Do I Know You?

College recommendations received; essays written; applications sent; interviews conducted.  Is this the eye of the storm before final judgment?  Not if you applied for a scholarship.  In addition to the plethora of information that university institutions have already cajoled, pestered, and blackmailed out of my increasingly invaded life, many of them are pulling me part-way across the country to talk to them in person – again.  Even with alumni interviews on file and just about every detail of my recorded life splayed out on the page for their perusal, scholarship programs require a battery of interviews with faculty and students, individually and in groups. 

But I do not need to enjoy the process to give it a measure of respect.  Despite dire warnings that SAT scores will determine students’ lives, colleges appear to strive for a more holistic understanding of their applicants.  Even combined, course selections, grades, scores, awards, extra-curricular activities, service hours, summer programs, teacher recommendations, and student essays cannot truly convey what a person is like, and in America’s face-to-face culture, the solution is personal interviews.  There is, of course, a certain naivety in thinking that a thirty-minute barrage of questions to a nerve-wracked student from a panel of personality judges will yield accurate results.  But the only real alternative is to know each candidate for an extended period of time.  Smaller communities might have that luxury, but if Americans want their myriad of college choices, they cannot possibly expect to form personal relationships with representatives of them all.  As much as university selection committees may try to mitigate it, greater choice for students has outweighed accurate choice for admission staff, and how people can express themselves on paper and in short bursts is more important for institutional opportunity than the truth behind the art.

Guilt by Association

"It's very likely that he is a terrorist."  Now you're pretty scared of him.  "It isn't very likely that he's a terrorist."  You're still suspicious.  No matter what the statement, if it is not a firm and absolute denial, in America, just associating a person with fear-arousing negativity is almost as good as an accusation.  American's don't go about their daily lives suspecting the lady behind the deli counter and the man driving the school bus and the kid protecting his back pack and the couple jogging in the park and the old lady feeding the pidgeons of being terrorists.  But if something were to connect one of these otherwise innocuous figures with terrorism, then the suspicion would be difficult to erase.  That is the problem facing many Muslims in America.  The major terror plots directed towards Americans come from Islamic extremists.  Obviously, not every Muslim is a terrorist.  That Muslim over there, it isn't very likely that he's a terrorist.  But just that connection, just that incidentally shared unifying factor is enough to link any Muslim to terrorism, leading to fear, mistrust, and hatred.  Americans like to simplify things, and they don't like this wishy-washy war of US soldiers against particular insurgents among an innocent populace with cousins welcomed on our shores.  No, the world must be black and white, us and them, brave Americans fighting the sneaky, subversive radicals.  How do you find one, nice and simple?  Look, there's a Muslim.  Western cultures in general favor dichotomy and heroic struggle between good and evil where the righteous prevail.  While Eastern cultures emphasize balance, Western civilizations fight evil dragons to save innocent ladies.  And though the daring knight has evolved, Americans still find threats, generalize and demonize their attackers, and lionize themselves for standing against such widespread and potent an enemy.  Americans connect Muslims with terrorists because it simplifies their world view, adds righteousness to their cause, and makes them more "powerful" for standing against such an enemy.  Once indicated, it is difficult for the innocent to break free.

ProcrastiNation

If I had any talent I would make this into a web comic:
Reads: KEY TO ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT -- PUSH BUTTON
"Nah, I've got time tomorrow"

Common American stereotypes create the image of an industrious society, obsessed with maximizing time and remaining punctual.  Much of American behavior supports this view.  "You're wasting time!"  From the old adage "time is money," to the common rebuke "you're late!" Americans seem to value time and respect deadlines.  Even the word "deadline," favored heavily over "due date" and similar alternatives, paints a grave picture of punctuality's dire and non-negotiable importance. 

So why is procrastination rampant?  I think it's human nature.  People want to avoid unpleasantness, so they naturally put off tasks they will not enjoy.  Only when it becomes clear that there is no extra time left does the unpleasantness of punishment for not completing the work outweight the desire not to address the issue.  What Americans procrastinate, therefore, reveals what they do not enjoy.  Work, homework, writing tasks, tedious, brainless work, work they do not feel confident in their ability to complete well.  That paints an interesting picture.  Americans do not like intellectually laborious work; if it feels like it is going to be very difficult, they naturally procrastinate it.  But on the other hand, if the work will take a lot of time but not result in a learning experience or accomplish anything useful, it is detested just as much.  Quick tasks that require little effort can be pushed off easily, so Americans often decide to relax instead.  But assignments that require more time, particularly those that may need further explanation or research, are also put off, even though doing so is far more detrimental.  That might be due to subsconcious cost-benefit analysis.  Harder tasks that one does not feel equal too will require more effort to complete and ultimately produce a poorer result: more
cost, less benefit. 

