Power of the Introvert in an Extro-centered World

In a society that champions loud-mouthed, thick-skinned, boisterous, and outgoing personalities, what happens to those of us who are subtle, inner-directed and thoughtful? As a society that pins extroverts against introverts, it’s easy for the quieter, more subdued personalities to be swallowed up by their louder counterparts.

As evidence, scroll through your TV Guide – how many shows are reality ones? Over the past decade, the television industry has seen a rise in reality TV shows, and nearly all of these reality TV shows focus on their loudest cast member (Snooki from Jersey Shore, anyone?). Something in American culture labels those who are extroverts as “good” and “fun” and those who are introverts as “shy” and “boring”.

Well, fellow introverts, it’s time we break the stigma! Author Susan Cain recently published Quiet, a book that explores the power of introverts in a world that can’t seem to stop talking. Quiet describes an interesting phenomenon that Cain has coined as the “Extrovert Ideal”. The “Extrovert Ideal” is “the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight”. She describes the introverts’ struggle with the demanding ideals pushed upon them by society.

But Cain delves into the perks of being an introvert, too, and why society needs a balance between both types of personalities. In her blog, Cain says “my book addresses introversion from a cultural point of view. It’s about the age-old dichotomy between the ‘man of action’ and the ‘man of contemplation,’ and how the world would be a better place if we valued the two types equally”. A culture that values both talking and listening, both loud and quiet, both introvert and extrovert, is one that is best able to combat complex problems and crises.

But has extroversion always been a favored trait? According to a blog, by Jim Baumer, it wasn’t until the rise of industrialization and urbanization that people began to prize extroversion and shy away from shyness (no pun intended). He says, “when many Americans were leaving rural regions of the country to come to urban areas, flocking to cities, the need to prove themselves in the corporate setting, in job interviews and on sales calls, made extroversion necessary and something to cultivate. A culture where hustling is paramount requires extroverts”. Call it natural selection, if you will.

However, what saddens me most about the introvert/extrovert dilemma is that so many introverts feel undervalued and feel pressured to become an extrovert. It comes as no surprise then, that in this survey, four out of five introverts say extroverts are more likely to get ahead in their workplace. We have labeled introverts as shy, serious, awkward, and somber individuals, when in fact they are just more contemplative and receptive and are better listeners.

When we look to the corporate and celebrity world we find that many of them are extroverts, but in reality, there are many who are introverts, as well. Bill Gates, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and Barbara Walters are all famous introverts who made it far without loud, go-getter personalities.

I consider myself an introvert; I don’t shy away from social interactions but I’m not always the one seeking everyone’s attention either. If you’re interested in discovering your introvert/extrovert tendencies take this quiz. Turns out I’m 40% extrovert, 60% introvert. So, fellow bloggers and readers, which type are you? Do you feel there are disadvantages/advantages to being either and introvert or extrovert? Do you think different cultures value one personality type over another?

It’s about time we introverts rediscover our value in an extrovert-centered world and realize the importance of a two-toned world.

Model UN - one weekend to solve poverty

This past Thursday, a group of 20 kids from my school, and I, made our way to the Model United Nations Conference at the Palmer House Hotel in downtown Chicago. Essentially, it’s just what it sounds like – a mock United Nations. Over 2,500 students from around the world divided into 25 committees, with each school/group representing a different country. And the goal: formulate a working resolution in response to an international problem.

I entered the conference very intimidated. Within minutes of the first day of committee, words like “caucus” and “unmod” were thrown around, it’s safe to say I was far from my comfort zone. I was on the Human Rights Council, and our topic of discussion was – International Organizations in solving extreme poverty. Daunting, I know.

Initially, I assumed the best thing all of the delegates could agree on was that extreme poverty needed to be solved. With over 40 countries and nearly 80 delegates, I just couldn’t imagine a resolution that everyone could agree on. With some of the most daunting and rigid personalities I’ve ever met, we worked and debated over policies and amendments and clauses for the next 3 days.

Throughout the meetings, different committees submitted different ‘working papers’ that represented ideas they wished to be added to our final resolution. And with over 7 submitted working papers, 3 potential resolutions, and one-too many delegate raps, we ended up with resolution B3 : clause to end poverty.

If you asked me if this were any way possible at the beginning of the weekend, I would have told you no. However, by Sunday, each and every country could agree on this document in front of us. Each paragraph, clause, sentence, and word had been delicately chosen to accommodate all of the delegations. I was surprised by our resolutions real-world approach and the unanimous decision to pass it. This got me thinking. While although each delegate was not from their actual country, each person stuck by the actual policies and views of that nation. And after 3 days, we had a solution to poverty that might just actually work.

