The dominance of US media products is shown very clearly in today's world, when you turn on the television, radio, or check the newspapers for movie listings. Granted, there are local productions but do people watch more local films or those from the West? Do we listen to music produced by local artists or from foreigners?

Singapore is diverse in culture thanks to the multi-racial society we live in, but are our interests and lifestyle close to that of what our background is, or have we developed another way of living and thinking thanks to cultural imperialism?

The first McDonald's restaurant in Southeast Asia was opened here in Singapore in 1979, and the popularity of fast food restaurants in our country is evident. Jeans seems to be a staple choice of clothes for most Singaporeans, and I'm sure we'll all seen people who're dressed in Japanese fashion around town. Our speech is filled with slangs from the shows we watch, slangs which you do not hear our parents speak, and our values are different from that our parents knew when growing up.

I believe that the one-way flow of international messages has influenced us in some way, but I also see how Singapore still remains as a high-context culture like other Asian countries. We are a society is not forthright with our words, choosing to hide behind screens or to express ourselves through non-verbal cues at times. An explicit communication style is seen as rude, and we see this in the censorship of films with vulgarities, explicit images, and sensitive issues like homosexuality.

So how much do you think cultural imperialism has affected us, and do you think we have a distinct Singaporean culture?

"You see for me, Jack Neo movies mostly are comedy. Without the comedy elements in, I think my audience isn't going to like it. When they pay the money, they go in. They just want to have a good laugh. At the same time, if they can catch some message there, then it's a bonus."

Watch a Jack Neo film and you'll see how it fulfills the media functions of entertainment (through injection of local humour) and surveillance (informing us of local issues). His films touch on issues like education, money, and the government, and repeated films that poke fun at the government make me wonder if his agenda is to hint at how the government is not all good, but at the same time, not offend them by subtly including government messages. It is true though, that as a gatekeeper of the media, he, like all movie directors, have the power to influence their audience. What are some movies which you think reflect a strong agenda of the director?

Other than setting agendas, the media also has the ability to indirectly cultivate attitudes in us. Sometimes, we don't even realise certain messages or implications these shows bring, until much later. There are so many stereotypes shown in movies, like how the busty blonde-haired chick is the bimbo and the bespectacled dark-haired boy is the geek. These stereotypes are cultivated and influence us gradually till we actually believe them subconsciously. If you were to meet someone fitting the image of a "busty blond-haired chick", would you be more inclined to see her as a bimbo or an intellectual? And, if she does show bimbotic tendencies, a "double dose" effect is created and your view of how busty blond-haired chicks are bimbos would be strengthened (even though that isn't the case), all thanks to the media.





Finally, can anyone explain why the Yellow Ranger is played by an Asian with "yellow" skin and the Black Ranger's played by someone with "black" skin?

We all belong to a group. Be it a project group, a group of your closest friends, or a group formed for social purposes, a group allows us to interact, and it meets our interpersonal needs for inclusion, control, and affection. Being in a group also helps people to open up and express their identity without no fear, because of the interdependence formed, and it also gives off a shared identity, which I believe is seen in bands, especially in their dressing.


Punk band The Ramones


Post-hardcore band Underoath


Indie rock band Death Cab for Cutie


New Rave band New Young Pony Club

Heavy metal band Motley Crue

Notice how each group gives off a collective identity and how members of each group look somewhat identical, be it in their dressing or hairstyle. http://yourscenesucks.com is a website portraying exaggerated stereotypes of people in the music scene.

Though groupthink refers to groups believing they can do no wrong in their actions, I feel that the symptoms of groupthink can be applied to a group's sense of dressing as well. Walk along the streets and we see groups with long-haired boys, groups with people dressed only in black, groups of people in flamboyant colours, groups and groups of people who look and act the same. Illusion of invulnerability tells them that they look good, and if a prospective member feels out of place, collective rationalisations convince him or her that the group identity is a good one. Now, if you find certain groups strange, don't go telling them how you feel because their shared stereotypes will deem them to see you as stupid and not knowing better.

But to each his own, I say. My group of friends and I have a lot of shared interests, and I believe friends have the ability to influence us in many ways, whether consciously or not. Think of you and your group of friends. What do you think your shared collective identity is? What are your common interests, and is there a particular style of dressing you share which you might even be unaware of?

The Notebook is one of my favourite movies, so naturally that's what I picked when asked to watch a romance film over the weekend. The story tells of Noah, a poor labourer, and Allie, a rich city girl, who fall in love when she visits his town for the summer.

The reasons they fell in love could be due to reciprocity and liking. Noah was first physically attracted to Allie and tried to Initiate things as seen in the first stage of the Knapp Model of Relational Development, but failed to impress. However, the knowledge of his interest in her might have led her to be somewhat attracted to him, which made her give him a chance. Proximity is another advantage Noah had because his best friend was dating Allie's friend who brought her out, and soon enough Allie and Noah were Experimenting. By the third meeting, Allie shared details about her life and you could see how they were growing closer, Intensifying and getting physical.

Allie: Say I'm a bird! Say it!
Noah: You're a bird.
Allie: Now say you're a bird.
Noah: If you're a bird, I'm a bird.

Though it's not shown directly, I believe this could be stage 4 when they're integrating. Also, this is one of my favourite scenes, because I find it extremely sweet, and I like how Noah is looking at Allie with utmost love and adoration when he says that line. Oculesics is a big part of the movie because of the many scenes where words are not needed, because of the love shown clearly in their eyes.

