If you have Gmail, you can receive notifications of new posts from this blog, other blogs, or any site on the internet that uses RSS, such as CNN, Reuters, etc.

1. Login to Gmail.
2. Click on 'Settings.'
3. Click on the 'Web Clips' tab.
4. Check 'Show my web clips above the Inbox.'
5. Add or remove 'feeds' by searching for them by topic.

To add this blog to your Gmail web clips, simply type marcopomo into the search box, then click "add" to add it to your list of rotating web clips (displayed one at a time above your Inbox).

Too many people can't define culture. Some professors refuse to use it as a term. Some just say, "Oh, language is culture." Some, when speaking of culture, are actually talking about diversity. So what's culture really?

It's this: shared schematic experience.

When you go to a movie, you park your car, stand in line, look at the movies and times, pay for your ticket, get some popcorn and a drink, go to the theater, find your seat, and wait through the previews. Then, the lights dim and the movie starts. You watch it. Everyone is quiet. When the movie is over, the lights fade back in and everyone slowly trickles out of the theater. With a few minor differences, this is your movie-going schematic experience.

A major difference in this experience may aggravate you. If the line is an hour long, or if the movie is sold out, or if someone is using their cell phone during the movie, these things will stand out. It's not right. It doesn't belong. It makes you uncomfortable.

Language is a schematic experience. Certain sounds stand for certain meaning. In English, we all know what "dog" means. But in Spanish, they use the word "perro," and they all know what that means. Food is a schematic experience. Americans like their meat and fat, Chinese like their peppers and vegetables, Japanese like their raw fish, Russians like their beets, Mongolians like their milk. All of these distinictions that we regard as "culture," are shared schematic experiences among groups of people.

Shopping is a schematic experience. You park your car, go into the store, look around, someone asks you if you need help, you say no thanks, you keep looking, you collect your items, you take them to the front, they are scanned through a machine, you are shown the total, you pay, you leave. With a few minor differences, this is your shopping schematic experience.

But how do they shop in bargaining markets in China? You walk through a crowd of people, shop attendants grab you and shout prices at you, you find something you want, they give you a price, you give them another price, they give you another price, you finally agree on a price, you pay, you take the item(s) and go.

We are masters at our own schematic experiences and beginners in experiences we aren't familiar with. Michael Jordan's basketball schematic experience is quite different from mine. An American can travel to multiple regions of the world and expect to hear English, or even order schematically comfortable food at a schematically familiar McDonalds in Bombay or Bangkok. In this way, we can feel somewhat "at home" even while we are abroad. A South Korean, however, who travels to Utah, cannot expect to find many people who can speak his or her language. There are only a few restaurants that serve Korean food, etc. We can see that if you are an English-speaking America, this big world is quite hospitable for you.

We all seem to be trying to assert our schematic experiences abroad. The U.S. is trying to assert its government upon Iraq. This has less to do with whether democracy is a superior form of government, and more to do with the fact that humans have a habit of asserting their own schematic experiences on others, because we want the rest of the world to behave in predictable patterns. We want our schematic experiences to rule. And when two groups of people have differing schematic experiences, there is sometimes war. We clash and create conflict all because we want to have things our way. We want our own schematic experiences to dominate. It makes things easier that way.

“People judge as 'right' what they personally consider pleasant, and judge as 'wrong' what they personally consider unpleasant. Therefore, trying to convince others of what is 'right' cannot be equated with teaching the truth. Rather, it is only teaching others to agree with you. It is less about putting an end to error, and more about putting an end to opinions contrary to your own preconceptions.” -Laozi

First, a little background:

Nietzsche said there are two types of systems of morality (a way of determining right/wrong, good/bad): master morality and slave morality.

Master: Under this system, "right" and "good" are seen as being prosperous, doing what works, etc.; "wrong" and "bad" are seen as being lazy, poor, unsuccessful, etc.

Slave: Over time, the poor get fed up with this class distinction, and they create alternate concepts of right/wrong, good/bad, etc. They create a backlash against the wealthy ("those who can"). They decry riches, possessions, bodily sensations, etc. They create concepts of good and evil based on ideas unrelated to money. They view themselves as good for heeding these abstract concepts, and view others as bad for not heeding these abstract concepts. It's kind of like a booby prize. If you can't have more money than the next man, imagine something you do have more of than the next man (i.e. piety) and emphasize that.

