Cross Cultural Leadership Rhetoric- Chris, Mel, Simon
Привет!
Мы студенты из Стэнфордского Университета в США и мы очень рады иметь возможность с вами общаться!
Hello, students from Khavaborsk and Oerebro!
This is Chris, Melissa, and Simon and we’re from Chicago, Los Angeles, and South Korea respectively. We are all sophomores at Stanford University! Chris is an economics major who likes to breakdance on his spare time. Melissa is pre-law and likes to play tennis! (And penguins!!) Simon is a materials science and engineering major and he likes to play soccer.
We would like to share with you a bit about Stanford culture. Stanford is a very liberal college and people feel very free to just talk to strangers on campus. Stanford has a wide-range of student groups, such as fraternities, minority groups, and pre-professional clubs. Because Stanford is a private institution and is smaller than public universities, there is a greater amount of interaction between students in classes and in extracurricular activities. Stanford is also a community devoted to service related activities, and so we have a lot of students interested in volunteer and non-profit groups.
Christophe:
What are the first words you think of when you hear the name “Bill Gates?” For the overwhelming majority, the words “rich,” “wealthy,” and “genius” come to mind. At the same time, philanthropic foundations in the United States are known for being wasteful and ineffective. For my research project I explored the context and strategy of the rhetoric of Bill Gates in regards to his recent work from the Gates Foundation. How does Bill Gates’ use his almost mythical success as an entrepreneur and his newfound identity as “the next Carnegie” to build partnerships in the world of philanthropy and export his vision of using business approaches to philanthropy? In exploring this thesis, I contrasted Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” and Bill Gates’ first “Annual letter from the Foundation.” This gave me real insight into using different styles of speech (high vs. middle) and how to collaborate with people who may have large egos (other billionaires). It also allowed me to partially construct Bill Gates’ personality and his extreme acuteness when dealing with people and building partnerships.
My research ends on an optimistic note, urging private citizens to take note that philanthropic foundations should be accountable to the tax-paying body. This paper has led me to be very interested in the multi-billion dollar industry of private philanthropy, and I have high hopes that Bill Gates can use his ethos to urge many of his fellow foundation heads to take responsibility for their effectiveness, or lack thereof.
Melissa:
First of all, I think one of the most important things I’ve taken away from taking this amazing rhetoric of leadership class is the preparation that goes into giving an effective presentation. Before I didn’t realize that transforming a research paper into a speech/presentation takes a lot of work and creative energy! My research paper discussed changes in feminist rhetoric through time, specifically exploring the rhetoric used by Gloria Steinem and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I found that the reason Stanton’s speeches still remain so powerful today is she uses the basic philosophical idea of individualism that appeals to a universal audience and transcends time. On the contrary, I found that Steinem had generalizations and logical fallacies in her speeches that weakened the power of her rhetoric. Thus, I feel that feminists today should learn by Stanton’s example and promote gender equality by using rhetoric that has a universal appeal and includes men, instead of alienating them.
I would love to hear you thoughts on my research and would be happy to answer any questions you have! =)
Simon:
There is only one nation on earth where you can still see the living examples of the Cold War. Ever since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been in war, and to this day it still remains to be divided.
My research on presidential rhetoric for Korean unification came to a conclusion that the rhetoric despite its long history over half a century has actually not changed ever since the beginning of separation. The ‘one-people, one-nation’ argument has been the impetus for the unification rhetoric, and I found its limitations in different historical cases of presidential rhetoric. Former President Kim Dae-jung, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his efforts of promoting democracy and reconciliation with North Korea, employed rhetoric of democracy and freedom in East Asia, and my conclusion supports his rhetoric with more global and universal basis for the fundamental argument of unification.
At the end, what I realized was that it is no longer an issue only concerning Korea but the whole world. I hope to see the two Korea’s united and come together finally through global communities support and love for peace.
Abstract to Sound Foundations: The strategic importance of rhetoric in Billanthropy:
Bill Gates has arguably created more economic value than any single person in modern history. The emergence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a multipronged, multibillion-dollar philanthropic enterprise, signals a second wave of super philanthropy, dubbed by The Economist as “Philanthrocapitalism.” But for Bill Gates’ revolutionary approach to domestic and international development to maintain both comprehensiveness and sustainability, there must be a fundamental change in our perception of philanthropy in the United States. The first part of this paper will examine modern perceptions of philanthropy as a result of Carnegie’s philosophy, and how its poor record of success suggests a need for change in how foundations operate. I will then explore the mission and operational principles of the Gates Foundation, before explaining how Bill Gates uses rhetoric and leverages his ethos to market his brand of philanthrocapitalism.
