Cross-Cultural Blog

Hi everyone!
My name is Kavita Shah and I am a sophomore in the Stanford Global Leadership class. I thought that before I dive into the findings of my research project, I should tell you a little about my life at Stanford so as to give you some information about Stanford “culture.” I am majoring in International Relations and minoring in Spanish and in Modern Languages. As you may be able to tell, I love learning new languages. I studied Japanese in high school and am now in the process of taking my second year of Spanish at Stanford. I plan to study abroad in Madrid during the fall of the next school year. I am also interested in learning Arabic and plan to do so after this year of Spanish. Outside of academics, I am involved in the Stanford Cardinal Broadcasting Network, the Stanford band, and charity events through Pi Beta Phi, my sorority. I also used to work as an assistant personal trainer, and for the future, I hope to get more involved with the Stanford Film Society and Stanford in Government.
As for my research project, I wanted to investigate the fear of Islam that exists in the West through an analysis of the rhetoric concerning Islam and its followers in the Western mass media. I looked at various case studies such as well-known TV shows and movies like “24” and Aladdin. In these, I discussed the negative and predominantly violent stereotypes that are used to characterize Muslims and Middle Easterners. I then looked at news articles from which I found three main flaws with news reporting regarding the portrayal of Islam. The first of which was the confusion between religion and ethnicity. While most people are described by their region in the news (their city, state, or country if global news), Muslims are often described only by their religion. This puts Muslims in the news a lot more than Christians, for example, since an incident involving a Christian would not mention their religion in the reporting. The second flaw is a double standard that exists between the interpretation of actions by Muslims versus actions of non-Muslims. In my paper, I wrote about the Lebanese “kidnappings” of British and American “hostages” in 1991 and about the failure of the news to report that at the same time Lebanese were being in their own country by Israelis and that these people were referred to as “prisoners” and “inmates” while the British and Americans were “hostages.” Finally, I discussed the growing concept of “Green Peril,” the idea that Islam is a threat to the West because of the “clash of civilizations.” Because of the spread of this concept, Western readers will begin to wrongly believe that there is no way the Western world and the Islamic world can reconcile any differences. Thus, through my research I have found that the Western media has portrayed Islam, its followers, and predominantly Muslim regions like the Middle East in a negative light. It is imperative that they rectify this since movement in a positive direction between the West and the Islamic world is only possible if the people of both sides respect each other and since our perception of those on the other side of the globe is only possible through the media, it is the media’s responsibility to make sure the image they portray is accurate and honorable so as to act as a leader to the public and guide them in the right direction.
Reflecting on my personal rhetorical choices, I have learned to better utilize the power of ethos by incorporating my research sources and their ideas into my writing. By bringing these sources into my writing, I gain more credibility and can build on these ideas when I add my own insight. I also learned to better outline my paper in the beginning so as to give the reader a roadmap for where my paper is going and so they know what to expect. Finally, I learned the importance of concession because by acknowledging potential holes in my argument and then explaining why my argument is still strong makes my paper even more credible.
Through this research project, I have learned that the rhetoric of leadership, in addition to many other things, must be accurate and honest. Without this, one is not being a true leader because you are not giving people an informed background to make their own proper decisions.

Abstract:
What do you think of when you think of Islam? The West’s view of Islam, its followers, and the Muslim regions, in particular the Middle East, has been poorly shaped by the media. This paper argues that in the realms of popular culture and news/reporting media there exist fundamental flaws in the portrayal of Islam and that this is causing a negative Western perception of Islam. The paper illuminates the themes of violence and hatred of the West that are extremely prevalent when depicting Islam in popular culture and the three main flaws of how Islam is presented in news media. It ultimately suggests that there will be no reconciliation between the West and the Islamic world until the media acts as a leader to the public by providing them with an accurate and respectful image of the religion and its followers.

--------------------------------------------------------

Hi guys!
My name is Molly Spaeth and I am originally from Fargo, North Dakota. I am also a member of the Global Controversies and the Rhetoric of Leadership class. I LOVED this class, and it was so exciting at the end of the quarter to hear all of the presentations and how everyone’s research ideas had finally materialized. I think we grew as a class, and we also grew in our individual research strategies. Before I delve into my research, though, I want to explain a little bit more about myself. I’m a sophomore majoring in Communications with a minor in American History. On campus I am involved in Sophomore Class Cabinet and, like Kavita, I will be traveling abroad to Madrid next fall. I am in my second year of Spanish and also plan on taking Arabic upon my return to Stanford next fall.
Narrowing down my topic for my research paper was a long and arduous process. Initially I had wanted to investigate why the Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Norway, tended to give a larger percentage of their GDP to developing countries and welfare programs, whereas the United States gave a far smaller percentage. What I thought was most interesting about this was the fact that in the United States far more people say that they are religious than people do in the Nordic countries. Since then, my thesis changed about 8 times. But what I did eventually talk about was how US politicians have relied on the use of ‘God’s blessing’ as a rhetorical strategy, and most specifically, I focused in on the rhetoric of George W. Bush and Joe McCarthy. I showed how these two leaders, in a time of fear for domestic America, had relied and manipulated America’s devotion to God and religious values as justification for military or political action. In these two instances, the acts and initiatives initiated by these politicians actually served to be more detrimental to the same American values they were trying to protect: namely, freedom and democracy.
For my research, I read a book written by a colleague of my PWR professor named Brigitte Mral. in her book, she analyzed the rhetoric of George W. Bush after September 11th and highlighted some of his main themes in his speeches post-9/11. One thing that I thought was really interesting was the religious aspect of his speeches. Mral said that a reliance on religious rhetoric as an effective political tool would never work in countries like Sweden. In Sweden, referencing God would actually diminish a leader’s ethos, rather than enhance it. As a result of this, I the significance of my paper tried to tie in exactly how harmful it is to intertwine religion and matters of the state. I ended with an appeal to the legitimate recognition of the separation of church and state.
This paper was probably one of the most demanding I’ve ever written, but it was also the most rewarding. I learned so much from so many aspects of my research and it was an incredibly enriching experience. I learned how to better weave sources throughout my argument, and I also learned that I need to stick to a topic once I’ve found one. I often would research one thing and then go off on a tangent for the next 30 minutes, reading about topics I found interesting but which actually had no direct impact on my idea. The most significant part of my research has mostly confirmed my views as an agnostic. I came into this paper as an agnostic-by-default, but an agnostic that wanted to believe in God if He does exist. I am coming out of it battered and broken, disgusted at the horrors people have inflicted upon other people in the name of God. If there was a God, I just can’t imagine that He would let this happen. Through this project, I learned so much about the rhetoric of leadership and how the rhetoric of perhaps the greatest leader, God, has been exploited with adverse consequences.

