The play “To Me” brought up lots of issues around
interculturalism that we’ve seen in the work you’ve read for this class: 1)
what does it mean to belong (and not to belong) to a culture?, 2) what is at
stake in sustaining our cultural heritage(s) as we move through a global
world?, 3) what hostilities emerge when the world around us stereotypes our
sense of identity?, and, finally, 4) how are we interconnected in spite of our
great differences through ideas like our common human vulnerability?
For this blog post, take this experience and what you took
from it as an opportunity to reflect upon “cultural sustainability.” Think
about the insight the play gave us for this class into how human beings, as
much as environments, also engage in practices of sustainability. You could
consider that the characters felt both empowered and threatened by their global
connections.
You can address this question from any angle you want. Your
post need not be long, just make it thoughtful. We would even suggest talking
some things out on paper and then posting a summary of your ideas.
In Steven To’s one man play “To Me,” a personal conflict was visible for each character. For the school teacher, belonging to a culture was defined by gender, which determined what kind of life a person may live, particularly in China. Gender is also a dominant characteristic throughout the play, as each character associated with a particular sex, allowing the viewer to establish stereotypes. It was then Steven’s intention to break them, giving the viewer a sense of the character’s identity and self. For Cindy, the transgender woman looking for an American husband, her own identity was lost when exchanging her traditional Chinese name for an American name. For Bobby, To’s final character, Bobby, found his identity challenged on a day to day basis. As an Asian American from Tennessee, Bobby found that he couldn't completely “belong" to the southern culture because of his looks and ethnic background. For each of these characters, their self-worth was determined by their own outward appearances, whether that be gender or ethnicity, often both. According to each character, what was needed to belong to a culture was an outward appearance, a facade to the public eye. Today, movement is seen throughout the globe. This comes at a cost, as cultural heritages are often affected by the influx of immigrants and new cultures being introduced. This is seen most directly through Cindy, changing her name and essentially ignoring part of her own heritage. Through this movement, we also see a rise in stereotypes about differing cultures and countries. For Bobby, this included his Asian appearance while he was actually born and raised in the United States. What one country sees as a cultural custom and pleasantry, may be what another frowns upon within society. This creates tension internationally, often leading to larger disputes. In spite of all of this, we are still interconnected through the many human characteristics we all share, our own humanity. Steven To did a great job of visually displaying each of these problems and characteristics that are affecting our world today, something more people should be aware of.
ReplyDeleteMadison, thank you for starting us off! You make an excellent point about Steven being the vehicle for all this diversity. Do you think this play must be performed by one actor? In other words, how might your experience of the ideas change if different bodies and voices brought the various characters to life? What happens when it's the same person who plays them all?
DeleteThe characters Steven To represented in "To Me" all had unique similarities and differences. I felt the school teacher was a good opening character to the performance, since there was no clear indication of his/her gender, and the school teacher seemed to be feeding us the idea that we could not understand someone else's own feelings of cultural heritage and identity in a intercultural setting.
ReplyDeleteIn our reading "Globalization, Citizenship and Human Rights" (Turner Kohndker), the idea that everyone is connected by human vulnerability is discussed in the last section: "Human beings experience pain and humiliation because they are vulnerable. While humans may not share a common culture, they are bound together by their vulnerability." (pg 174 under "Universalism and Rights")
I thought this quote was relevant to the school teacher, because it goes against what he/she was saying. Instead of saying: "unless you are a Chinese woman, you have no idea!" The quote says that we all have that common vulnerability and can relate to each-other's pain and humiliation.
I like the idea of thinking about vulnerability in terms of the character, in particular, as she seems not to want to show vulnerability (which the other two do). I wonder, too, if there is a way in which vulnerability, which should be the common ground, is precisely where people divide. If we each think we are more vulnerable (and certain some people living in oppressive state or social or domestic conditions are *very* vulnerable to abuse) than someone else, how do we begin the conversation that allows us to see it in each other?