So maybe it is the nature of the work, but with so many contradictions, it seems to be just the work itself.  The comic I wrote above is ridiculous, because nobody would procrastinate something positive.  Americans do not like exertion.  They do not like following others' orders either, or completing tasks because others deem them necessary.  In the case of homework particularly, completion only makes a difference to the student, but the teacher is the one enforcing it, creating a subconscious feeling of being dominated and controlled.  And American's hate to feel powerless.

Does this Make You Uncomfortable?

Facial painting and adornment forms a staple of countless cultures past and present.  It is often used in ceremonies, particularly those that encourage communion with supernatural beings, like gods and spirits.  Strange faces and masks easily evoke otherworldly images.  Even in the modern age of pragmatism and materialism, face painting survives in a myriad of cultures, including in America.

From birthday parties to circus performances, clowns carry on the tradition of ceremonial pigmenting -- with a typical American twist.  What was once spiritual is now facetious.  Clowns entertain children with balloons.  They act the buffoon before popcorn-laden audiences awaiting entertainment from trained animals. 

But somehow, clowns have not become the unidimentional purveyors of cheap cheer.  There is an element of creepiness about them -- something disconcerting in their misshapen costumes and painted smiles.  Why do so many Americans, fully aware that the "otherworldly creatures" are ordinary people, find clowns disconcerting?  Well, clowns have painted expressions, usually of giddiness or joy, which makes it more difficult to read a clown's facial expressions.  In a culture of "look me in the eye," unreadable faces betraying little true emotion are unsettling.  There are comparatively few ceremonial behaviors in the United States, making it important for people to read each other's emotions to determine their actions.  And people want to know each other and interact positively and make impression.  They have trouble reading emotion behind the painted smile.

This unequal communication just might be sinister, which is why the evil clown theme is so popular in the United States.  See, the murderous Joker:

Man's Best Friend

If dogs are man’s best friends, why do we own them?  In America as in other Western cultures, people consider it normal to own animals, and to not just friendships, but explicitly master-servant relationships.  Pet owners put collars on their dogs and cats and microchips in their other animals to identify them as property, and try to teach them to do their bidding.

If the animal is well-treated and happy, I personally do not have a problem with it.  A cat neither understands nor feels bound to a human’s idea of hierarchy.  But it is interesting to consider the human’s perspective.  Many Americans talk to their pets like they do to babies.  This is a far cry from the respect and even reverence that other cultures show animals.  Do Americans simply lack respect for the animal kingdom, or do they need to feel dominant over others, and find animals convenient targets?  Most pets are completely submissive, and a “good” dog does its master’s bidding.  We judge the worth of an animal based on its obedience.  

Americans also have interesting attitudes about the role of animals in society.  They use them for work, for food, for clothing, and for companionship, there is a divide when it comes to “pet” animals.  Chickens are commonly considered food.  Cats are commonly considered pets.  People with chickens for pets are “weird” and few people could stand the idea of sautéed kitten.  In other cultures many more animals are considered edible.  China, for instance, eats dogs.  But Americans feel attached to their pets and do not feel comfortable thinking about any member of the specie being eaten or skinned.

Americans may feel superior to animals, but they are compassionate towards “pet” animals.  Animal torture is actually a crime, even though pets are legally property.  People clip the wings of free-spirited birds, but they keep them fed and cleaned and loved.  While Americans might not always know what is best for their animals, and may not always be within their rights to decide, they do try to do what is right by them. 

V-Day

Imagine a holiday breaking the cold of winter with the warmth of love, closeness, and romance – and you’ve found the opposite of Valentine’s Day.  Every February 14, the month-long parade of garish color-combos, ubiquitous lace hearts, and armed half-naked babies culminates in a final exam.  A holiday that used to be a handy excuse to celebrate affection has taken a rather sinister turn in American culture.  Telling people how you feel about them, being sweet, and spending time with your significant other should not need a special day, and even in bustling, work-comes-first USA, people know this.  So instead, Valentine’s Day is time for a demonstration of love that has grown increasingly materialistic. 

The girlfriend that uses her Valentine’s gift to determine “how much you really love me” is a stereotypical nightmare, but it doesn’t deviate from the premise of the holiday, which requires couples to quantify their affection and express it the form of material of material goods. 

