Individualism V.S. Collectivism in Classrooms

Culture permeates every aspect of our lives, from our everyday interactions with people to how we function at work or school. One of the most interesting things to note about culture is that it becomes a part of our personality, no matter where we are. It affects how we behave.


Western classroom
For example, let’s say you step into an American classroom. As the USA is an individualistic culture, where a strong sense of ‘I’ or ‘Me’ is cultivated, students will be produced that aim to pursue personal goals and to be self-reliant and competitive. They will view learning as a process of grasping new knowledge to facilitate their interactions with new people and environments next time. Should a teacher pose a question, they will participate readily, leading to a dynamic classroom environment. Even if the teacher is wrong in a particular question that he/she is solving, students will have no problems pointing out his/her mistakes – the teacher then would readily apologize.


Asian classroom
Now how rare is it to find that kind of behavior in Asian collectivist societies like Singapore or China? It’s much more common to observe a quiet, unresponsive classroom where drones of students listen passively to a single lecturer carrying on and on with his never-ending speech. Like in COMM 101 class, when Ms. Kam asks for volunteers to air their views, it’s so difficult to find willing participants who are not afraid to say their opinions. This is because most of us would either be afraid to lose face, or even to let the lecturer lose face by ‘upstaging’ him or her. Our classroom environment is hence quite static and boring. The whole point of learning in a collectivist culture is to learn how to acquire the customs and norms of that society in order function better as an in-group member. Hence students in collectivist cultures tend to automatically conform to the classroom. The general thinking is that since nobody wants to say anything, then I won’t say anything either! This whole attitude is in complete contrast to the Western individualistic culture.

Even the teachers are affected by culture. You’ll never find an Asian teacher singling out an individual student in a collectivist environment. This means that interaction between the student and teacher would be less likely, allowing the whole student body to be viewed as one entity. Yet, this would suit the Asian student just fine, as many of us would not want to stick out from the group anyways by having to talk to the teacher on a one-to-one basis in front of the whole class.

In the end, since we have all been brought up in different ways, we’d be comfortable with our own culture. If an Asian student were to be placed in a Western environment where he/she suddenly has to depend on her own sense of self and opinions, she might suffer or be at a loss on what to do. On the other hand, the Western student might feel frustrated having to survive in a restrictive, conformist Asian classroom. Is it ever possible to change our preferences? Do you think the Asian student or Western student would ever like it better in their foreign classroom environments, given they had time to adjust? Perhaps it would be that only the Asian student would enjoy her new environment better over time. Once you are ‘liberated’, it is hard to fall back into the other end of the spectrum, where strict rules and codes of conduct govern you.

Are we controlled by tv shows?

The predominantly white cast of How I Met Your Mother, the tv series.
How many of you are aware of how you will be affected by the tv shows that you watch? Take for example popular American shows playing right now like Desperate Housewives, How I Met Your Mother, Gossip Girls, Heroes. Consciously, you will know that you are being entertained by the show’s materials (one of the media’s functions). However, subconsciously, are you aware of the messages of the show that are being drilled into your head, taking a hold of your brain and influencing the very core of who you are? One of the most deceptive forms of racism takes place in the television set. Out of the tv shows that I just mentioned, how many provide a balanced view of the world’s racial demographic? NONE! They are all portrayed as a predominantly white population. Other ethnic groups are subjugated to second class positions and are placed in menial jobs (e.g. John, the sexy Latino gardener having an affair with Gabrielle in Desperate Housewives). The presence of Native Americans are practically non-existant, Asians are stereotyped (Hiro in Heroes, who is played by an actor who speaks perfect English in real life but has to dumb it down to a pidgin Japanese accent during the show), and women are sexualized and placed in sexist positions (Desperate Housewives where all the leading females are extremely feminine and yes, housewives).
The super sexualised Desperate Housewives!
What kind of a message is this sending out? Although you might not be affected by it first, a couple of years later after watching such shows regularly, these televised ideas about the world will no doubt affect the way you think. It may not obvious, but I believe some change would have occurred. This proves the power of the Cultivation Theory, which is that you will inevitably succumb to the media’s chosen dominant ideology. Influenced people will start to believe that your sex and race will determine your status in the world. Such a mean world hypothesis will be formed, as groups of people believe in this skewed reality. Mainstreaming will hence occur too, as people share similar viewpoints after being affected by the shows. American primetime drama shows are relatively consistent in the corruptness and twistedness of the values that they choose to portray in their tv series (free sex, lying, cheating, deceptiveness, insecurity, etc). It makes it all the sadder that these values are even accepted by people in the first place, justified as merely a source of entertainment. Kind of says something about the state of humanity in the first place, don't you think.