DeleteSteven To's play "To Me" brought up many questions of identity and how they play out in our world. For each character there was a sense of belonging to a group but also a sense of being outsiders at the same time. The school teacher obviously seemed to identify as a Chinese woman, however she was teaching in a place that was not in China. It seemed important for her to make it clear that no one could know what it was like to be these people but by making such a clear statement that no one would understand she seemed to make it more so. Instead of drawing similarities she was convinced of the differences. This whole statement ties into the idea that as our world becomes increasingly globalized some try to sustain cultural heritage instead of letting it be open to the world, she wanted so much to teach about the differences and would not allow herself to see the similarities. The character Cindy struggled with the idea that how can we hang onto our culture when trying to achieve a goal? Cindy seemed to be upset with the fact that she had to give up a name that she identified with just to appeal to a Western audience, and by doing the act of trying to court a husband for a better life she was giving up her culture. This shows that trying to be a part of another culture requires a person to give up some of their culture which makes cultures not "sustainable" in that sense. She was not sustaining her culture by being a part of its practices and traditions and by trying to absorb the ideals of another culture. The last character Bobby relates to the idea that certain hostilities arise when people stereotype certain identities. By being a Chinese, Southern, and a gay man Bobby was blurring all of the stereotypes and proving them all wrong. He proved that a Chinese person could be Southern, a Southern person could be smart and a gay person could be prejudiced against others in the LBGT community, all of which a person would be against a person's idea of what it means to be those things. All three characters share in the common human emotion, vulnerable. No matter what culture they take part in, or what their heritage is the common factor is that they are vulnerable to the stereotypes, criticism and ideas of other people. And all three characters take some part in the idea of cultural sustainability, the school teacher took the part of a person trying to preserve their culture and was allowing the culture to continue being sustained. Cindy, as previously mentioned, was tearing down the wall of sustainability by not participating in the culture and therefore lessening the amount of people there to preserve the culture. And finally Bobby took the part of mixing cultures and therefore ruining the ability for all three cultures to be sustained. I thought that Steven To did well with the idea that no matter what a person identifies with and what differences there are, human emotion allows us all to be interconnected.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to think about how some of what we do sustains culture and some of it does not, Sophie. Globalization could easily be seen as the destruction of culture, as you point out. On the other hand, globalization brings cultures into to contact in humanly productive ways--Bobby is your good example of that. He breaks all kinds of barriers. Ultimately, though, does not get to belong fully to any of the identities he lives. How do you think we can begin to figure out what it means to sustain human heritage in a world of mixed identities?
DeleteThe play “To Me” by Steven To highlighted many of the issues that we as a human race face daily. Gender, race, sexuality, and stereotypes were the three main issues that Steven touched upon in his play. Gender seemed to be more of a struggle in the past with women fighting for their right to vote in the United States but male dominance is still found in many countries today. In many countries women have to cover their faces at all time or women are expected to get married at a young age in order to start having and raising children. Many women to this day are denied freedoms that many men have. Women are also expected to produce male children. One of the characters in Steven’s play was a schoolteacher explaining the hardships of being a woman in China and how difficult it is to be a woman in China. The schoolteacher character was a harsh character that explained to “the class” that no one knows what it is like to be a woman in China. This statement made the teacher seem to think that she and other Chinese women have rough lives and no one can truly know how they feel. This was the beginning of turning gender struggles into struggles of specific citizens around the world and how some people struggle more than others. The statement of “no one can know how we feel,” is a pretty interesting comment because everyone has their struggles and while it is true that some people are worse off than others we can all still sympathize with each other. A woman struggling in China could relate to a woman in the Middle East who is controlled by men. An American woman struggling to raise a family could relate to a woman in a European country who is also trying to raise a family. We can all relate to someone who isn’t necessarily a part of our culture and we can relate our hardships to the hardships of others and that can bring us together. Race and sexuality were other problems that were brought up by Steven. One character was named Cindy and she was a transsexual woman who was trying to get sold as some form of a “mail order bride.” Hearing her story and her feelings of needing to get sold in order to survive is a sad reality that a lot of people aren’t aware of. People who are transsexual women who have been sold and eventually get married have been divorced and left alone because of their decision to change from male to female. This issue has been a struggle for people to grasp even if it is someone who is not part of the “mail order bride” type system. That leads me in to the final topic of stereotypes. A character in the play was a man named bobby and he was a rough southerner who happened to be of Chinese descent with a southern accent and he was also gay. This character struck me the most because he brushed upon many stereotypes that people struggle with daily and how these judgments and comments made by other people can be hurtful. Living in America we are all one big melting pot of different cultures. We get to see a lot of diversity here and yet there is still judgment. You would think that living in a country of so much diversity that we would be more open to all people no matter what race, sexual preference, income, and/or gender they are. We all struggle with our different problems and I believe these struggles bring us together as global citizens and as a human race.