Abstract to Changes in Feminist Rhetoric:
Great strides have been made in the feminist movement, but gender equality still has not been achieved. With the gender disparity in wages and resilient glass ceiling, among other issues, feminism is still as relevant today as it was over two centuries ago when the movement first began. However, for many women and men today, the feminist movement is considered irrelevant, radical, or alienating. Therefore it is crucial that feminist leaders today use rhetoric and reasoning that can persuade both women and men of the importance of continuing the fight for gender equality. In my paper, I present my argument that Elizabeth Cady Stanton draws upon the theme of individualism, appealing universally to her audience’s humanity while, on the contrary, Gloria Steinem uses broad generalizations containing logical fallacies that weaken the power of her rhetoric.
Abstract to Living in Glacier of the Cold War: Separation of the Two Korea’s and Presidential Rhetoric for Reunification:
There is only one place on earth where you can still witness the living examples of the Cold War—that is Korea. As if more than five-thousand-year history as one nation has been completely forgotten, the Korean peninsula ever since 1945 has been divided into North and South and still remains divided almost sixty year later.
There have been many efforts for the unification of the two Korea’s, especially by the Presidents of the republic of Korea. Indeed, this issue of unification was very simple back in 1960’s and 70’s. North and South Koreans were brothers and sisters, quite literally so, and thus the reason for unification was taken for granted. However, in modern Korean history, as it reaches almost sixty years of history as separated nations, and as the generations of the Korean War grow old and the new come along, it is questionable whether one can take the reasons for unification as granted anymore.
As a sole democratic representative of the peninsula, President of the Republic of Korea wields enormous power as well as responsibility in this issue of reuniting the two Korea’s. By looking at the historical examples of presidential rhetoric for unification, this paper suggests the need for a paradigm shift in unification rhetoric from an ethnocentric, nationalist one to a philosophically broader and more encompassing one based on the ideals of democracy and freedom.
Comments
Melissa,
your work on feminists and their rhetoric sounds very interesting! It's great that you pointed out to me that male and female leaders have very different approaches and processes. The fact that you chose to focus on Stanton and Steinem (even if I'm not familiar with these names) and examine their rhetoric and ideological emphasis really fascinates me.
Posted by: Andrea Sy | April 1, 2009 07:37 PM
Hi Melissa,
Your topic sounds very interesting and I am curious how it could be applied to social justice issues besides feminism. I think whether addressing women's rights issues or any form of discrimination it is important not to make the other group feel guilty or generalize making them feel they did something wrong. Approaching social justice issues cooperatively seems to be a universally more effective way of creating change smoothly and efficiently.
Posted by: Avery | April 4, 2009 06:26 PM
Dear Christophe,
I am currently in Alyssa's PWR 2 for this Spring quarter, and we were encouraged to look through these blogs. Your topic looks very interesting. It is really cool to think that it is about Gates, when he has a building named after him on campus and he came and spoke in Memorial Auditorium. I am curious to know what some of the negative aspects of the Gates Foundation are that you found in your research. Thanks!
Posted by: Byron milligan | April 4, 2009 10:13 PM
Hey, guys!
I was really surprised and excited at the same time when I saw russian letters in the beggining of your message! Thanks for being so close to us! We really appreciate that! Мы тоже очень рады нашему общению!
I really enjoyed reading your blogs!
Chris, you raised a very inetersting topic! I think there are not so many people who can combine enterpreneurial skills and care for other at the same time!And it's really important in our world not to just recieve things but also to share waht you have with those who need your help! I believe that if everyone realized it, our world would be nicer!:)
Melissa, the skill of giving good speeches and presentations is what we are trying to give to young students in our debate club!I realized that it's extremely important few years ago when i started to talk in public more and more!We unfortunately don't have enough classes in schools where children can learn about it...
Simon, i have lots of koren friends! I really love koreans!Theya re so kind and friendly! And actually, some russian people travel to North Korea, and when i told about it ti my koren friends from South Korea, they were very surprised and asked me how is it thre. I haven't been there but i guess they live just the way they want to live although it differs from others so much. I'm for everything that brings peace!
let's chat more on facebook!We can do some intercultural projects together!:)
Elvira Gaufullina
Posted by: Elvira Gaifullina | April 5, 2009 08:40 AM
Hi Melissa,
Your thesis is fascinating in that you recommend rhetorical strategies currently used by Arab feminists. Unlike current western feminism, feminism of the Arab world is all inclusive – in other words, women don’t see their hardships as an isolated component in society. Rather, women see their problems as part of the tapestry of oppression and subjugation of all Arab women and men.
That being said, I completely agree that employing more universal language in the rhetoric of feminism is crucial in the west.
Posted by: Yasmine Ashuraey | April 5, 2009 09:56 AM
Christophe -
I'm really intrigued by the concepts you approach with an analysis of philanthropic characters, particularly in identifying the prestige of rhetoric attributed to people like Gates because of their simultaneous support of capitalism and philanthropy, which could be argued to be in tension, or necessary complements. I'd be interested to see how you suggest that philanthropic foundations should become more sustainable, and whether this system is at all appropriate for bringing up the BOP. Really interesting project!
