Just a thought:
During my summer holiday, I voted for the first time. I voted on whether or not the Act of Succesion should be altered so that the firstborn, no matter what gender, should be allowed to rule, whereas it has earlier been the firstborn boy rather than the firstborn child.
When I entered the isoloir (feeling very mature and grown-up) I found that the ballot paper read only ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ with a box next to each. Although it makes sense that the voters would know what they were voting for or against before entering the isoloir, I find it very odd that there was no explanation whatsoever on the ballot to indicate exactly what ‘yes’ and ‘no’ meant. I only thought about this for a second, and I imagine that the majority of the people knew what was being asked immediately. But I also believe that a few, or perhaps a large part, did not. I know that a lot of people are not all that interested in politics and was not really aware what they were going to vote on. I find it highly unlikely that anyone, if in doubt of what exactly they were voting on, would stick their head out of the isoloir and ask ‘hey, guys – what exactly am I voting on, again?’
This might be far fetched, but I believe that this might be an attempt to manipulate the small percentage of people who did not know what they were being asked. If I was the one who was in there, not knowing what question I was being asked, I would most probably tick ‘yes’. ‘Yes’ seems like an active choice. It makes you a good voter. You have taken a stand on something, you support something, you are a good and strong citizen. Could that be the case or did whoever designed the ballots simply assume that people would have the courtesy to at least know what they were voting on before going to vote?
Anyway, 85.4% voted YES and the Act of Succesion was altered. Point proven? Not at all, but theorizing is fun.
Political Supermodels
Our recent class discussion on the concept of ‘Political Supermodels’ made me think…
During the time of the last Danish election, my mother was working for one of the smaller parties. Seeing it from the inside, she made it clear to me exactly how much thought goes into every single detail of an election campaign, and exactly how much effort is put into it. On TV, the campaign videos start popping up, and you see posters with smiling politicians in every streetlight. This is a remarkable feature of the political campaigns. These posters are designed so that the face of the person is clearly the essence of the poster, accompanied only by the name of the party he or she represents. There is no mention of the opinions or viewpoints of the politician or the party, only this link between a face and a party. In this way, the focus is on the people rather than the politics.
The strategy that the parties use is essentially the same. They want to make themselves look good. They have different ways of portraying a favorable image, but they are all trying to do it. If those who have the best campaign = those who get the greatest number of votes, this is a vicious circle, since the larger parties have a lot more money available to them to run a campaign than the smaller ones.
I am not trying to say that Danish people are stupid, ignorant or easily manipulated. In fact, I have a number of friends who have been politically active for years despite their young age. Still, I think that a lot of voters have only a very superficial comprehension for politics, and that they are likely to be influenced by a strong campaign rather than develop an in-depth understanding of the party’s political standpoint. For example, I have spoken to people who voted for a party because they liked the color of their campaign poster or because they thought a party-member was attractive.
A few years back, a very conservative Danish political party (Danish People’s Party) used the lyrics of a song to promote themselves. This does not initially seem like a problem, but it caused a great uproar at the time. Loosely translated, the song is called ‘Give Me Back Denmark’ and is written by the artist Natasja. It deals with how Denmark is moving away from what it once were – how the free expression and spaces to unfold are getting lost with a specific reference to the tearing down of the ‘Youth House’. In general, it criticizes a conservative and discriminating mindset and encourages people to bring back the free spirit of an ‘old Denmark’. The Danish people’s party took this hit song that basically criticizes their policies and used it in their favor. They used the campaigning slogan ‘Give us back Denmark’. Many found this outrageous and rude as the Denmark that the Danish People’s Party is asking to get back is a conservative ‘monocultural’ one with no room for diversity. In effect, the exact opposite of the Denmark Natasja longed for. Plagiarism or not, the popularity of the song made the slogan memorable and tongue-in-cheek enough to ensure the party a large chunk of the votes. Whether this was because of their promotional trick or their actual policies, I am not to say.
Since I am eighteen years old I am allowed to vote, and although I would love to say that I am immune to the political campaign, I think that I, as everyone else, will be biased by the parties’ strong self-promotion.
During the time of the last Danish election, my mother was working for one of the smaller parties. Seeing it from the inside, she made it clear to me exactly how much thought goes into every single detail of an election campaign, and exactly how much effort is put into it. On TV, the campaign videos start popping up, and you see posters with smiling politicians in every streetlight. This is a remarkable feature of the political campaigns. These posters are designed so that the face of the person is clearly the essence of the poster, accompanied only by the name of the party he or she represents. There is no mention of the opinions or viewpoints of the politician or the party, only this link between a face and a party. In this way, the focus is on the people rather than the politics.
The strategy that the parties use is essentially the same. They want to make themselves look good. They have different ways of portraying a favorable image, but they are all trying to do it. If those who have the best campaign = those who get the greatest number of votes, this is a vicious circle, since the larger parties have a lot more money available to them to run a campaign than the smaller ones.
I am not trying to say that Danish people are stupid, ignorant or easily manipulated. In fact, I have a number of friends who have been politically active for years despite their young age. Still, I think that a lot of voters have only a very superficial comprehension for politics, and that they are likely to be influenced by a strong campaign rather than develop an in-depth understanding of the party’s political standpoint. For example, I have spoken to people who voted for a party because they liked the color of their campaign poster or because they thought a party-member was attractive.