ReplyDeleteIn Obama's state of the union, he pointed out that still in 2014, women make (on average) .77 to the male $1.00. So, we don't have to look far to find practices that still divide the value of contribution by gender! I like how you state with surprise, Kate, that a community as self-avowedly multicultural as the US still has not gotten it right (we still judge). And you point out, too, that one way to think about how to connect is through human experiences that cut across cultural conditions--gender equality, motherhood, race relations...What do you make of the fact that these human connections are often thought to efface real cultural difference (and vice versa)? What's the way out of that paradox?
DeleteThe play “To Me”
ReplyDelete1) For me my culture is so engrained into my life I rarely think of it as culture. It is only when faced with someone of a different culture that I realize it, Christmas for example is something I am now realizing as more of a cultural celebration, I had never met anyone before this year who didn't celebrate Christmas. Culture is part of who you are and is not always noticeable. Everyone belong to a culture some just have stronger traditions that are more noticeable and making someone of a minority culture feel even more out of place.
2) Historically speaking I like America am a melting pot. In that I have no real ties to anyone culture besides the area in which I was raised (which I'm not necessarily fond of). I would choose to adapt to many cultures and mix them all together on a global scale. Globally cultures are easier to share but they are also easier to improve now. I would choose to believe that cultures are more easily shared if not practiced not the opposite being modified for the modern age.
3) When someone is stereotyped I feel that it goes one of two was, neither of which embracing who the person really is. The person either works hard to fit the mold or they work hard to break the mold. Often they lose themselves trying to show people they are wrong or right. Breaking the mold does help to lessen stereotypes but it still may not be who the person really is.
4) "nobody understands" is a common thought that most everyone in the populace thinks. Sure nobody understands how you handle things or feel but there is bound to be someone who has either been through the same thing or something similar. Binding over things things is hard when they first happen but after someone has some distance to discuss it it strengthens relationships because you were vulnerable - it builds trust.
Kaitlyn, I am struck by your own coming to understand yourself as a person with a culture. In many critical fields we talk about "marked" and "unmaked" categories. When we are on the inside of a group, we don't feel marked, but make everyone on the outside feel like they are. Consider American English. It's easy to feel like all other Anglophone cultures have accents and you don't...until you are in Britain. Then you hear yours because it is "marked" as different. Often it takes being confronted by our own strangeness to see that only the privilege of feeling like we blend (which some people never feel) can blind us to it. Cool that the play brought that up for you.
DeleteI found Steven To's "To Me" to be very inspiring. Each character he played brought out a unique problem facing our world today. As I was reading Dr. J's prompt, there was one question that I had been thinking a lot about since the performance. "What hostilities emerge when the world around us stereotypes our sense of identity?" I believe that each person has their own extremely original and unique sense of identity. Each and every one of us has numerous traits to which they identify. For example, I identify with being a woman, being an 18 year old, being a student at the U of U, and hundreds of other things. But when we are stereotyped, our identities are chosen for us. I feel that Bobby exemplified this idea of stereotyping perfectly. When he first started his monologue, he said "You probably didn't expect me to talk like this, right? Don't lie." He assumed that we fit him into the stereotype that a Chinese teenager would have a Chinese accent. We fit people into these stereotypes almost subconsciously. When we discover that someone does not fit into our presupposed stereotype, we are surprised. But there are so many things that one can identify with, and like I said, each of the 7 billion people in the world has their very own unique combination of traits they identify with. Nobody should be expected and automatically assumed to identify with a certain trait. Bobby called us out on stereotypes we were thinking, but unfortunately in reality, many instances involving stereotyping can lead to more problematic encounters. Everyday, we hear news about racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping. For example, the Trayvon Martin case was a horrible example of racial profiling and stereotyping. The officer on his night patrol saw a black teenager with his hood up walking late at night, and made the stereotype that he was up to no good. An innocent man was shot just because of a presupposed stereotype. We don't expect people to fit us into a refined stereotype, so we must do our best to avoid stereotyping others. This idea is one of the most significant lessons "To Me" attempted to explain, and it was the most thought-provoking concepts that left me to reconsider my interactions with others.
