Rediscover, Reflect, Reinvent

Where to begin on what I got out of reading "Reading Lolita in Tehran!" First I think I may need to preface this with a confession: I just finished reading the book two days ago. I am a slow reader. It took me five weeks to read what I should have in two! But, I don't really feel bad about it because I enjoyed reading it so much. I savored each page of the book. I learned from each little story, each little anecdote full of wisdom. I reconnected with the power of literature in this book. I took away the feeling of being human. The feeling of being able to survive through the worst of moments, like living in fear of dying from bombs and being harassed by morality police. I took away the strength to cope. I took away the ability to find beauty in every situation. One of the best lessons in this book is the lesson to look at things from a different perspective. Nafisi's magician kept telling her to think about how frustrated the government must be with her. Nafisi shares with us all of the different view point of all the girls in her reading group. She contrasts how all of the different girls, well women really, have different views about everything. This is just one of those human things, and that really connects into literature and that people are people and no matter what they are going to have their own thoughts and opinions. I also connected with the aspect of people being united against something too. The women in this novel are united against the strict rules of the government. I also took away lessons about complacency and how we in many ways allow other people to shape our lives. We allow them to have power over us. I think that lesson is really important for anyone, especially if you have concerns about the government and politics, which I do. It's really hard to find just one thing that I took away from this book, because this book is not packaged up in a nice little way that you can separate out all the elements and lessons and define them. This book is so intertwined and intermingled and messy that I just have to keep naming all the little things that it did for me. Just like Nafisi says near the end of the book, she can't write about Austen or Nabakov without writing about her life in Tehran. The lesson there is that context matters, that everything touches everything. Things affect us and become a part of us. We can't go through life without being affected. The places we go, the people we meet, even the random acquaintances, or the people you see once or twice become a part of you. What Nafisi teaches us is that we can take all of that and write it all down again and share it. Her lesson is about rediscovery and reflection and about reinvention. I took a lot away from this book, and I think it's a part of me now.

Social Pressure

I would have to agree with Harvey Silvergate’s view that “the first amendment should protect your right to say what you wish, but that you are not immune to what happens after that. You may be subjected to angry retorts, public shunning, and social pressure, but you should not be officially punished for your language.” Its pretty obvious that social pressure will always be much more effective at influencing what people say than official mandates or rules. Our natural tendency is to censor ourselves according to our social surroundings. If you walk into a church you’re not going to be shouting the f-word because you know that it would put you in a very uncomfortable and awkward situation. You wouldn’t try to tell a bunch of sexist jokes around a group of women or a bunch of racist jokes around people of that race. Being an offensive person is just not very socially acceptable so people will more naturally avoid it.
Hateful language eventually just fails because it is wrong and people either have personal conviction against it or are afraid of the social consequences. No one wants to be perceived as a bigot, so they avoid using words that would make them look like one. Undoubtedly the same may be true that when a group of people agrees that a racist or sexist attitude is okay that they won’t change their language, but this is usually only in the case that the group is very exclusive, and such language would most likely be limited to the group where it would feel safe to use such language but not in the whole of society.
Take for example the act of flag-burning. A lot of people are offended by someone burning the American flag. The fact that most people will hate you for burning the flag is a much bigger deterrent from burning the flag than if there were a law against it. Restrictive laws and rules about what you can or can’t say tend to bring out a rebellious nature in people that will make them just find a more creative way to avoid getting caught rather than convicting people that what they are doing is wrong. Usually rules don’t make you feel bad about what you did, the disapproval of people around is what can make you feel awful and seek to rectify the situation on your own.
So, leaving natural consequences to take care of things seems the simplest and smartest thing to do. Why put extra effort into tracking down all these offenders when they’re just going to end up learning their lesson on their own anyways? It just seems like a waste of resources to be out policing what people say. Let public opinion and social pressure be the censor, let people censor themselves accordingly if need be. People will because it helps them survive and fit in with their environment. Let people make their own battles and figure out what is appropriate to say or not say.

Read it.

Pour yourself a big cup of coffee, sit down and lose yourself in Reading Lolita in Tehran. This book is a wonderful window into another world. It tells a story of human struggle that anyone can identify with. It is bustling with relevant modern themes and timeless wisdom. The book eloquently weaves the political, religious and revolutionary settings together to create a world that is foreign and nightmarish, a startlingly real context in which its story can enfold. Above all this book is a work of art that sheds light on what it means to be a woman in the Islamic Republic of Tehran, and further more what it means to be human.
This book has special relevance in today's world. Iran is one of the most talked about Middle Eastern countries currently. The news is always a buzz about new developments in Iran. Most of these updates have to do with the alleged plans to build weapons of mass destruction. Iran usually comes up in the terms of a "what should we do about them" type of debate. Iran is primarily viewed as being a problem that the Western world has to deal with. Meanwhile we form our opinions about this country and its people in total ignorance. Most Americans have no idea what language the people of Iran speak much less anything relevant about the Iranian culture. As Americans we have little to no understanding of Iranian history, or about who the Shah was or what the Islamic Revolution is. This book is extremely relevant because it discusses these types of things.
Reading Lolita in Tehran gives us a look at the Islamic Revolution from the inside. It takes us into the lives of those affected by the change brought about by it. It gives us a radically new perspective on a familiar topic which we are ill informed about. This book discusses what happens when religion becomes a political force, or when political forces use religion. There is an extra layer of brilliance to this book being that it is from a woman's perspective and deals with the right's of women in a male-controlled society.
However more interesting than the politics discussed in this book is the discussion of literature. The book steers away from reality and politics and takes root in literature and philosophy. The book is much like reading the author Azar Nafisi's mind. We can hear her thoughts and musings about life through the words she writes. This is where the book excels. It is much like a diary and Nafisi is able to always maintain an intimacy with the reader.
I can definately recommend this book. It will challenge you. It will challenge you to peer into another world. It will challenge you to identify with human struggles. It will challenge your understanding of the Iranian people and culture. It will challenge you to think and ponder about politics, religion and revolution. It will challenge your ideals and your ideas. It will challenge you. Enjoy the challenge.