A few years back, a very conservative Danish political party (Danish People’s Party) used the lyrics of a song to promote themselves. This does not initially seem like a problem, but it caused a great uproar at the time. Loosely translated, the song is called ‘Give Me Back Denmark’ and is written by the artist Natasja. It deals with how Denmark is moving away from what it once were – how the free expression and spaces to unfold are getting lost with a specific reference to the tearing down of the ‘Youth House’. In general, it criticizes a conservative and discriminating mindset and encourages people to bring back the free spirit of an ‘old Denmark’. The Danish people’s party took this hit song that basically criticizes their policies and used it in their favor. They used the campaigning slogan ‘Give us back Denmark’. Many found this outrageous and rude as the Denmark that the Danish People’s Party is asking to get back is a conservative ‘monocultural’ one with no room for diversity. In effect, the exact opposite of the Denmark Natasja longed for. Plagiarism or not, the popularity of the song made the slogan memorable and tongue-in-cheek enough to ensure the party a large chunk of the votes. Whether this was because of their promotional trick or their actual policies, I am not to say.
Since I am eighteen years old I am allowed to vote, and although I would love to say that I am immune to the political campaign, I think that I, as everyone else, will be biased by the parties’ strong self-promotion.
I swear
When I speak Danish, I swear in English. I am much more inclined to throw in a ‘shit’ or ‘fuck’ (pardon my French) in a sentence than I am to use the Danish translation. By doing this, I think that I somehow distance the word from its actual meaning. But now that my everyday language of communication is English, I have become a lot more aware of what I am actually saying when I use these swearwords. Nonetheless, I feel that after coming to MUWCI, my tendency to swear has increased.
Why do we swear? I know that many of my peers use swearwords to a much wider extent than I do, but I still find myself swearing more than I need to.
Would cutting out the use of swearwords from my everyday language limit my ability to express myself, or would it perhaps challenge me to describe how I feel more precisely? If I could not just throw in an arbitrary swearword in an otherwise completely valid sentence, I would have to find an alternative that actually expressed what I wanted to express rather than just being a rude addition to a sentence. A curse adds no real substance to a sentence and most swearwords seem to have lost their actual meaning completely. In fact, the extensive amount of swearing degrades the emphasis that each swearword puts on a sentence. It is a vicious circle. The more we swear, the more we need to swear in order to express the same amount of shock, awe, frustration, etc.
Would I swear if no one around me did? At home, one of my closest friends is very religious, and in her social circle as well as upbringing, swearing has been completely off the table. Whenever I am around her, I become very aware of the swearwords I use. In MUWCI, I do not give it a thought, since the people around me swear just as much as I do. If this was a ‘swear-free’ community however, I doubt that I would use the rude words as much as I do now, if at all.
Is this perhaps a pattern of behavior that can be transferred to other areas? Swearing is a very minor part of our interaction, but is the way in which my swearing seems to have increased since I came to MUWCI a sign that I have effectively let the habits of the people around me alter mine? I essentially see the habit of swearing as a negative thing. If it is something you cannot control, the image you project of yourself seems immature and somewhat aggressive. However, I have taken on the habit of swearing, even if unconsciously. I believe this model to be true for a number of other areas in MUWCI. When you gather people from around the world and expect them to fit into one community, some people will adjust to the norms of the community and the people around them.
Why do we swear? I know that many of my peers use swearwords to a much wider extent than I do, but I still find myself swearing more than I need to.
Would cutting out the use of swearwords from my everyday language limit my ability to express myself, or would it perhaps challenge me to describe how I feel more precisely? If I could not just throw in an arbitrary swearword in an otherwise completely valid sentence, I would have to find an alternative that actually expressed what I wanted to express rather than just being a rude addition to a sentence. A curse adds no real substance to a sentence and most swearwords seem to have lost their actual meaning completely. In fact, the extensive amount of swearing degrades the emphasis that each swearword puts on a sentence. It is a vicious circle. The more we swear, the more we need to swear in order to express the same amount of shock, awe, frustration, etc.
Would I swear if no one around me did? At home, one of my closest friends is very religious, and in her social circle as well as upbringing, swearing has been completely off the table. Whenever I am around her, I become very aware of the swearwords I use. In MUWCI, I do not give it a thought, since the people around me swear just as much as I do. If this was a ‘swear-free’ community however, I doubt that I would use the rude words as much as I do now, if at all.
Is this perhaps a pattern of behavior that can be transferred to other areas? Swearing is a very minor part of our interaction, but is the way in which my swearing seems to have increased since I came to MUWCI a sign that I have effectively let the habits of the people around me alter mine? I essentially see the habit of swearing as a negative thing. If it is something you cannot control, the image you project of yourself seems immature and somewhat aggressive. However, I have taken on the habit of swearing, even if unconsciously. I believe this model to be true for a number of other areas in MUWCI. When you gather people from around the world and expect them to fit into one community, some people will adjust to the norms of the community and the people around them.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)