Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
I have a doubt: shouldn't traffic lights be considered symbols? What red, yellow and green in a traffic light represent is arbitrary because they have no connection with any referent. In contrast, if we see smoke in the distance, that is an index that there is fire nearby. It isn't an icon because we don't see a picture of fire, for instance, but it is not a symbol because we know there is a real link between smoke and fire. Maybe I'm getting something wrong, what do you think?
At 12:20 the narrator utters a falsehood. He says that Hofstede proposed 6 cultural dimensions. He did not. He proposed 4. The final two were discovered by other research teams. Here is a convenient summary from Wikipedia. 1991 Michael Harris Bond and Chinese colleagues at the University of Hon Kong conducted a study among students in 23 countries, using a survey instrument developed with Chinese employees and managers. The results from this study led Hofstede to add a new fifth dimension to his model: long-term orientation (LTO), initially called Confucian dynamism. Finally, the Bulgarian linguist Michael Minkov's analysis of the World Values Survey data from 93 national populations also led Geert Hofstede to identify a sixth last dimension: indulgence versus restraint.[7]
Wonderful explanation! Thank you very much! Wonder whether you can also explain the difference between across- cultural awareness/communication and intercultural awareness/communication please?
You are very welcome! The basic distinction is this: "Intercultural communication" refers to the communication between people from different cultures, whereas "cross-cultural communication" refers to an area of study in which communication patterns from different cultures are compared and contrasted in order to understand the similarities and differences. So, inquiry into "cross-cultural communication" can help someone engage in "intercultural communication" more effectively.
This is so great, thank you Mr. Klien! The video is really helpful because it is easy to digest. Your discussion is so clear and totally well thought of, it is simple in a good way yet it is still very detailed. You're a great teacher, I hope you make more of this content or anything you can teach about. You deserve more recognition, views, and subscribers to be honest. Kudos to you!
This video is amazing, the presentation is applying rhetoric. Sadly while I’m browsing i found most of videos about rhetoric are bad examples of rhetoric, but this one is so clear smooth informative engaging
Very useful. I am teaching Communication and Culture this semester. I hope to reach you via email. I would like to learn more about your teaching strategies and read your materials. I am from the Philippines. :)@@stephenklien
A rhetor has to give the purpose of his message to his audience. One can convence his audience by reasoned arguments, credability, or emefcting emotions. A speaker maty change his tone depending on his target audience.
I could watch Dr Klien's viideos all day; they are so informative and so useful. It's a shame many of us have work that gets in the way! Thanks for posting.
A great illustration of the issues. I wish Dr Klien had gone further in venturing an analysis on President Trump's statement; but I understand there is only so much time and I guess it is the viewers' homework. It's like asking someone to give us the tools for the job, done, then do the job. But the example, whilst very sad, was an excellent one.
Thank you. I'm glad you ran through it. I would have reversed the warrant and claim positions that you use, Dr Klien. Thus, Claim: The pathetic rate of pay demonstrates disrespect to jurors...[because], Warrant: jurors should be decently compensated. Or in other words, poor pay is disrespectful because people should be decently compensated - a general principle. That said, even as I type, I am starting to think that the word "should" makes it a form of policy claim. Hmmm. Not sure!😊 It's not that I disagree with you (and I'm no expert on the model) I fully get the roles of the boxes to connect each other. It is just, is there a sharp distinction to stop one statement being put into a different category ie you cannot make statement X a claim because; you cannot make statement Y a warrant, because. That's where I struggle.....in my example above, I cannot see why the two cannot be flipped. Thank you anyway. I will re-watch the video until it clicks.
That's a great question, Paul. It really depends on your reading of what the primary intent, the overall conclusion of the argument is, which is the first thing to determine: Is this argument intended to advocate for a policy claim (i.e., "Jurors should be compensated better")? Or a value claim (i.e., "here's how we should evaluate the current practice")? In this case I read the phrase "all the more reason why jurors should be..." as signaling that reasons were being provided to support a claim -- and since the whole letter deals with the problems connected to the currently low pay (not just the "disrespect" point, but also the inequity compared to others working in a courtroom, and the fact that jurors have no choice about joining a jury), I concluded that the policy claim toward the end "jurors should be . . . decently compensated" as the main proposition for the letter. But in any case, the argument you are suggesting is also in this letter as well. Remember, Toulmin diagramming is a tool for examining and assessing the logic in an argument, and human arguments made with language are usually probable, contingent things open to interpretation. We're not doing math problems here where there is only one correct answer. 😎We can use the correct method and form of analysis to draw multiple different conclusions.
Thank you, Dr Klien @@stephenklien, that was very generous of you to go into such detail as I know you must be incredibly busy. I appreciate the explanation which was so helpful in making the penny drop; as was your second paragraph which, I believe, is suggesting we can take stock approaches but the Toulmin model allows us to re-model things to look at better, stronger and alternative arguments; I put myself in a straight-jacked of binary thinking - is it X or is it Y? Whereas, to think in the way you detailed, it is not a maths problem - it is a method. Thanks again and, if I may say that, under your direction, the University of Missouri must produce some of the most clear thinking graduates anywhere; something which is most certainly needed in a foggy thinking world.
I love the Toulmin model because it really helps clear thinking. Some people explain it very well on RU-vid - but they tend to use very simple examples like, 'There must be a fire' (Claim) Why? There is smoke, there are fire engines (Evidence) etc. Whilst these types of explanation are crystal clear, the viewers may be left thinking, yeah, but what do I do in the real world situations? Thank you, Dr Klien. You walk your viewers through a real life situation which is so helpful. Great video.....like all of the others.