Most of us are victims of the powerful effects theory. We are passive, watching tv shows for the fun of it, and hence taking in whatever information they dictate to us. As a result, we absorb their messages. Unless we deliberately choose what shows we want to watch and are aware of any imbedded hidden messages or agendas to resist, we will never be able to subscribe to the limited effects theory.

Which theory do you think you follow? Do you watch such shows knowing full well that they are destructive to your world view or morally corrupt? Can you ever believe that even if you choose to continue watching it, you won’t be influenced in the end?

Online Dating Version 2.0

Online dating is the phoenomena of the 21'st century. Who would ever have thought it possible to find a mate for life through the internet, initiating a relationship and forming bonds of love all without meeting the other partner? A Straits Times article entitled "Online Dating version 2.0" was published this Monday, heralding the introduction of enhanced online dating services. Now, you can find your true love all while sitting down and typing! It's fuss free (browse through hundreds of profiles at a blink of an eye!), simple (double-click to open a conversation window and flirt using realtime games and virtual rooms!), and best of all, you can terminate the relationship/contact immediately (close the online conversation window with your prospective partner if you don't like him!) - all while remaining perfectly anonymous because YOU control what you want to put on your profile or reveal about yourself. With instant connections or rejections and wide flexibility and options on how to date, love has become readily simplified for the immediate-gratification generation of today.

Actually, I felt sad while reading this article. 'What has the world come to?' I asked myself. With online dating, there is a complete disregard for the rules of human interaction. Love has become more impersonal because it is so readily 'available' now. Besides, I believe that you can't truly know a person if you don't meet them face-to-face. You can't pick up on non-verbal cues (), quirks, and mannerisms that the person possesses. You don't know how his perceptual set works and how he will immediately respond to situations, revealing his true personality. There are many things that can only be discovered through careful observation and time.

Deception can easily materialise in online relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a person is lying or not, because one can't pick up on the tell-tale signs of lying, all of which depend on non-verbal cues. For example, if the person blinks rapidly and can't look at you in the eye (oculesics), or if he displays adaptors like chewing his lip (kinesics), or if his speech seems tremelous and stuttery (paralanguage). It is also so easy to cut off all contact and avoid him/her should conflict arise because you can simply stay away from the computer. Hence relational dissolution often occurs with online relationships - it's difficult to establish trust and a sense of closeness in a relationship (haptics) if you can't physically thrive on a person's physical proximity (proxemics), have no way of knowing the truth, and are able to end the relationship immediately anyways.

Relational needs and dialectics are hard to be determined since a great degree of autonomy is possible from online relationships - majority of people's time is spent away from the comp ( the dilemma of autonomy v.s. connection). Also, since it is hard to establish a sense of intimacy through online relationships, the dilemma of intimacy v.s. distance is tricky to balance too - one might need much more effort to get the amount of intimacy they desire. I suppose the dilemma of openness v.s. closeness can be resolved because people can disclose as much or as little as they want - but the lack of combined intimacy might diminish the novelty of such confessions. Lastly, the dilemma of novelty v.s. predictability exists because internet conversations can become routine and very boring since there are limited ways to interact online.

WHAT AM I SAYING?? Well, basically, I abhor internet relationships and find them very messy and complicated to pursue. I believe that old is gold, and that some things should just be done the old fashioned way, human relationships included. Let's all stick to the basis of human interaction, and communicate face-to-face okay? It's the least cowardly and most direct form of communication.