A word and a blow

Pitch, tone, volume, facial expression and touch have a profound effect on the meanings of our words. They can work together to create completely new meanings. They change the context of the words and give them new connotations. Both men and women, as human beings, have mastered using these non-verbal tools in communication.

Pitch has a lot to do with the meaning of what we say. Have you ever noticed that that a man speaks deeper when he tries to be serious? Have ever noticed that women's voices jump up an octave when they answer a friend's phone call? Those are examples of how we change our pitch to communicate something. Men might also use a deeper voice to be poignant, scary or sexy. Woman seem to often use a higher voice to show their excitement or femininity.

Even more than pitch, tone can drastically alter the meaning of what we say. "Don't you use that tone of voice with me young lady!" is a phrase you may have often heard your mother or father say. The tone of voice can make the same words "he's a genius" mean different things. A sarcastic tone can imply the opposite; he is an moron. The tone of our voice can make us sound like we are being rude, disrespectful, accusatory or argumentative even though sometimes we do not mean to be. "That's not what I meant." or "It just came out that way." are common defenses when we believe our tone of voice, and therefore, the meaning of our words have been misunderstood.

Like tone, volume can also add a dynamic to the meaning of our speech. The same words if they are whispered might not have the same meaning if they are yelled, although they could so long as the same tone is employed. Whispering fire is not the same as yelling "FIRE!" not just because of the volume but because of the tone of urgency. More than effecting the meaning of the words by the volume we use, we often choose the volume to use based on the social situation. Volume can be used to conceal information from many as in the case of a whisper, or to project a message to many in the case of a shout.

Even more dynamic than our volume can be our facial expressions. Watch a stand-up comedian. Listen to the same routine on a cd. It's still funny, but you really miss out on a lot without the facial expressions. Facial expressions are a dramatic tool to effect meaning on the words; together with tone, pitch and volume, facial expression projects emotion. Simply saying "That's disgusting" is meaningful, but making a face portraying yourself in a state of inevitable vomiting multiplies the meaning.

Like the physical act of facial expressions, touch can add one more layer to the power of nonverbal cues. Saying "I love you" can take on different meanings if it is followed by a hug or by a kiss or by grabbing some booty. Touch brings the parties communicating together in the case of hugging but it can also push them apart if one "make[s] it a word and a blow" (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet). Picture yourself in a crowded bar. You say "excuse me" as you try to navigate your way through but your shoulder makes a bit too much contact with someone, your "excuse me," however well intended, may take on a meaning of rudeness and lead to an unpleasant evening.

Men and women can employ all of these techniques, albeit in their own ways. Any major difference between the use of these non-verbal techniques most likely stems from cultural differences rather than differences between the sexes. As human beings we have all mastered the art of using pitch, tone, volume, facial expression and touch to communicate. We are masters of these nonverbal cues because for us, it is simply natural.

Empenadas

Well I have to sneak a non-English related post in here some where, so here it is!

Life is a bit tiring at the moment, I have had work one or two days every weekend for the past couple months. That's really great and I am very great full, just get a little worn out on the commute. Usually days when I work (like today) end up being almost two days in one! Very long. I am having a bit of trouble getting to sleep so I actually didn't hear my alarm this morning and had to go 80mph the whole time i was on the freeway to get to work on time, which is no bueno for gas mileage.

I did get to eat some bomb empanadas today though. My girlfriend's family had their annual St. Joseph celebration, which is basically a couple hours of praying and then TONS of food, today. I came once I got off work so I was very happy that my wonderful girlfriend saved me some empanadas, if you didn't hear: they're bomb. Not as awesome as the girlfriend that saved them for me though. Love that girl.

Schools been pretty much same as usual, I'm keeping up with stuff for the most part. Jumping back to the subject of jobs, I had an interview for the City of Palmdale Public Library last Tuesday (March 9th) so I'm just waiting to hear back whether or not I got the job!

