Goodwill alone mitigates cultural hierarchies and barriers.
Learning another language can mitigate cultural hierarchies and barriers.
Globalisation has mitigated cultural hierarchies and barriers.
The question is about inferring which statement aligns with the author’s claim, "Which way is Oriental?" from the given passage. The passage discusses the experience of Chinese individuals in Upper Egypt and their impact due to their outsider status and linguistic adaptability.
1. The author narrates how Chinese people in Upper Egypt selling lingerie adapt by learning Arabic, which is not inflected in the same way as Mandarin. The Chinese learn by ear, often adopting speech patterns from female customers. This demonstrates their openness to understanding another culture, enhancing their acceptance in a conservative society.
2. The discussion around Orientalism suggests that identity is not just about ethnicity or gender but also about language. The author refutes the essentialism criticism by emphasizing the role of language in creating empathy and understanding across cultural boundaries.
3. The author believes language learning is transformative and fosters better understanding and connection with the world. The ability to communicate in different languages is portrayed as a more significant aspect of identity than race or gender.
4. The author criticizes the lack of 'identity linguistics' in contemporary identity politics, suggesting that language significantly contributes to selfhood and can alter individual identity.
In light of these points, the inference that "Learning another language can mitigate cultural hierarchies and barriers." is correct. The passage highlights how the Chinese men's efforts to learn Arabic facilitated their acceptance across cultural barriers in Egypt, which reflects on the power of language learning in mitigating cultural differences.
The author would discourage the ethnographer from conducting the study as Nigerian ethnographers can better understand the tribe.
The passage emphasizes the importance of language learning and cultural understanding over inherent characteristics such as race or gender. The author shares experiences where language proficiency facilitated deeper connections and understanding, regardless of ethnicity or gender. Both the author and the Chinese merchants were accepted because of their ability to communicate in the local language, highlighting that language learning and cultural immersion are transformative.
The author's stance in the passage suggests that they value the ability to learn and communicate in the local language as a crucial aspect of conducting meaningful ethnographic studies. This aligns with the option:
"The author would encourage the ethnographer, but ask him/her to first learn the language of the Nigerian tribe s/he wishes to study."
This option emphasizes the significance of language learning as a gateway to empathy and understanding, resonating with the passage's core message about transcending racial and gender boundaries through linguistic engagement.
Orientalism cannot be practiced by Egyptians.
According to the passage, which of the following is not responsible for language’s ability to change us?
Language’s intrinsic connection to our notions of self and identity.
Language’s ability to mediate the impact of identity markers one is born with.
To solve the question on which aspect is not responsible for language's ability to change us, we need to examine the passage and assess each option in the context of how language influences identity and self-transformation.
The passage explores the effect of language on personal identity and how learning a new language can lead to a transformation in personality and perceptions. It suggests several factors contributing to this transformation:
Given this analysis, the correct answer is that The twists and turns in the evolution of language over time are not responsible for language's ability to change us, as the passage focuses more on personal language experiences and transformations rather than historical language evolution.
Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review — introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram — is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.
Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta’s algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season.
The Achilles’ Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right.
Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt
According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the ’cargo myth’ prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However,they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people. The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption.
According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer ”sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight”. For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead.
They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced ’real’ happiness with ’signs’ of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard’s words, ”in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle”. Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: Read the following transcript and choose the answer that is closest to each of the questions that are based on the transcript.
Lucia Rahilly (Global Editorial Director, The McKinsey Podcast): Today we’re talking about the next big arenas of competition, about the industries that will matter most in the global business landscape, which you describe as arenas of competition. What do we mean when we use this term?
Chris Bradley (Director, McKinsey Global Institute): If I go back and look at the top ten companies in 2005, they were in traditional industries such as oil and gas, retail, industrials, and pharmaceuticals. The average company was worth about $250 billion. If I advance the clock forward to 2020, nine in ten of those companies have been replaced, and by companies that are eight times bigger than the old guards.
And this new batch of companies comes from these new arenas or competitive sectors. In fact, they’re so different that we have a nickname for them. If you’re a fan of Harry Potter, it’s wizards versus muggles.
Arena industries are wizardish; we found that there’s a set of industries that play by very different set of economic rules and get very different results, while the rest, the muggles (even though they run the world, finance the world, and energize the world), play by a more traditional set of economic rules.
Lucia Rahilly: Could we put a finer point on what is novel or different about the lens that you applied to determine what’s a wizard and what’s a muggle?
Chris Bradley: Wizards are defined by growth and dynamism. We looked at where value is flowing and the places where value is moving. And where is the value flowing? What we see is that this set of wizards, which represent about ten percent of industries, hog 45 percent of the growth in market cap. But there’s another dimension or axis too, which is dynamism. That is measured by a new metric we’ve come up with called the ”shuffle rate.” How much does the bottom move to the top? It turns out that in this set of wizardish industries, or arenas, the shuffle rate is much higher than it is in the traditional industry.
Lucia Rahilly: So, where are we seeing the most profit?
Chris Bradley: The economic profit, which is the profit you make minus the cost for the capital you employ is in the wizard industries. It’s where R&D happens; they’re two times more R&D intensive. They’re big stars, the nebulae, where new business is born.