One Book’s Interpretation of the Events in post-9/11 Afghanistan

Commemorating the 10 year anniversary of 9/11, an incident in history that rocked the future of United States foreign as well as security policies, the book Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban, unveils the repercussions on the very country where it seemingly all began – Afghanistan

Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban written by Sarah Chayes, charts Chayes journey inside the country and addresses US foreign policy effects inside the region. Chayes journey in Afghanistan begins after she discovers how naïve and rather ignorant Americans are about Afghanistan. She leaves her job at a radio station in the United States and moves to Kandahar to help run an organization called Afghans for Civil Society, whose aim is to remove local warlords from power.
As David Rhode puts it, “Chayes gained an unparalleled understanding of southern Afghanistan, one of the most important yet least understood fronts in the war on terrorism”. She examines the regions complex culture and through her journey finds her mind and heart attached to the regions, despite the fact that many Taliban members came from there.

Chayes jumps from family to family and finally finds herself in the local library, unearthing centuries of Afghan’s rich political and cultural history. It is here where Chayes examines Americas misunderstanding of Afghanistan, the policies that have sprouted in result to that and the implications on the Middle East as a whole. Her biggest assault towards the United States was its arrogant and ignorant assertiveness it adopted in constructing Afghan foreign policy.

I enjoyed Chayes colorful language and prodigious metaphors, yet I struggled to get through the book after it turned from travelogue to a bureaucratic evaluation of the United States. I wouldn’t recommend this book to a reader looking for some light vacation reading, but if you’re looking for a serious understanding of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, then this book is golden. Many times I was confused and some of the language didn’t make sense. Perhaps if I were in college, majoring in this topic I would have gained more from the reading. On the contrary, I commend Chayes for her brilliant language and determination to understand Afghanistan, especially after 9/11 when Americans generally evoked a taboo over the region.

A dense, but incredibly interesting read.

One of the reasons why I did enjoy this book was because of the incredible optimism and determination throughout it. Despite the fact that many of Chayes American friends admonished what she was doing, she continued to live, breathe, and become a part of Afghanistan. In one interview, she said, “You know this old adage, 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again'? I think it's wrong. I think it's, 'Even if you know you're not going to succeed, you have to try.' We don't have the right to abandon this struggle.”

"Hey, that's Jesus up there!"

Upon entering school last week, I was greeted by a display of 5 murals by Mexican-American artist, Hector Duarte, exhibited in one of the major stairwells.

Beyond the sheer size of these murals, their image content struck me as well. The largest mural, placed in the center of the stairwell, is a picture of Jesus coming out of a pool of water and headed towards what appears to be the Chicago skyline. The name of the mural is Cristo Migrante.

Initially, I was surprised by the schools decision to put up a picture of Jesus in school, much less one that was nearly 8 feet tall. I was confused, yet appreciative of the schools initiative to bring in a potentially controversial piece of art. In my opinion, a good education challenges you and forces you to question society and yourself.

That night, as I aimlessly scrolled down my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across an interesting status post. It read –
There’s a big Jesus painting over 30ft high in our school. Every heard of separation of church and state?

What ensued for the rest of the night was a cyber-battle consisting of nearly 200 comments from different people’s interpretations on the true meaning of Duarte’s painting. Some argued that Duarte’s painting infringed on personal religious taste, while others reasoned that Huarte’s painting was hardly about religion and rather about the immigrant struggle. For the next few hours phrases like "separation of church and state” and "religious majority" showed up a lot, but soon the comments fizzled out.

However, by the end of it I was still left wondering, what cultural implications does the “separation of church and state” argument have? It seems that the first amendment and the clause of religion is brought up repeatedly in politics and in schools, but at what point does practicing one’s own religion begin to feel like religious intrusion to someone else? Should Duarte's painting be taken as art or does it preach religion?


Readers, I leave it up to you to answer this question.

Restricting the Usage of Language

It’s always surprised me how governments attempt to censor what people say. How can you censor something that is so universal, so common? I mean it’s language! Unless you take my voice-box out or put a padlock over my mouth, I am free to say whatever I like. So, how is it that governments censor what people say? I actually find it quite comical; in reality the government has very little power in restraining language. It seems to me that they are just trying to squeeze out some droplets of authority.

Besides the sheer impossibility of censoring every single word that comes out of every person’s mouth, some governments are still trying to make the feat.

For example, in Pakistan, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, has banned certain words from appearing in text messages. The PTA feels that it is preventing “obnoxious communication”; however, among the 1,600 words outlawed are words as simple as ‘tongue’. To view the list of outlawed texting words, click here (some explicit language).

Charles M. Madigan, of the Chicago Tribune, said, “I think it's hilarious that the authorities in Pakistan believe they can restrain the use of language, even using technology to block messages that contain these words”. Frankly, I agree.

In addition, China has begun to censor web material. Chinese authorities feel that as political tensions rise, they want to control what their citizens read and discuss online. It might seem that tech-savvy computer-ites would find ways around these restrictions, but an intricate mix of technology and plain-old intimidation has ensured that citizens remain oppressed.

But what about language censorship in the good ol’ red, white, and blue? Surprisingly,even here, we censor. While our government hasn't taken to extreme measures like China and Pakistan has, if you’ve ever seen a show on MTV you’ll know that many words are bleeped out. In comedian, George Carlin’s speech on the Seven Dirty Words not allowed on television, he explains why television programs bleep certain words out. While there clearly is a difference between bleeping out some words because they are distasteful and completely stopping search engines if the word ‘democracy revolution’ is typed in, they both are still forms of censorship. Mind you, too, that in America, citizens stand firmly to their right to freedom of speech, so if the government tried to pull a stunt like Pakistan or China, I’m sure there would be immense backlash.