Abstract:

This paper will examine the how the rhetoric of Joe McCarthy and George W. Bush, although successful in gaining support and implementing policy, actually served to further the interests of the two ‘threats’ during their reign and enabled the ‘threats’ to make a much more significant destruction to America than they would have been able to do on their own. Both McCarthy and Bush relied heavily on the use of religious rhetoric to appeal to a predominately religious American public. George W. Bush and McCarthy manipulated the American public’s desire to protect America in such a way that the desire to protect America actually hurt America. Because of this system, Bush and McCarthy enabled the ‘threats’ to do more damage than they could have without the rhetoric.

--------------------------------------------------------

Hey everyone!
My name is Jon Spivack, and as you can probably guess at this point, I, too am a sophomore in the Global Leadership class. I hail from San Francisco, California, and I love Stanford! Well, when I don’t have any papers or problem sets due. Or midterms. Hmm... Anyway, my interests include fencing, which I used to do varsity here, though I’m currently taking some time off, and jazz vibraphone, which, to be honest, I haven’t played in a couple years but miss dearly. Academically I’m at a bit of a crossroads, as I just realized that I hate chemistry (which was my intended major), but now I’m consider interdisciplinary studies in computer science. Whatever I pursue, I plan to minor in creative writing, as that has always been a passion of mine.
This class posed a unique challenge for me, as my love for writing notwithstanding, I absolutely despise reading. Nonsensical, I know. Nonetheless, when presented with the problem of researching a topic and then writing about it, I was quite frightened. Fortunately, I was able to find a topic I was interested in/passionate about, so when I finally did get down to it, the reading and requisite sleep deprivation wasn’t all that bad. I looked into women’s rights in America, with a focus on the proposed but unratified Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution. Basically, a document was put before the people that would explicitly guarantee equality of the sexes if accepted into our fundamental code of law. The people said no. How messed up is that? So I looked into why. Speaking of women’s rights, though, what’s the situation in your countries? Here things are pretty decent, but true equality is still far away. Women make only about 3/4 of what men make on average, and they are greatly underrepresented in politics. On the bright side, though, things are moving forward. We came really close to our first female presidential candidate! I personally am hopeful for the future, though what I found in my research troubled me. The main problem over here is that about half the country, while not overtly sexist, believes that women and men are fundamentally different and should always occupy different roles in society. As long as we hold this belief, equality will never be reached. What do you guys think? Am I too presumptuous to assume that men and women are completely equal? Is equity a better goal than equality?
As for more general things I learned from this class, probably the point that sticks out to me most is the power of pathos in rhetoric. Whereas in an ideal world all that would matter would be the actual logical merit of one’s argument, in this highly imperfect world emotions sometimes speak to people much louder than reason. Side note: Hyperbole is my favorite thing in the world, so forgive me if I’m being too extreme. Anyway, in looking at some of the arguments made against the Equal Rights Amendment, I started to see how evoking things like fear and deeply rooted cultural values can make people forget completely about logic. My frustrations aside, this is an important thing to keep in mind when crafting one’s own rhetoric; content is not enough. Ethos and pathos can combine to transport the audience to a state of unquestioning nirvana. When presenting my research I tried to keep this in mind and make my words both engaging and appealing. I imagine the rhetorical appeal of emotion is a global phenomenon, but I must ask: are you guys as dumb as us Americans? In our politics it sometimes seems as if logic has gone out of fashion. What’s it like in your neighborhood?
Anyway, thanks for reading all this. Here’s the abstract from my paper.

Abstract:

Ever since John Adams famously ignored his wife’s request to “remember the ladies” in crafting the United States in 1776, the resultant nation has been a sexist one. For 62% of the country’s existence, women were denied the right to vote. Today, that right is ironically the only one for which women are given explicit constitutional equality. In 1923, a constitutional amendment was proposed that would guarantee women complete equality under the law. Congress passed it in 1972, but it fell three states short of ratification. This essay examines the history of the Equal Rights Amendment and the rhetoric that has surrounded it. Specifically, it focuses on the dichotomy between the belief that women and men deserve identical treatment and the belief that while women may not necessarily be inferior to men, the sexes are fundamentally different and ought to be treated as such. The essay concludes with a look at the current state of things and a call to action for the future.