardworking, friendly and courteous. Now, we live in a fast paced society and our culture takes on that of a paper chasing, money making, indifferent and impolite disposition. As a result, no matter what the government does to 'educate' the public, the people do not drastically change because culture is such a powerful thing. We define it. The government does not. A Phua Chu Kang advertisement does not.

 

Is the full integration of cultural groups possible?

'Integration in the Indian Community', Straits Times,  June 7 2009

This article is about the recent talk on the integration of the Indian community, not just different subgroups of Indians into the entire indian community, but more of the integration of the indian community as a whole into society. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development Youth and Sports gave a speech at SINDA (Singapore Indian Development Association) addressing the need for the Indian community, albeit being small, to be fully integrated instead of just focusing on community integrations. Hence, he focused on two issues, integration at a community level and integration as a whole. 

This issue reinforces the importance for different cultural and racial groups to achieve some form of integration especially when Singapore has become home to thousands of immigrants who work here. 

One of the things that i felt a strong conviction about is the integration of different cultural groups and communities together. Having been born and raised in Singapore and being a minority group member of the society, i have observed several patterns of integration in Singapore. I realized that most things were done at the community level. One basic example, GRCs have different tyes of committees to take care of different racial groups and to make sure that these racial groups come together and feel a sense of belonging in this country. Most often than not, this is the type of practice that segregates us as a society in a very subtle way.

What about Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC (Chinese development assistance council) etc and such organizations are created for the purpose of bringing a certain ethnic group together. These groups come together to not only for a sense of social unity and cohesion but also creates bonding ethnic relationships close to cultural and racial values. 

My question is, is Singapore or CAN Singapore be a truly culturally integrated society where we don't just focus on integrating people from a certain ethnic or cultural group within their own community but also on a national scale? Another example here reinforces my point. If we look at the grassroots level programmes, they have malay/indian activity executive committees to plan and organize events for the respective racial groups. These events are designed to bring harmony between the respective racial groups and the community at large. Sometimes i wonder how that is going to happen if events and activities are planned by Indians. Perhaps these communities only exist so that racial groups can feel that they are a part of something in society but at the end of the day it only de-emphasizes the identity of the country as a whole. 

There is alot of emphasis on community level bonding but what about integration of all ethnic groups into society. The article's main focus was about immigrant Indians such as expatriates who have started to move into the heartlands even more than they are moving into expensive condominiums. Hence, as we see a greater influx of immigrants coming into this country, we should be aware and alert on how our own people are integrated into society as a whole before we can even consider thinking about how we can go about integrating the immigrant groups. Then again, immigrant groups carry a different culture with them. E.g. Indians from India are not like the Indians from Singapore. The same goes for the Chinese and the Malays. 

Groups work with interaction, interdependence, shared values and strive to achieve a collective identity. It is definitely a challenge trying to keep within your own culture and at the same time integrating as one big Singaporean culture. Group dynamics are therefore complex and require a lot of effort for groups to take that step to integrate into a larger group, with a national identity. It satisfies a group's need for inclusion and enables and aids socialization where people start to follow a different set of rules. That will certainly help our country in achieving unity amongst its people who will, at the end of the day, share the same core values and beliefs and feel a part of a bigger purpose. One day, i wish we can come to a point where we can call ourselves Singaporeans more often instead of Chinese, Indians and Malays alone. I might be being pretty Utopian in my standards but it helps us to reflect on how difficult it is for groups, who have shared values, customs and social beliefs and practices to stop looking at themselves as one entity of 'Chinese people' or Indian people' but instead, 'Singaporeans' who for example, speak Singlish no matter what racial group we belong to. Now that is what i call full integration of different groups into one big group: the Singaporean group.

Casual Love Relationships

Here is a synopsis of this movie, for those who haven't watched it:

 [Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) is a notorious photographer who has a bad boy reputation of loving beautiful women and dumping them when they fall in love with him. Beautiful models and celebrities flock to his studio to get their picture taken, usually in lingerie, and throw themselves at him. Conner is so overloaded with women that he has to breakup with three women at the same time during a conference call in front of his next 

prey. His brother Paul (Breckin Meyer) is about to get married, and Connor thinks he is making a terrible mistake. As an incorrigible bachelor, Connor loves his freedom more than ever settling down and loving only one woman. Connor tries to talk Paul out of getting married, and it looks like Connor is about to succeed. Then the night before the wedding, Connor is visited by three ghosts, who take him back to his past, present, and his lonely future. They try to discovery the point in time where Connors became this womanizing jerk. Maybe there is still time to change him into a sensitive, feeling, and caring person that he once was, and he may even find his true love.]

This movie is rich in displaying interpersonal communication dynamics which includes conflict and the initiation and disengagement phases of a relationship.

The ones that were the most prominent, noticeable and i

mpactful was the relationship between the main protagonist, Connor Mead and his brother as well as the female lead, Jenny Perotti. There were also pretty important things to examine in Mead's rela

tionship with the temporary girlfriends, which we will get to later.