ReplyDeleteYour observations about how much this play brings the audience's own psychology into its language is well taken, Kiersten. Indeed, we are confronted constantly in Bobby's monologue by reactions we are likely to be having while we watch in, in real time. It forces us to claim those reactions and think about them right there during the piece. I also like that Steven takes on his own character (an actor who prepped for the play) at the end to become one of us and talk about his own shock at first reading these characters. So, if we are all caught in a vortex of profiling and nearly subconscious reactions, where do we start to begin untangling how society has taught us to react to difference?
DeleteSteven To's performance of "To Me" didn't end up anything like I had imagined. After seeing it of course, the title was perfect for the performance. The title "To Me" sets it up perfectly for how he portrays each character. All three of the characters were from different cultural backgrounds, different personal backgrounds have all had very different personalities. Saying this there are two main themes that kept coming up during the play. The first being, will we ever be able to fully understand someone else's life, story, feelings, etc.? And the second being a constant and automatic assumptions that are made.
ReplyDeleteWith the thousands of different cultures, lifestyles, races, and ethnicities, will an "outsider" ever fully understand what an individual of different circumstances? This makes a definitional argument, what does it mean to "understand"? Perhaps to understand might mean to literally feel exactly what they are feeling or 'being in their skin', or maybe it means something along the lines of simply being educated and knowledgeable of their situation. I would define it as knowing exactly what someone is feeling, when they are feeling it, why it is significant, and how it emotionally, mentally, and physically effects that one individual. This is impossible since we cannot literally jump into another's skin. No one will ever fully understand one another. Does this mean that we can't be educated and appreciative of other cultures, sexualities, races, ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.? Fortunately for us, no! In fact that is all that we can do to and the closest thing that we will be to ever fully understanding others who are not exactly clones of us. This is what will sustain cultures is the respect and appreciation of other cultures surrounding them.
I mentioned that there were two main themes, the second unfortunately being our constant and automatic assumptions to those who are different than you. When Steven portrayed the southern, bisexual, and Asian male, there were automatic assumptions or I think a better word for this particular character was automatic shock. When he put on an oversized football jersey, baseball cap, and loose jeans, along with the very southern accent I can admit to the shock when he announced that he was bisexual. Interestingly enough he was making assumptions, right alongside of us, based on what he assumed we were assuming (that's a mouth full)! He assumed, along with the rest of us, that when he started speaking with a heavy southern accent, also being Asian, that we would assume he was stupid. This along with many different assumptions about southerners is just one example of the unfortunate truth that nowadays, we are prone to first assess, and assume when faced with a cultural, racial, etc., experience. While portraying this southern character, and his Cindy character, Steven made a lot of justifications for our automatic assumptions, which in my opinion, portrays a very real problem with society.
All in all, although it was completely different than what I (automatically) assumed, I really enjoyed this performance and learning experience.(Which is an ironic statement regarding the themes I found during this piece.)
Stephanie, I am glad and not surprised the play was a bit of a shock. I toyed with telling you all a bit more about it, but felt that the unpreparedness of not having any idea what the title could mean is part of living through the play in real time. If we can't prepare, we have to have all our reactions right there during the performance--with all of the characters calling us on them! There's real value to being put in that uncomfortable position and it may be part of what the play does so well, as all the characters are in some kind of discomfort, as well. And I'm doubly glad that in the end you found it compelling. It does so much in less than 1/2 hour--as only art can. Imagine if academics had to be that concise!
DeleteI was unable to watch Steven To's act but from what I have heard about it and also from what we learned about last semester it makes me think about how ingrained culture is. When you are surrounded by people who are accustomed to your own customs it's called 'normal' or 'common sense' but as soon as you are surrounded by another culture you really begin to notice the differences because you all of a sudden stick out. Even with the smallest things that you subconsciously do. Standing in a line, for example, can differ according to location/culture. Someone who grew up in a culture where a large population lives in tight living conditions people may stand closer to the person in front of them in line. On the other hand, someone who is used to more widespread areas or cultures where ‘personal space’ is large would put more space in between themselves and the person ahead of them. America is commonly known as a ‘melting pot’ where many cultures and different types of people collide. And although there is a vast amount of similarities there are hints of different backgrounds, ancestry, and culture. Proof of this goes far beyond jus looks or language.