The core emotion in both of these structures is resentment. (Nietzshce, a German philosopher, preferred the French "ressentiment," as he felt it carried a more meaning connotation.) The rich despise the poor (resentment), and the poor are secretly jealous of the rich (resentment). More to the point, resentment means that you blame the other person as the source of your woes. Nietzsche believed that all societies started out under a sense of master morality (those who worked hard prospered) then slowly changed to slave morality (the backlash against class).

(Note: Master/Slave morality are just terms to describe two frameworks of morality. They do not refer literally to any specific master/slave relationship from history. Morevover, one does not have to be a literal bondservant to operate under a sense of slave morality. It's just the name of the concept.)

Here's an example of how this morality shift takes place. Donald is a student in fifth grade. He is the only one to get 100% on his spelling test. His teacher points this out and lavishes him with praise and attention. This is similar to "goodness" (acheivment) under a system of master morality. Donald's classmates, however, are not getting praise and attention. They resent Donald for his acheivment. They band together and begin to ridicule him and call him "teacher's pet." In this micro example, these boys are now operating under a concept of slave morality.

Second, consider the following:

Under a system of master morality, how do the "bad" in society perceive themselves before they make the moral shift to think in slave terms? I imagine it's somewhat like some of the servants in these older societies that we read about in novels. For example, I read Card's sci-fi novel "Xenocide" a few years ago. In the book, Wang Si, a nine-year-old girl, (I can't remember whether that's the actual name, but that will do) is a servant to Qingjao, a nine-year-old girl (I think that was her name). In this future Chinese-ish society, there's a master class and a servant/slave class. At one point, Wang Si makes some mistake (can't remember exactly what it was), and Qingjao just ridicules her for it. Any American reading the book can obviously see that Wang Si doesn't deserve all the harsh treatment. And from our American slave morality perspective, we are expecting Wang Si to stand up for herself and fight right back.

But she doesn't. Instead, she says (something like this), "It is true. I have caused all this misfortune. I am lower than the dust. I am not worthy to breathe air and must be punished." In these true forms of master morality, it seems the "lower class" accept their place and their fate. Take a beggar in India. People don't give beggars money, because the beggar's karma produced his or her fate, so the beggar's condition is seen as fair and accurate. If the beggar had made different decisions in life, the beggar wouldn't have become a beggar. (So they say in India.)

If America was operating under a concept of master morality, then Donald's fifth grade classmates would instead say, "It is true. We failed our spelling test. We are lower than the worms in the apple on the teacher's desk. We are not worthy to sit at the same table as Donlad, and we must study harder." But American society doesn't train people to think like that.

Finally, the incident that started this whole line of thinking:

Last night someone got caught stealing at a store. I was sitting outside at some tables when it all happened. The door man followed the guy out of the store and grabbed the guy, holding his clothes tightly, then took him back to the store. The guy only partly resisted. He knew he had lost. He knew he was wrong. The door man started yelling at the guy. The guy just lowered his head in shame. The door man started slapping the guy in the face and on the head and ears. The guy just took it. In my mind I'm imagining him saying, "It is true. I stole the jelly beans. I am unworthy to defend myself from this punishment."

If that were some American kid who stole a watch or some perfume or something, he wouldn't put up with that for a moment. He'd defend his face and ears, sling insults back, and generally make a fuss. "Who are you to tell me what I am?"

The more I think about it, the more I see evidences of a system of master morality in China. The CCP (government) is in charge, and you must do what they say. On those things that they do not dictate, you are free. But on those things that they do dictate, you are not free.

Also, those who drive cars are "better" (under a system of master morality) than those who walk or bike, therefore, they are deferred to at intersections. (Get out of the way of those with more power and money or you'll get run over and it will be your own fault.) "It is true. I am poor and cannot afford a car. I am unworthy to step into the street at the same time as a BMW."

Our American ideal of equality and balance of power is more akin to a slave morality approach. We believe that with power comes responsibility. So if you drive a car, you must look out for the little guy (the pedestrian), or we the people will take your car away from you. Isn't it so odd that "American capitalism" is more community-oreiented and slave-like in this regard than "Chinese communism"?

