Mao
This may be a misinterpretation of what he means by “we.” So when this “we” happens it may be the beginning of the end for my understanding of this reading. Mao writes, “That is why we do not find fortune cookies in restaurants in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Europe at all—and we don’t feel cheated, either, for not eating them at the end of meals over there” (430). If I am part of the we of he, then I vehemently disagree.

I would feel cheated. Cheated because of a slew of experiences and assumptions created about Chinese restaurants in the US. And, regardless of whether or not I feel cheated by this exclusion, I doubt I would agree with the continuation of Mao’s fortune cookie discussion especially in the continuation of his “cheated” idea where he writes, “In a sense, Chinese fortune cookies become a product of contradictions: they are born of two competing traditions and made viable—not to mention their tastiness—in a border zone where two cultures come into contact with one another…” (430). I have trouble understanding how these two uses of fortune cookies (describes earlier on the same page) as a contradiction. Perhaps, when I felt cheated at a restaurant in China, I might have viewed this as a contradiction—how can it be possible for American Chinese restaurants to do this when authentic (“real” Chinese) restaurants do not (this assumption denies Chinese American culture/rhetoric or places it as lesser—a poser). But if I did not feel cheated and was part of that we of he, then I suppose I would not view it as a contradiction because Chinese American restaurants (cultures) are not the same as Chinese restaurants (cultures). What contradiction is Mao writing about?

Getting a Facial: A brief comment on face
Western interpretation=a public-self image that people across discourse and culture want to claim for themselves in face-to-face communication” (435).
==> Positive=the desire that one’s wants be appreciated and approved of (435).
==> Negative=the basic claim to freedom of action and freedom from imposition (435).
Mao’s interpretation of Chinese face=a public image that the self likes to claim or enhance from others in a communicative event
==> Lian=respect of the group for a person with good moral reputation and by embodying the confidence of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character…it becomes both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and an internalized sanction (435).
==> Mianzi=connoting prestige or reputation which is either achieved through getting on in life or ascribed (or even imagined, I might add) by members of one’s own community. Mianzi in this sense becomes a property obtained and owned by the individual in a public space (435-36).
I get the feeling we are being taken on a rhetorical joyride here. Very little time is devoted to developing the notion of Western face and how it does have to do with “society” and “members of community.” I am unclear what the differences are regarding all these faces and wonder if it is a question of motivation regarding face maintenance. Please help me understand.

Bizzel
I wonder why she chooses such dramatic examples of hybrid discourse and the use of rationality as a rhetorical strategy in unequal rhetorical “games.” In other words, I read her as trying to show how power differences in discourse mean that no discursive playing field is level or fair. Yet her main example in this work to showcase this inequity is so far removed from any real-world experience my students (my assumption to deal with) are having I find this point is lost. Her example does not fit what she claims to be doing.

intercultural communications
I want to remind many that media is not necessarily forced down our throats anymore. It is a choice. What does it mean to choose a Fox broadcast over a CNN broadcast? Does this mean we are constructing (controlling) our identities and ideologies—not the media?

What does it mean when people choose to represent stereotypes?

And I still want to know: Considering Hall’s notion of a “grammar of race” (103), I was wondering if race can be defined as a symbol system. Can it? What does it read like?