(Note: I will try to include each Q.W. we post in class.)

Quick-Write No.1

You move to France due to political oppression and physical dangers in your own country.  You don't speak French, but the social pressure there is that everyone speak it.  How do you feel about this?

Quick-Write No.2

Of these metaphors for cultural diversity, which one do you prefer and why? 

Melting Pot, Tributaries, Crayola Culture (Time magazine), Tapestry, Garden Salad.

You may propose a newer and better one if you wish, explaining why it is so. 

Quick-Write No.3

Given all the differences between cultures, what values do you think might be universal (if any)?  That is, are there any values that can be found everywhere, in any culture?

 Quick-Write No.4

Some questions posed by the authors of an intercultural communication exercise book.  The focus is on perception, and they extend the assumptions about perceiving physical objects to relational and non-physical ideas.

Re: hypotheses about perception:

1. what we perceive can be misleading.
2. perceptions depend on context, particularly cultural context.
3. different people have different perceptions of the same stimulus, and all perceptions may be equally valid.

Reaction to no. 3:

Perceptions of objects may be equally valid.  However, applying that principle to persons and principles is a different matter.  For example, an incorrect perspective about the law/principle of gravity could cost a person their life.  Objects are also devoid of intentions.  Perceive me how you will, but if it does not approximate or match my intended “message” or meaning, it is not equally valid.

This discussion goes to the root of newer definitions of tolerance, moving from “accepting that there are differing truth claims which are not necessarily equal in validity,” to (a new definition of tolerance) “accepting that all truth claims are equally valid.”  “P.C.” trends would, additionally, force us to endorse all perspectives, regardless of their validity.

The assignment, then, is to react to the original question, and/or the reaction posted below it.

Do your best to describe as many relationships between values and communication as you can think of.  Feel free to use metaphors and analogies, if necessary (i.e., Values are to communication as __________ is to __________, because _______________________________________________________ . ).

After you are done, identify (with a star or arrow, for instance) which one you think is the most vital or important to effective intercultural communication.

Quick-Write No.6

In our discussion of the possibility of universal values, one argument that we summarized was that interpersonal trust was (1) not a universal value, because people operate by fear, by contrast, and (2) that fear is a "flipside" of trust, a kind of counter-balancing value, and thereby, proving that trust is not universal.  Others disagreed, of course, as per our wonderful debate and discussion; counter arguments were offered.  But let's pause this discussion a little, and focus on the fear proposition. 

Here is a possible alternate analysis of the fear proposition:

Contrary to the fear argument, fear is not a value in and of itself; it is, in fact, instrumental for something deeper, something more basic.  What is that?  Consistency and reliability.  As we illustrated with good guys and bad guys in our prior discussion, what does the "bad guy" want?  Does he value the fear itself?  No, he wants predicability (consistent behavior) and control (over that person).  He/she wants to know that the target's behavior can be predicted, and that the target's behavior can be controlled.  That is, fear is instrumental, it helps them gain what they really want. 

Here is at least one real difference between trust and fear:  the people who benefit from the use of fear are only those using it, whereas the people who have trust in one another both benefit from it.

Furthermore, this is why we can claim that using fear, valuing fear as a mechanism to control others, is unethical.  It lacks fairness in distributing benefits to the parties involved.  And, since be believe that each human has inalienable rights to freedom (remember the US Constitution), the use of fear is unethical because it takes away a person's freedom.

Questions: (1) How do you respond?  (2) Any other arguments you might offer to this discussion?