In my opinion, language is a beauty and art and culture. Trying to limit that can only lead to cultural deterioration.

Culture as a Metaphor

“A world ends when its metaphor has died” – Archibald MacLeish

Perhaps MacLeish is right; when we lose our metaphors, we lose our stories, our cultural identity, our heritage, our past, and our ties to the land. When we lose our culture, what do we have left? We no longer have ways of communicating ourselves to the rest of the world. As Jinal Shah puts it in her blog, Constant Beta, “[M]etaphors allow us to dip into our values, histories and mythologies to communicate the value of a brand and connect to our audience”.

A few weeks ago in my English class, we talked about the importance of metaphors, and the role they play in culture. The article, “Metaphors We Live by” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explains how metaphors are more than just embedded in language - “Metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action…We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Lakoff and Johnson suggest that metaphors influence our everyday functioning.

But why the need for metaphors? Can’t we just explain things in literal terms? I thought about this, and realized how difficult it is to think non-metaphorically. Lakoff and Johnson use the example of an argument as war, to show just how often we use metaphors. This metaphor is revealed in a variety of expressions:

- I’ve never won an argument with him
- They just shot down all of my inputs.
- They’ll wipe you out if they think your strategy is flawed.
- They attacked every weak point I had in my speech.

We don’t just talk about arguments like this; the very things we do in an argument are controlled by the concept of war. The concept of an argument, the activity of an argument, and the language of an argument revolve around the war metaphor.

Metaphors can also be used to understand frame of minds and perspectives. Consider the war in Iraq. Americans understand the war from a western-ideology standpoint that emphasizes political, military and economic interest. On the other hand, Muslims understand the war from a religious and national pride position. The employment of different metaphors in understanding the war could be the reason why neither side understands the other. In this article, by Zoltan Kovecses, he states, “the application of very different frames to the same situation results in incompatible evaluations and actions”.

In addition, metaphors reflect a nation’s values and ethics. We use metaphors to reflect our ideals. This article states, “the variations in solutions to creating a metaphor for culture are related to the complexity of the concept”. The way we communicate ourselves to the larger world audience is done by metaphor. The metaphor that is used often reflects these underlying values of the culture. As Lily I-wen Su puts it, in this article, “Recent studies on metaphor have proved it to be an important language device that reflects the cognitive source of human thinking. These experientialists claimed that metaphors in our languages mirror our ordinary conceptual system”.

Metaphors play a large role in intercultural communication, and help us and reveal ourselves to the international melting pot we know as the world.

Peace through Music: A profile of Daniel Barenboim

"Music is the universal language of mankind" ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Daniel Barenboim, an Israeli-Palestinian pianist and conductor, has taken Longfellow's words as a way of fostering peace in the Middle East. He has served as a music director in many orchestras and has made numerous recordings. In this article he said, “…I believe that the destinies of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are inextricably linked," Barenboim said. "We are blessed - or cursed - to live with each other. And I prefer the first."

Barenboim has conducted countless concerts in the West Bank, and in 2007, he was scheduled to play a baroque concert in war-stricken Gaza. Although he received permission from Israeli authorities, he was denied entrance into Gaza at the border, and was told he needed individual permission to enter. A year later, after performing in Ramallah, Barenboim accepted honorary Palestinian citizenship, making him the first Jewish-Israeli citizen to be granted Palestinian citizenship. He hoped his acceptance of citizenship would serve as a model for peace.

Needless to say, Barenboim is revered by many, but loathed by others. I can’t help but think he’s one of the bravest musicians of all time.

After receiving Palestinian citizenship, Barenboim returned to Gaza. According to this post, he gave a speech to the audience about his dual-citizenship, saying “So you see it is possible to be both." He described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one "of two peoples who are convinced they have the right to live in the same little piece of land. Therefore, our destinies are linked”.

Barenboim also recently traveled to Imjingak near Korea’s Demilitarized Zone on the country’s Independence Day. In this video, he said he hoped his efforts would encourage “understanding, patience, courage and curiosity to listen to one another”.

When so many diplomats debate the same topics over and over again around a big oval table, Barenboim has been able to take something that we all understand -music- to promote peace. He has chosen to show the common humanity of all people, even if they are in a war, and remind them of the possibilities if peace is achieved.

The medium that Barenboim has choose is a universal language, and while some still prefer negotiation over noisy cell-phone chatter or fighting over laws and bills, Barenboim remains confident of music’s ability to act as a unifying force. It’s inspiring to see people using different methods of translating reconciliation, whether that is through music or art or humor. When we can find things that we all mutually agree on and enjoy, the idea of peace becomes less distant.

Sure the idea of ‘world peace’ is far-reaching, and although Barenboim’s music isn’t going to stop the wars or end the violence, he represents the voices who want to forge the bridges, not burn them.