For weeks beforehand, televisions are aglow with images of smiling women accepting expensive gifts from “savvy men” who “know” that the way into a woman’s heart is through chocolates, flowers, and especially jewelry.  The woman is thrilled at the “perfect” diamond necklace, the man is kissed passionately and praised with a phrase like “how did you know?” and the commercial ends by encouraging men to “get her something special this Valentine’s Day.”  Everywhere from department stores to grocery stores, greeting cards and gift cards claim to spread “extra-special” cheer.  Americans want to feel special and corporations use this to sell products, attempting to make their merchandise the “standard” for expressing love.  But love can’t be successfully converted into material goods.  Companies actually feed men false ideas about what makes women happy.  Many women prefer hand-written cards to store-bought messages designed for female stereotypes, flying in the face of “general wisdom.”  While some women want chocolate, others view such a gift as an empty gesture without real forethought, and therefore without heart.  Is it any surprise men have trouble navigating such a treacherous occasion?

But that doesn’t mean it’s easy for women either.  American society is largely patriarchal: expecting men to pursue women, to make all the first moves, and to be the romantically creative ones.  Because of this, Valentine’s Day focuses on men, which actually leaves women more confused.  With all this hype about men giving gifts, should women even buy something?  Probably, but what?  There aren’t even stereotypes to fall back on.  Sure women aren’t in the spotlight when it comes to Valentine’s Day gift-giving, but the wrong gift could still cause problems.  Internet searches produce a myriad of mushy advice: heart-shaped dogs tags with each others’ names on them, m&ms with messages like “luv me,” t-shirts with “I ♥ My Girlfriend.”  Valentine’s Day might center around love, but few self-respecting guys would wear a shirt like that, and such a gift only makes the man uncomfortable.

There is also the question of scope, which I suspect causes many of the break-ups on Valentine’s Day.  One partner gives the other a small gift, thinking that it isn’t a major holiday, but that he/she wanted to show that he/she what thinking of her/him.  The other partner, however, goes all-out because he/she “takes the relationship seriously.”  This may just be a difference in how the pair views the holiday, but such a misunderstanding, coupled with high expectations and a culture that expects love to translate into objects, this discrepancy can be taken as a difference in attitude about the relationship itself.  And many people use the day not to express affection, but to evaluate their romantic position in life – and the results are not always positive.  That’s why, of all the days of the year, Valentine’s Day is host to more break-ups than any other.  And they call it the “day for love.”

Keepin' it real?

Are Americans practical people?  Many cultures celebrate dreams as windows into the soul, the future, or the afterlife, but apart from some "just for fun" dream analysis Americans do not buy into this.  The occassional-special interest "daily horoscope" in America is also a far cry from cultures that seriously consider astrological signs when making a variety of decisions, from naming children to approving potential marriages.  And while superstitions abound -- from crossing paths with black cats to stepping on sidewalk cracks -- it's a rare American that would blame misfortunes of failing to observe such superstitions.  Whether ghosts or curses, prophecies or palmistry, Americans seem to avoid at least publicly endorsing the unproven.  Not even religion is immune from a disregard for the metaphysical.  In America, Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter are largely secular celebrations of family, or even commercialism, and ABCNEWS reports that only 38% of Americans claim to attend weekly religious services.  And consumerism itself, a love for money over other values, could mean preference for the tangible.

But though Americans may consider themselves practical people, their actions speak louder than words.  Large amounts of credit card debts, indicative of Americans routinely living beyond their means, indicate the triumph of the idea of money over its tangible presence.  Though they can get riled up about politics, most Americans care little for the underlying facts, demonstrating a distinct preference for ideology over hard evidence.  (Examine, for instance, the common assertion that America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles.  The Constitution separates Church and state to form a deliberately secular government, and the revered Founding Fathers were largely deists and atheists.)  The American dream that people cling to is statistically unattainable, but often cited as epitome of freedom.  More still, Americans frequently assert that the United States is the “greatest country in the world,” and they seem to honestly believe it, but where is the evidence for this sense of superiority?  China and much of Asia surpass America in standardized test scores.  India, China, and other nations have higher economic growth rates, and beat the US technological advances.  Most European countries do far more for their citizens than the American government does, and the US does not even make the top ten in standard of living.  By what measure is America the greatest nation?  Wealth?  We have a deficit in the world: over $14 trillion (About.com).  And while an argument can be made for the American military, nearly ten years of war in the Middle East has left it drained and the American people tired of war.  The US isn’t even popular on the world stage.  Yet Americans continue to consider themselves citizens of the greatest nation in the world.

So are Americans practical or realistic?  Some of them are.  But though aspects of US society spurn irrationality, Americans in general are not practical.