Which type of morality is more individualistic and which one is more community-oriented? I don't think the lines can be drawn clearly. Because clearly it's the individual pursuit of wealth in China that has created the master-like system, yet it's also the care for the individual pedestrian in America that has created the slave-like system. I don't think the lines clearly delineate on this matter. You can't say master or slave is more individualistic or community-oriented. (Can you?) Because I see elements of both in both.

Remember that old parable that demonstrates the (sometimes) absurdity of tradition? It goes like this:

One day, a young husband asked his wife, "Why do you always cut both ends of the roast off before cooking it?" The wife responded, "Not sure. That's what my mother always does." That Easter, the young couple visited the wife's mother, and the husband noticed his mother-in-law cutting off both ends of the roast. Curious, he asked, "Why do you always cut off both ends of the roast before cooking it?" "Not sure," she replied. "That's what my mother always does." That Christmas, the young couple visited the wife's grandmother, and the husband observed this same behavior of cutting both ends off the meat. "Why do you do that!" he demanded. "Why do you cut off both ends of the meat before putting it in the pan!? Is it too tough? Too fatty? What possible reason can you have!?" Perplexed, the grandmother responded, "I have a small pan."

In China, don't stick your chopsticks vertically into your rice bowl. This is very offensive. You will be asked to knock it the hell off, but you may not be told why. The reason is this: when paying respects to the dead, the Chinese put food, not flowers on graves. They stick chopsticks vertically into the rice. It's a special symbol reserved only for paying respects to the dead. Furthermore, in Chinese society, you don't really talk about death and dying and dead people. It makes people really uncomfortable. So sticking your chopsticks vertically into your rice bowl can cause a lot of hurt feelings.

I told a friend that in the West we are taught not to put our elbows on the table. (But I always do, and so do most of the people I know.) Have you ever wondered why we have perpetuated that bit of etiquette? Well, I have a theory. Developed it just this morning, actually. I went to Yong He Da Wang for breakfast (you get an egg, warm sweetened soy milk, and some fried bread for about $.75) and I noticed that the table was wobbley—one of the legs was shorter than the other three. Sitting across the table from me was a woman trying to slurp her soup, but I kept putting my elbows on the G.D. table, suspending it into a tango with gravity.

At that moment, I was enlightened.

:)

If you think Chinese Opera is whiney and catty, you really ought to ride a taxi or a rickshaw past a loudspeaker blasting the awful stuff. Just when you think you've had enough, and you can't take another note, the whole thing shifts keys. It makes it all the sudden kind of cool. Like you just pulled a number on the fat lady.

A while back, I was talking to another American about our attitude adjustments after having spent some time in China. Yes, we were more patient. No, we weren't so aggressive. Yes, Chinese food was pretty good. No, we didn't really miss our cars. Yes, this Chinese pop music was kind of growing on us.

Then I asked him, "What about that traditional Chinese opera stuff? Have you adjusted to that? Do you find that you like it yet?"

"Nope," he said. "Can't say that I do!"

To this day I've yet to find a single person, even a Chinese person, who really likes Chinese opera. :)

I heard a radiocast the other day where a Chinese lady was insisting that Chinese are more focused on the community, and Americans are more focused on the individual. That may have been true in the past, but I don't think it's true anymore. If you have ever been to China and tried to step on to a bus or subway, you know exactly what I am talking about.

Perhaps the one-child policy is making an individualistic society out of these Chinese. (Go west, young Han.) Many of these kids are the little emperors and empresses of their families. They never learn to share their toys with others, and they don't have to eat their vegetables. This attitude translates buhao (not good) into the classroom. I think it's going to be a big social problem.

Having lived on three continents (which is pretty much 60% of the civilized world not counting Australia), I've discovered a universal truth: wherever you go PE teachers and Starbucks employees are all the same.

Woody Allen said, "Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach PE." Do you remember your junior high PE teacher? All tough and cool? All dressed up in those sporty pants and white Nikes? Did he/she walk around with a strut and swagger and wear a whistle around his/her neck like it was St. Peter's key to the pearly gates??