ReplyDeleteEmily, you've hit on something that Anthony Appiah discusses in *Cosmopolitanism*. That's the reading we cut so that you could all work on your sustainability proposal. In a chapter of that book, he reminds us that--as you say--most urban areas are "melting pots." We often delude ourselves into thinking that geography makes us all similar. But frequently, it does not. He invites us to think about how you don't need to go far at all to find people who are quite different. Most of us, I think, could find it even in our immediate genetic pool! So, what you've shown us is that the confrontation with more "obvious" or immediate cultural difference should also make us reflect back on how genes and geography are not the guarantors of similarity that we sometimes believe they are.
ReplyDeleteWhen Steven first began to perform this play, I honestly was shocked. I didn't understand where he was coming from or what he was trying to portray. But my first thoughts when i saw and heard the characters that Steven performed is the perfect example of what he was trying to portray. I judged him right from the beginning of the play just because i thought it was so odd. Little did i know that that was the whole point of the play. What i got from it was how we all individually judge and put everyone in these stereotypes. Watching Steven acting out a woman's part and then listening to him discuss that it was odd to him at first too was so interesting to me. It hadn't even hit me that he would think it was weird or not normal as well. Stereotyping is so unconsciously done that you don't even realize you did it until you are proved wrong or corrected. I once had a thoughtful question asked that questioned whether you can fully know your own culture without studying others. This struck me because it had never occurred to me that we only know who we are by comparing ourselves to others in all aspects. I surprisingly enjoyed this play even though it was so odd to me at first encounter. I think i enjoyed it so much because of what i got out of it in the end and how my views were personally corrected.
ReplyDeleteClancy, it's so interesting that you had this self-reflexive response: that you could see yourself doing exactly what the play was talking about. The piece is pretty extraordinary in the way it forces shock in the audience, all the while portraying it, and then sort of saying, "I told you so" in the end, but in a non-judgmental way. You don't leave feeling slapped so much as feeling woken up. Your post captured that.
DeleteGoing into class I had really no clue what Steven To’s performance “To Me” would be about. The beginning of the performance I was a bit confused and rather taken back as too what exactly was going on? As the performance continued I began to gain a deeper understanding for the meaning behind this. The play for me emphasized important subjects relating to culture and stereotypes. Each character to me symbolized something different but similar at the exact same time. These characters all had the struggle of a stereotype. This play relayed a message to me that was completely relatable on subjects that aren’t really talked about much. The performance spoke to me in a way that was: every single person can relate to this. Whether you’re a homosexual Asian from the south or someone who sells themselves or neither, you can relate. This part of the performance was the most powerful to me, when you sat back and realized you don’t need to be an extreme for someone to stereotype you. After watching the performance questions were raised and I was more conscious of the assumptions I made. I think everyone has a similar definition of what it means to and not to be a part of a culture. It’s another stereotype determined by race, hair color, accent, even clothing. Culture is defined as your appearance, beliefs and practices. I think this play did a great job a kind of putting those typical stereotypes to rest. We think when we see someone we know everything about them just by seeing what’s on the surface. This performance did a great job of telling this story that culture isn’t the typical thought that first comes to mind. Take for example the character Bobby, one would be sure they knew or at least had a good idea of his culture background. As the performance went on you came to find out Bobby was this southern Asian who was homosexual, and who would have ever thought? I think everyone has this idea of what they think fits the part of each culture. People “know” each culture as something different, such as Asians being good at math and science. The stereotypes may or may not be accurate but to me it gives a sense of fear to people in that culture. I think this play said it perfectly; it’s almost scary knowing what the stereotype is for your culture and feeling like you need to live up to it. Take for example Cindy, she had to not only try and convince us but also almost convince herself that what she was doing was ok and smart. Cultures face this shock almost to “maintain” the image of their culture and beliefs. This play showed that culture sustainability is hard to keep up. It’s hard to maintain this ‘perfect’ idea of what each culture is. Steven To’s did a great job of portraying this message that cultures aren’t just the stereotypical belief that one usually has and that people need to be aware of this.
ReplyDelete"This play showed that culture sustainability is hard to keep up." Nicely put. It may even make us wonder what we are with all the "culture" stripped away. If we are not enacting or fighting stereotype, what are we, exactly? Maybe a similar question comes up in the Turner and Khondker around the question of "vulnerability." We're so used to thinking about our rights as citizens that we have a hard time understanding what kinds of rights transcend nation, yet we talk constantly about "human rights" as though we all agree on them. So, if we believe we need to see past cultural stereotypes to what people really *are*, then we need to be able to articulate what, exactly, is left when we strip away our presumptions of race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, etc. Tough--and necessary--questions!
ReplyDelete