In the reading, “Culture As Cure,” author Vilma Santiago-Irizarry discusses the effect on patients when cultural elements are incorporated into a mental facility. In order to study the effects of “cultural sensitivity,” invoked on the mentally ill, Santiago-Irizarry studied a Hispanic bilingual and bicultural program and its patients.

She ran into many questions surrounding the idea of culture, and the identifying characteristics of culture. In ethnography, these are valid questions. Santiago-Irizarry calls labeling as something that involves specification and homogenization. These ideas can diminish the very value that cultural sensitivity attempts to establish. For example, grouping “Hispanic culture” into one label ignores the many intricacies that are involved that go beyond a sweeping category. For example, someone with Mexican heritage will have some different cultural ideas than does a person from Puerto Rico. Yet, they are both lumped into the same Hispanic culture category.

That being said, Santiago-Irizarry found that integrating elements of each person’s cultural identity, as well as the common elements to their culture, into the developed care facility culture can produce positive results. An example includes someone who had a fear of medicine because of a cultural belief in spirits. Once that core belief was validated, and included in the treatment process along with traditional medicine, there were signs of positive reactions (i.e., the person no longer refused to take the medicine).

Santiago-Irizarry found that “translation in each other’s terms” could have positive affects on those involved in the study. The value to ethnography is that Santiago-Irizarry took information she gathered and developed it into a working theory for a possible way to provide assistance to those with mental illness.

This reading was quite interesting to read, as it introduced many ideas that I had not thought of previously, including how culture does affect those around us.

As Srinivasan observes in “Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media,” much has been written about the ‘digital divide.’ The discussion has focused on the lack of access in undeserved communities that make less use of technology and new media. He writes that the discussion has been framed around the idea of reinforcing “structures of power.” But Srinivasan makes a more interesting proposition for the use of new media by undeserved populations: that these “communities can use the internet to exchange information, preserve history, generate diasporic identities and share resources that can enable collective political and social causes to be realized.” Moreover, his proposition considers the inherent features of new media technology for empowerment: 1. servers and networks, and 2. databases.

Some social scientists are opposed to the ‘useful’ potential of new media, and argue instead that the ‘virtualization and globalization’ is detrimental to communities. They argue that creating a community that relies on ‘real time’ versus ‘real space or real life’ creates a disconnect that no longer relies on the geographical and physicality of traditional societies. Taking into account the work of the Frankfurt School, Srinivasan points out that the prevailing discussion of new media has focused on a “passive understanding…as a set of technologies that are imposed on the public, rather than as a tool that can be used to achieve locally and culturally specific visions.” He observes that the appropriation and use of the technology must go beyond simply making use of it and that it should serve “specific community needs” and that only then the new media can become a “catalyst for new interpretations and alternative paradigms.”

His observation is relevant because he brings attention to the fact that technologies and new media can not only be consumed in terms of already establish norms but rather be a tool to redefine conceptions about communication, archiving, oral history or preservation of identity. Furthermore, it is important that media (new or old) can articulate a message according to the needs and cultural values of the communities that use them.

Using the example of Faye Ginsburg’s work with the Inuit cultures, Srinivasan writes that Ginsburg work shows “the importance of re-purposing the Frankfurt School critique of culture industries within a model of appropriation that places those traditionally disadvantaged into the position of creator and broadcaster.”

I find the observation useful because when users of media become creators (such as in Second Life) the control over content becomes a tool of empowerment for anyone experiencing the act of creating, sharing and consuming material in a horizontal model.

Citing more examples (Brazilian population among others), he writes “technologies are appropriated by indigenous groups to achieve community-focused cultural, political, educational and social objectives” and that the use of technology can then be “in a larger play with national and international notions that define the concept of ‘indigenous’.”

The same could be applied to the work with other communities such as undeserved urban communities (Globalhood, Global Potential), gay latino youth or transgender communities (HAF). The use of media and the appropriation of the media could serve as a way to disseminate / broadcast / construct concepts that redefine ideas that people might have about these populations and could then help to remove harmful ideas of stigma and prejudice.

It’s also instructive to use his work with the Native American population around San Diego to understand how new media can be utilized in ways that incorporate the cultural makeup of a community, and how the use of media can help overcome and/or help challenges faced by certain aspects such as fragmentation (physical in this case) and how the flow of information afforded by the internet helps to build a sense of community and to link people that were otherwise be disconnected. Additionally, he points to the advantage that the communities can gain in order to create a ‘bank’ of oral history or to create a permanent record of cultural artifacts.

He also mentions the importance of creating relationships with the leaders of the community, or of engaging other “community infrastructures” to build the technical tools that will later reinforce those already physical – geographical ‘nodes’ of the population.

Until people are not ready to consider the importance of new media as a given, that approach is perhaps the one that will give better results: building personal encounters (face to face) that in turn will help to the creation of a more virtual and networked interaction.

I say that because it has been my experience with this project. Building relationships with the members of Globalhood has been essential to the implementation of our plan.