However, their dissimilarities in background only made their relationship harder, thanks to the disapproval of Allie's parents. Ultimately, they broke up in the middle of the movie due to a lack of communication, and tried to move on due to a misunderstanding, which really shows how important communication is in the management of a relationship. I shan't spoil the movie for those who have not watched it, but you really should!

For those who've been in love/a relationship, how have you used verbal communication in the three processes (engagement, management, disengagement) of a relationship? Or how do you and your partner use non-verbal cues to express your love?

communicating through art.

My mother is not a fan of body art because her perception is that they're associated with gangsters, that having tattoos would imply that one is "bad'. This article I found shows how she's not the only one who thinks so.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_276264.html

"The poster is of a man, a former criminal, with a full-back tattoo. But are all tattooed men criminals or ex-criminals? Just because you have a tattoo you're bad?"

This paragraph speaks for me, and I think that the prejudice society has against tattoos is sad. I'm all for tattoos, and to me, tattoos are a type of non-verbal communication. There's no denying that we judge people from their physical appearance upon first contact, and other than the usual clothes, hair, and artefacts of a person that we pick up clues from, tattoos can say a lot as well. I like how tattoos are personal to each person, and how they all have a story to tell.

Taken from: http://www.freetattoodesigns.org/angelina-jolie-tattoos.html

Taken from: http://hubpages.com/hub/Tattoo_Ideas_Words_Phrases_III

Taken from: http://hubpages.com/hub/Tattoo_Ideas_Words_Phrases_III

If you were to get a tattoo, what would it be, and why? If you already have one, what is your story?

Article taken from: The Straits Times, Page 46, May 31st 2008

If you're lazy to read the article, it's about how Dunkin' Donuts was slammed for their ad which showed celebrity chef Rachel Ray in a fringed black-and-white scarf, similar to a keffiyeh, which "offered symbolic support for Muslim extremisn and terrorism". I think this is an example of how perception is a powerful tool which can cause some to see terrorist threats in the form of a beverage advertisement.

How one views the advertisement depends on how they first select the information. If I had not read the article, I would have omitted the resemblance of the scarf to a keffiyeh, seeing it as an ordinary accessory. For those who raised complaints, however, did they do so due to distortion in their selection or is there really a reason to be worked up?

What made the audience so angry is their perception of what the keffiyeh represents, and we know that perception is shaped by many things, some of which are the media or our cultural background. Those who are ignorant about what the keffiyeh represents would wonder what all the fuss is, while there are those who would stop to wonder about the intentions of the advertisement: Is it subtly promoting terrorism or simply unaware of the insinuations of the scarf?

If you're one who follows the news on terrorism closely and it's something that hits close to your heart, you might perceive the scarf inappropriate. If you're into fashion, you would see the scarf as a mere accessory (and they are; keffiyehs have been a fashion trend and Topshop even sells them with skull prints!) and find the complaints ridiculous. When I first came across the article, my first reaction was that there should not have been such a big fuss created over the scarf. After giving the issue some thought, however, I see why it might not have been such a good choice, honest mistake or not. What do you think?

The controversy surrounding this ad also makes me think about how we judge people. Would the issue be more serious if say, a Muslim had been in the advertisement instead?

After all the terrorist attacks, it is okay for people to be afraid, but is it okay for people to judge? We hear the announcement in train stations all the time, about being wary of people carrying suspicious items. Would you be more suspicious of a well-dressed, clean-shaven, person with a huge box or an Osama-lookalike? In all honesty, I would be more wary of the latter, because it better represents the prototype of a terrorist. I think that as much as people insist that they do not judge or at least try not to, it is something that cannot be helped sometimes, thanks to the cognitive schemata in us.

The question is, do we continue to let our perceptions rule our mind or do we fight to free ourselves from these misconceptions?

silence can say more.

Have you ever made eye contact with a stranger in a train?
Have you ever waved or smiled at someone from afar?

Non-verbal communication. It exists in daily life, whether consciously or not, and there are so many ways in which we communicate non-verbally. If you take a sender-based view of communication, you'd agree that things like a smile or frown communicate whether a person is having a good day or not. The way you approach someone (whether you give a handshake or a warm hug) communicates your level of closeness to a person or perhaps your personality. Non-verbal communication is even used in responses, such as shrugging to say "i don't know", giving a thumbs-up to show approval, or giving someone the finger when you're pissed off.

A few days ago, I watched this short film, and found it rather touching. I like how the director managed to tell a story so beautifully without words, reaching out to us through the actions and expressions of the actors, and the use of music. Go watch it, it's only three minutes long!

http://www.pangeaday.org/filmDetail.php?id=74

You can tell the guy was interested in the lady from the slight shift of his head upon noticing her, and in the subsequent train scenes, the camera focuses on the guy staring. What it is he's staring at, we don't know, until the next scene shows the lady. Little scenes like that are very telling of what's happening, and in such cases, I think words, which are far more direct, would make the communication less exciting. Music is important in communication too, it tells you if the atmosphere's cheery, gloomy, or filled with suspense. Music communicates especially well during horror movies, when you hear melodic piano keys which give you chills or angry thrashing notes which make you jump in your seat.

We've all heard that "actions speak louder than words", and though I agree that words are definitely important for communication, I feel little actions really do say so much more sometimes. Another thing I like about non-verbal communication is that unless you're an excellent actor, it expresses the truth behind people's thoughts. One can always lie with words, but expressions are hard to hide.