Things with DragonCow and Rebel Filmmakers have been sorta slow, but we're picking up steam again:
1. found someone that's interested in filming/editing.
2. found someone to do website design and production photography
3. found someone interested in doing hair and makeup
4. found a few more people interested in Acting

IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ACTING CONTACT OUR CASTING DIRECTOR JESSICA HASSAN! jessica@dragoncowproductions.com

5. Working on finding a good place to hold auditions
6. On tv again: Time Warner Cable Channel 3 at Mondays: at 6:30pm, Fridays at 11:30pm and Saturday 4:30pm


That's about all for now. Wish me luck!

Dangerous But Necessary

Political correctness changes how we speak. We speak in a politically correct manner so as to not seem offensive. Generally it is about using a euphemism or inclusive term to describe someone or something. We generally want to avoid being offensive so we use certain terms in a public setting. An example of this is using the term African-American. While in the past, negro and colored were acceptable terms anyone using them today would be considered a racist or bigot.
There is an issue of trust involved in who decides what the best term is. I don’t know whether it is politically correct or not to say black, so I try to avoid it. I have to trust that the term african-american is preferred. However, the term is a few more syllables (7 vs. 1) so I often do say black. Also sometimes people don’t want to be referred to as african-american and prefer to just be called American. How an ethnic group wants to be identified is a completely subjective process.
Political correctness expands beyond determining the proper social etiquette for discussing ethnicity. It also governs the discussion of sexual orientation. Saying queer or faggot is not acceptable while gay is okay. But there also has to be even more specific categories such as lesbian, bisexual, transgender and more. The problem with political correctness is that it puts people into these specific groups instead of acknowledging everyone as simply humans or simply people.
Political correctness also effects the way we describe disabilities. Retarded is deemed offensive so the term “special” is used in. Also several seemingly absurd terms such as “visually impaired” for blind and “height challenged” for short arise. This is basically just jargon. Political correctness can at times make us more polite but at other times simply feel polite because we use a euphemism.
Another issue is that political correctness limits what we are supposed to talk about. If certain topics are off limits, how are we supposed to have open and honest discussions. Being politically correct mirrors the way that many politicians dance around an issue so that they won’t offend someone. Sometime we need to fight about things in this country so that we can get along.
Trusting political correctness is an issue because it is based on assumptions. It assumes people like to be labeled a certain way. It assumes that people are offended by certain things. It assumes that certain topics are not okay to talk about. It assumes that people are so sensitive that offending them must be avoided at all cost. But the biggest danger of political correctness is the assumption that a political position is correct and that an issue is already settled, such as assumptions about the character of the military, the validity of war, the reality of global warming and the need for big government. It is dangerous to challenge what is politically correct. It is dangerous to question the status quo. Dangerous but necessary.

Lingua Franca (I saw Tobey Maguire today!)

I am sitting in an orthodontist’s waiting room in L.A. I guess the same guy that works on my girlfriend’s teeth also caters to the stars because Tobey Maguire just walked in. I’d get a picture, but I’d rather not be rude like a paparazzi and interrupt his day so I’ll just post a pic of him off google images (he didn’t have his kid with him, just his personal assistant, though oddly enough he was holding a bottle just like that). Anyways, onto writing my english assignment right? Maybe I should ask Tobey what he thinks of English as a lingua franca, or I could ask his personal assistant. Maybe not. Thanks to free wifi I have actually had the chance to do some research online and consult the experts.
I found an article titled “ English as a lingua franca” by Barbara Seidlhofer in the online Oxford Journals. The main focus of this article was about defining the term and the academic study of English as a lingua franca, referred to in short as ELF. She defines it as “communication in English between speakers with different first languages.” Now my internet connection is fading away, and Tobey Maguire just left.
Now that I’ve just gotten back home and been able to hop back onto the internet, I stumbled across something very interesting: “Globish!” “Globish is a simple pragmatic form of English codified by Jean-Paul Nerriere, a retired vice-president of IBM in the US. It involves a vocabulary limited to 1500 words, short sentences, basic syntax, an absence of idiomatic expressions and extensive hand gestures to get the point across” (Adam Sage, thaustrialian.com.au/news). It was basically developed so that french business people could communicate at English business meanings easier. It has continued to grow and be taught to people of several other languages as an easier way to adapt to English as a lingua franca.
Thanks to the nature of the internet I decided to keep following more rabbit trails and discovered their are several languages that have been constructed as “international auxiliary languages.” All of them are attempts to make world communication easier. Then I sort of got back on track by researching Charles K. Ogden’s “Basic English.” The website (http://ogden.basic-english.org/) describes it this way: “If one were to take the 25,000 word Oxford Pocket English Dictionary and take away the redundancies of our rich language and eliminate the words that can be made by putting together simpler words, we find that 90% of the concepts in that dictionary can be achieved with 850 words. The shortened list makes simpler the effort to learn spelling and pronunciation irregularities. The rules of usage are identical to full English so that the practitioner communicates in perfectly good, but simple, English.” Basic English was developed in 1930 and used as a tool to teach people in Asia to speak english.
The goal of a lingua franca is obviously an appealing concept to people and has been for a long time. I don’t doubt that people must want to be able to more easily communicate with people worldwide, especially in areas of business, medicine, science and technology. However people probably wish their language was already the lingua franca so they wouldn’t have to put extra effort into breaking the language barrier. That is probably why simplified versions of english such as Globish and Basic English have been developed.