Firstly, we see the interpersonal dynamics between Mead and his brother who is about to get married. He walks into the place, and when asked to give a toast, Mead litters his speech with cynical remarks about marriage and injects his strong opinion against marriage into the toast. The whole time he spits at the idea of getting married and committed to only one woman and like the synopsis says he tries to convince his brother out of it. 

The dynamics between his brother and him is quite interesting in this movie because we actually see the power that Mead has over his brother through his opinions. While his brother initially thinks that it is a ridiculous thing for him to say such things about the institution of marriage, slowly we see his brother start to slowly and gradually conform to Mead's ideals about marriage as he gets persuaded by Mead's proposition to live life with many women instead of one. Mead's goal during this period of interaction he had with his brother was all about his selfish ambition to bring his brother over to 'his side' where there is no such thing as tying the knot. His goals are clear and evident throughout his interaction during his visit to his brother's wedding.We can also see how two different values in two different individuals clashed at this point in time.I personally felt that perhaps Mead's brother did not hold that strong to his values for marriage because he was pretty easily swayed by Mead's opinion's in the movie. So we do see such complexities in interpersonal com

munication even in a modern day movie like this which typif

ies and represents the relationship issues and ideals we face and hold respectively in this day and age.

One issue that i really could not get over was the issue of casual sex and Mead's representation of the average young bachelor male who is not looking to ever get married but to probably live with partners or change partners over time without any commitment. We actually do meet people like that today and it made me think about how casual sex affects interpersonal communication in a relationship. Due to today's evolving interpersonal relationships, we see many people get into casual friendships but what really irks me is to think that there are those who engage in casual sexual relationships. 

It makes me ponder about how it affects interpersonal communication and most importantly how it affects the initiation, engagement and disengagement of the relationship. The beginning of such casual relationships usually make use of strong non verbal cues such as appearance, such as the luring of the other party with good looks, charm and wit just like the main protagonist of this movie and his many female partners. Both parties use strong non verbal cues to attract one another and to communicate messages of liking and interest. 

In the movie, Mead's relationships with women ended on a bitter note and there wasn't really much 'closure' to the ending of the relationships, which left the other parties upset, angry and bitter. So perhaps casual sexual relationships are not that good after all because it could make disengagement even more difficult, at least for one party. It is just like breaking up except that either one or both parties had agreed initially to have a sexual relationship. And if both do not have that mutual understanding in the first place, then there is bound to be conflict and one person might end up getting hurt. 

We can also look at it in terms of the different expectations that both parties might have when they first embark on a relationship. What one might have in mind might not be or ever be the expectation of the other. It is usually difficult for both parties to enter a relationship on the same note; meaning, having similar expectations. The only similarities would probably lie in cultural and social similarities. So how do casual sexual relationships start? Besides the initiation phase; which might combine a rich panoply of verbal and most importantly non verbal cues. What about the possible disengagement of the relationship? Do people stay long in sexual relationships? Are there the few who take a step further? Or does it all lead to misunderstandings and a bitter ending with little or no closure?

It is definitely a thorny issue and since we all have different values and beliefs, it'll be great to hear from those who might see casual sex with a different take.

bilateral ties and structural principles in communications

Recently, Malaysian PM , Najib Razak visited Singapore on the sole purpose to build and strengthen the bilateral relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He had several items on his agenda, Iskandar, the Causeway issue and POA, the points of agreements between the two countries over several issues.

After reading articles about his visit to Singapore from different sources, it dawned upon me the role of communications in serving bilateral ties between countries, and in this case, between Singapore and Malaysia which have had ties which have gone back all the way before Singapore's independence.

Structural and organizing  principles used in communications play a role in cooperation and rapport between two countries, just like it does between individuals, groups, societies etc.  Referring to PM Najib's visit to Singapore, such principles were played out, at least visibly. When it comes to structure and organization, such as that of thoughts, attitudes and behaviours in communications, the Malaysian Prime Minister came to Singapore with several motives, ideas and opinions that he knew he was going to communicate out while he was here on visit. He came with an agenda, a purpose to build relationship. Also, evidently, he had to be aware of his role as the prime minister of Malaysia and also how the role or position he was in as an individual, and the role that he was given to, to represent Malaysia. In addition,being an ASEAN nation, or rather being part of the ASEAN also played an important role for both Najib and PM Lee Hsien Loong in carrying out these talks and seeking cooperatives through commonly set agenda. Hence, all these tie up to reflect organizing or rather structural principles used in communications, in these case between two countries who are on the move to clear things up, misconceptions and such through such bilateral talks and visits.

My point is that communications is sometimes structured, things have to be done in certain ways, either because we are in the position to do so or because it is acceptable and permissible  for things to be communicated in certain ways

Looking beyond Singapore and Malaysia's bilateral ties, we can also see such structure in communications, where if things are not done in certain ways, it breaks down, or there is possibly no meaning in it anymore. All the way back in history, when treaties were made, cooperatives were carried out, international organizations were birth forth, communications and structural principles played a massive role and we can pretty much say that it is like a backbone for communications, like i mentioned, between individuals, groups or on a national level. Without acknowledging structure such as knowing what roles we play in the communication process and what our goals are, our purpose for communication becomes.