Starbucks employees. Do you ever feel like they're just a little bit cooler than you? (That's because they are.) Whether male or female, they've usually got three or four earrings and this really cool punky hair. They make alpha males feel unmetro enough, and they make beta males feel like they're getting hit on.

Zhuangzi said:

"Once there was a man who was bizzarrely afraid of both his shadow and his footprints. To solve his problems, he decided to run from them. He soon discovered, however, that the more he ran, the more footprints he created, and no matter how fast he ran, there was his shadow right behind him. Out of breath and energy, the man finally fell down dead. If only he had sat still underneath the shade of a Shu tree!"

Wuwei is a Taoist concept that means, basically, "don't over do it." (It literally means "without action," and yet lying down under that Shu tree is technically doing something isn't it?) Think of it like this: the right action for the right problem, no more, no less.

Zhuangzi liked to tell stories like this. He liked to point out the usefulness of uselessness, the practicality of emptiness, etc. For example, a Shu tree isn't good for making weapons or furniture. Therefore, because it's "useless," nobody wants to chop it down, therefore it survives. An empty pot is good for something, because it can be filled. But a full pot cannot be filled. It's potential for usefullness is spent. Likewise, if you never spend your money, you don't have it. You have to let go of it before it becomes useful to you. (Would you really want a million dollars if you could never, ever spend it, bequeath it, etc.?)

Well, I figured out the wuwei secret of navigating through the sea of people on the street. If you try to hurry and bob and weave, you'll find that you'll get stuck, bump into others, or find yourself in the path of a bus. A better way to navigate through people is to keep your head down. People defer to idiots. If it looks like you aren't paying attention, people will pay attention to you. If you're in a crash course with two or three guys, keeping your head down endows you with the powers of Moses. People magically open up and then close around you.

Sometimes on less crowded streets I like to see how far I can take this concept. I keep my head down, and when others are about ten yards off and adjust their trajectory, I like to adjust mine as well and point myself back into their line of fire. Believing that I can't see them, they adjust their position again. This even works with cars. If you feel that oncoming taxis aren't giving you enough room, just take an extra step or two out into the road and see how the taxis go out of their way to avoid you. :)

Today, I realized that other people also knew this secret. I was on a crash course with some kid. He had his head down and so did I. But as I peaked up to see if he was adjusting his position, he peaked up, too. We both quickly looked down, neither of us adjusting our pace. We peaked at each other again, then quickly tucked our chins to our necks. Finally, as we were about to smash into each other, I curved right and he curved left in the slightest of motions. We missed each other, and continued on our merry ways.

Sometimes when the traffic is really heavy, these little old men suddenly materialize on street corners wearing light blue uniforms with red arm bands, holding little red flags. Their job is to yell at pedestrians who try to cross the street before the light changes.

Cars run red lights all the time. There's no penalty, really. Cops don't pay much attention to traffic infractions. But if a pedestrian tries to cross the street before his/her turn, he/she is likely to get squashed. (Thus, the little old men with red flags.)

It's fun to watch them; they take their jobs very seriously. Some of them even have whistles. They stand there and wave their arms around, swiping their flags this way and that way, blowing their whistles -- yelling at bikers who try to jump the line. "Ey! Ey! Ey!"

The bikers take it in stride, yelling right back. "Ey! Ey! Ey!"

But these little old men with red flags can't appear to "lose face" or they might lose their appearance of authority and thus not be able to do their jobs as effectively. So some of them really get into it, waving people back behind the line -- even hitting people with their little red flags.

I wonder: WWNS? (What would Nietzsche say?)

I've seen similar behavior in America. Whenever there's a bottleneck office or departent where many people must pass, I often see this same sort of red flag waving behavior. The testing center at UVSC, for example, used to have signs that said, "You MUST do what we tell you! YOU are DUMB, and WE are SMART!" (At least that was the effect the signs had.)

It made me want to say, "Okay, okay, so a spare number two pencil costs 25 cents, all right. Just quit it with the capital letters and exclamation marks, already. Stop waving your little red flag in front of my face."

I think this red flag bottleneck effect should be taught in Organizational Behavior theory.