Clare (PWR II Spring)
Posted by: Clare | April 5, 2009 12:05 PM
Hi Simon,
You quickly caught my attention when you said "There is only one place on earth where you can still witness the living examples of the Cold War—that is Korea." I am very interested in your project because I know the stark differences between North and South as well as the controversies behind unification. It would also be interesting to see an analysis of rhetoric in another language, in your case the analysis of the President's rhetoric in Korean.
-Jonathan, Spring
Posted by: Jonathan | April 5, 2009 03:01 PM
Hi everyone!
I feel obliged to post to this thread since I already know so much about Christophe's and Simon's works. I think your topics definitely add to our understanding of the rhetoric of leadership, if that may be in a political or entrepreneurial context. And I am glad Elvira from Russia liked your little Russian phrase at the beginning of your introduction. Great work there!
Posted by: Julian | April 5, 2009 05:03 PM
hello winter quarter,
Really solid examples of rhetorical leadership. Also topics that are obviously pretty close to your personal interests. I love how after analyzing the speeches enough, people are able to cast a critical eye on the process of leadership and rhetorical vision. Much of the logical fallacies in speech apparently happen on "political platform" but are equally if not more powerful than straight statistically backed evidence.
Great work!
Posted by: Kenan | April 5, 2009 07:34 PM
Thanks for commenting on our blog Elvira! There are in fact a lot of entrepreneurs here in "the valley" who are looking to use entrepreneurship to solve problems in the social sector. I wonder if there is such an area in Russia where software coders and entrepreneurs can get together. I use intv.ru to watch movies, and I'm aware of a Russian Facebook Odnoklassniki, but I'm sure that there are many more Russian startups out there!
Cheers,
Christophe
Posted by: Christophe | April 5, 2009 08:27 PM
Christophe,
I find your research topic fascinating. I think that philanthropic organizations are increasingly being held accountable--and not only in economic terms. The development of SROI (social return on investments) measurements mean that social impact in increasingly quantifiable. I think that soon this information will become widely known, and philanthropic donors will choose philanthropic enterprises based on whether they maximize social impact. It will come down to survival of the fittest.
Posted by: Sarrah Nomanbhoy | April 5, 2009 09:00 PM
Hi Melissa,
your research on feminist rhetorical strategies sounds very promising. As someone who found Andrea Dworkin's writing rather off-putting I would be curious to take a look at some less confrontational, and perhaps more convincing ways of promoting gender equality.
Posted by: T. McCormick | April 5, 2009 09:55 PM
Studying "Billanthropy" or "Philanthrocapitalism" seems like a great idea to me! I often find the new Bill Gates to be an interesting topic, especially because he has traditionally been deeply despised both by people who dislike his products or their monopoly and by people who hate him for being grossly rich. But in looking at his humanitarian efforts of recent years, many would make the case that Bill Gates is going to accomplish more good in the world than many who spent far less time making money and far more time in the center of humanitarian crises. His recent efforts are forcing many people (including myself) to challenge our ideas about what forms philanthropy and a life of service/effecting social change can take.
Posted by: Aysha Bagchi | April 5, 2009 10:21 PM
One thing in particular that caught my interest about this group is their insight into philanthropic groups who are often applauded on their generous donations. While such donations are at times done for the right reasons, many times they are gone about in the wrong way. One example that first came to mind in regards to this topic is Coca Cola and their efforts to emphasize diversity within their company. While this company places far more money into diversity initiatives than the majority of US companies, they should not automatically receive great praise just for doing so. They are often criticized for being very inefficient in their approaches towards diversity programs and many argue that just because one pours large amounts of money into a cause they should not undoubtedly receive equal praise.
Posted by: Max Hawes | April 6, 2009 10:19 AM
Christophe,
I liked your research topic. It is an interesting thing to think about. In Russia we have many rich people and rich companies. (Actually, it is thought to be a problem of our economy. We have many rich ones and many poor ones, but the amount of a middle class is not high) Some of them donate money, but many think this activity is usually done by companies to pay less taxes. Still, some enterpreneurs donate money in a very helpful to many people ways. It's good the cociety has good rich people:)
Posted by: Dmitry | April 8, 2009 04:40 PM
it is a good attempt but i am interested in the leadership qualities of Bill Gates
Posted by: MIANZAKIULLAH | May 4, 2009 11:19 PM
Hi Melissa,
your research on feminist rhetorical strategies sounds very good!! Давно не заглядывал на ваш сайт. А тут и почитать и посмотреть есть чего. сча в рсс добавлю. Так удобнее ;) И всем советую.
Posted by: smotrivideo | August 4, 2009 03:31 AM
The first words I think of when i hear the name Bill Gates is Innovative, Windows, Rich and thank you. oh, and blue screen. :p
Posted by: Hair Growth Vitamins | September 1, 2009 08:23 AM