The controversy might lie in the issue in the way some countries deal with their bilateral or international ties. I would not say that there might be any countries who have 'failed' in communicating peace across their borders, but we constantly see countries trying really hard to bring cooperation and agreement with other nations, especially those whom they have certain degrees of conflict and tension with. If we look at it in terms of structure and communications, do you think that perhaps they might have failed in carrying out the communicative process wrongly. For example, something or somewhere along the process, things were out of structure or not communicated the way it was supposed to be?  For example, the recent EU-Russia talks which were centered around Russia's involvement in the European Union especially in terms of its economy. Russia was not happy that the EU was offering ties with former soviet republic countries, and the recent summit that they had been described as a 'failure' to bring any breakthrough between the EU and Russia. 

Structure is therefore imperative and especially when it comes to ties amongst nations, where the most difficult communication processes lie.

Articles:

1. "PM Lee says Malaysian PM's visit has further enhanced bilateral ties", 22 May 2009. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=najib&id=431146 

2. "S'pore, Malaysia will explore ways to enhance connectivity at Causeway", 22 May 2009

  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=najib&id=431021

discrimination or just plain trivial and incorrect judgments about race?

'White African American Sues New Jersey Medical School for Discrimination', the title of an ABC News article reads.

My initial impression of this article: There were a few things wrong or otherwise interesting about this headline when i first saw it:

'White African American', Medical School' and 'Discrimination'. =D

Looking back into the 16 to 1900s, communication theories such as the idols of the cave existed, where it tried to explain individual prejudicial behaviour of human beings and also tried to understand why people adopted  a certain type of mentality and refused to break out of it. It simply shows that such behaviour predicted way back then still exists today, as seen in this article.

If you read this article, its about a medical student who speaks up during his culture studies class in medical school and claims that he is a 'white african american'. He ultimately offends a fellow classmate, irks the lecturer and finally gets thrown into a full blown disciplinary case by the medical school. 

A big brouhaha over an innocent and truthful claim that he was 'white african american, which later in the article, claims to have been a truthful statement made by the student. So why the big fuss? Why was his classmate offended that he would claim to be African American when he had white skin? That's what i wanted to know. Its trivial, at least to me, to ruin one's personal career, over this.

Perception maybe? Perhaps the classmate of his already had his or her own set of beliefs and ideas about race and racism. Having lived amongst circumstances that had shaped those beliefs and the way she/he looked at the world through a different prescription of lens could have been imperative in this mild difference in perception. Living in his or her own bubble could have led to the classmate feeling deeply offended that one with white skin would call himself an African American. Therefore, this is clearly descriptive of a possible misconception and marred perception about racial issues. Perception is always moulded by the experiences we have gone through, how we look at other people, how we want to look at them and sometimes its amazing how stubborn people can be at perceiving things the way they want to. It could be consciously done, sometimes not. I am very sure the classmate of his knew that he was speaking the truth about his mixed ethnicity but he or she was just so offended that someone who looked white would call himself black. So that in itself was the student's choice to look at the situation through a different lens: which i presume is a product of the student's collective experiences, values and beliefs when it comes to racial issues.

I could identify perhaps with this minority student who was offended by Serodio, the medical student who is White African American. America has had it's share of racial tension even till the recent presidential campaigns. 

As a minority in my own country,  i could perhaps identify with sensitivity over such issues such as being offended over something most would think is not so serious. 'Sensitive' is the word that people might use to describe our response to such situations where talk about race/ethnicity is fragile and should be carefully handled. 

Alot of times, i've been in situations where a group of my chinese friends start speaking in Mandarin despite acknowledging that i did not know Mandarin and that i was sitting right there in the conversation. I would often feel rejected, hurt and insulted. When i spoke up and made my plea, i would be usually, eventually, labeled as the 'sensitive' one. "Why you so sensitive one? It's not like we purposely do what". That's what they always say.

But little do they know, that from my point of view, from where i'm coming, my past, my environment and everything else that has shaped me as a minority race in Singapore affects the way i perceive racism. In this case, what didn't seem to be a big deal to my chinese friends was a big deal to me.

Maybe that's why this became a big deal for Serodio. He could not put a finger to why it was a problem, but to that one minority student, it was a big deal. It's all about being shaped by perception, looking at issues such as racism through different stratum of beliefs, ideas and opinions, that shape us individually and make us think so differently to that point that such tension and conflict arise.

And that's why communication is so hard to crack. Then again, without it, we would also be leading pretty boring lives and deprived of reading such interesting headlines on the news once in awhile ;)

ABC News (2009). 'White African American' Suing NJ Medical School For Discrimination.

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=7567291&page=2