Less than a mile away, Chairman Mao lies under a pain of glass—a transparent grave in which he is unable to roll. From his window, the uniformity of Tiananmen life is as preserved as he is. Beyond the square, however, lies a different story. From my window I can see Starbucks, McDonalds, Papa Johns, KFC, Pizza Hut, Hagen Daaz, two sushi restaurants, a Korean barbecue restaurant, an Indian/Thai restaurant, a couple BMWs, a lot of Volkswagen beetles, and a coke billboard telling me I can win a free iPod Nano if it's my lucky day.

I'm sitting on the upper floor of Yoshinoya, a Japanese restaurant, in Beijing. The official Chinese policy toward the Japanese is that they are generally to be despised, but that doesn't apply to trendy things, such as sushi, fastfood, hairstyles, or cell phones.

I'm startled when a very official-looking truck stops abruptly in front of the building, and a dozen or so armed guards file out of the side door—each sporting some sort of rifle-istic weapon that looks more like a grenade launcher than something that takes bullets. They form a wall around the van, and I notice that I'm not the only one to pay more than a casual glance at the unusual spectacle.

Two more guards from inside the van pop out with what looks like a very large money box, and then I notice that the van must be an armored money transporting truck. Upon closer look, I see that the guards with guns are no older than sixteen or seventeen—though they could be eighteen or nineteen (sometimes it's hard to tell).

Their staggered positions are anything but uniform, and the haphazard way in which each of them are holding their guns is both amusing and disconcerting. Three of them, most likely unknowingly, have their guns pointed straight at my face. Several other people in the restaurant join me to watch the scene unfold.

An older man, fat and un-uniformed, seems to be directing the action, yelling and swinging his arms. I nickname him "high commander." The boys with guns apparently find him just as amusing as I do, as I can clearly see several of them chuckling as the high commander fusses about whatever it is they're doing.

One of the boys loses his attention long enough to glance up at the window and see me looking back at him. He cocks his head slightly, probably trying to figure out what sense I'm making of all this. He taps one of his buddy's on the shoulder, points up to the window at me. They both smile and wave with their trigger hand, keeping the gun held loosely in their left. I smile and wave back.

The whole scene seems to me a microcosm of the Chinese situation: aging authority receiving less and less respect; the servile youth seemingly more interested in the salience of foreigners than falling in line with traditional expectations; the sloppy, superficial way in which all things official unfold.

The money boys return to the van and hop in. The guards lower their weapons and file in after them. My two friends wave at me again before going in themselves. For all I know, they may have been English students of mine a few years ago—perhaps two of the screw-ups on the back row who always made class informal and stunted, if not lively and entertaining.

I saw Adrian Brody's Chinese identical twin today. And Barbara Walters, and the Cameron Fry guy from Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Kate Warner from the second season of 24. I have this theory that everyone in the world has an official Chinese identical twin. I realize this is probably mathematically impossible, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

I see Chinese identical twins everyday—walking around, pedaling their bikes, getting on and off the subway, shoveling gravel, or pouring my tea. Staring out of the bus window just yesterday I saw the China-made versions of George W. Bush, Benecio Del Torro, and Julia Roberts—all in a row.

My Chinese ex-girlfriend is the Chinese identical twin of Keira Knightley, but I didn't realize that until my fourth time through Pride and Prejudice (particularly when she's running away from the guy and out of the house, and then later again when she says she despises him).

I met with Harvey Keitel yesterday (my boss) to discuss my new duties at work. I'll be working with Carmella Soprano and Jet Li (apparently even Jet Li has a Chinese identical twin and he works in non-ferrous metals) in analyzing our company's archives and price indices to create annual reports for tungsten, antimony, and ferro-moly. (It's not sexy work, but someone's got to do it.)

I thought I saw Che Guevera's identical twin this afternoon in Xidan (probably the most commercially crowded place in the entire world or at least it seemed so on days like today). But it wasn't really Che Guevera's identical twin. It was just some Chinese kid wearing a Che Guevera shirt. Then it dawned on me: did that Chinese kid really know who he was escorting around on his belly through all those cell phone shops, hair salons, and Starbucks?

Other funny t-shirts I've noticed: "Assume the Position," "Friends With Privileges," and "You'll Do."