For me the issue I have filling out a lot of this poll is it's not linked so much to type of consumption as arena -- public/private. I think that's why (per our earlier discussion ;) the pet/computer names don't bug me (even though a pet is kinda condescending) and child names would; pets and computers belong essentially to the private sphere, but kids don't. This thought got itself fully formed in my head while I was totally stuck on the "decorative artwork" questionnaire. On the one hand, appreciating art is a private feeling and anyone should be able to appreciate anything (and it's a *good* thing if they can!). On the other hand, displaying it is declaring a certain kind of allegiance, or showcasing....*something* that goes beyond art into identity, and that's weird if you don't have any awareness of the cultural significance of the object. On the other hand, if it's decorate artwork *in your own home*, that shouldn't matter. Unless you entertain a lot? Having it in, say, the bedroom or home office wouldn't bug me at all. But in the guest bedroom or living room? Hm, that's trickier.
So, yeah. Fill in all of these by some kind of public/private line for me, basically. Which means that, eg, "food" is always good and "tattoos" are always bad (well, I suppose some tattoos are in seldom-public places, but then you get into this whole other argument about how much cultural respect you are demonstrating with that Ta Moko on your ass).
Several of these have an additional complication in that they're inherently group activities -- eg, participating in religious ceremonies (in most cases). I am, personally, intensely uncomfortable with participating in religious ceremonies, because I am a foreigner to them, I don't generally believe in what's on offer, and I am sick-to-my-stomach horrified at the notion that people would assume I am representing something of that importance and sanctity when I am not. On the other hand, the religious ceremonies I've been at have all been ones where I could pass as a non-foreigner -- i.e. people's default assumption may be that I am participating in the same spirit which they are. (Hi, white person in a mainline Protestant church in the US! Um, yeah.) If I were in a context where the default assumption would be that I was a foreigner, and the regular celebrants invited me to join, that would be a different thing. Well, it wouldn't be totally different because I still wouldn't be sharing some belief elements that might be assumed to be shared, but there wouldn't be as much discomfort. And the broader issue I'm trying too-verbosely to get at here is that, if people who do have that level of cultural understanding invite you to participate, when it's clear to them that you're a foreigner, that's a different situation; it's an honor, it's not a problem, and indeed it might be insulting to refuse.
Yeah. So I think you're asking sort of the wrong set of questions here; it's not behaviors, although they condition the degree of appropriateness to some extent; it's about public vs. private consumption, and it's about the intersection of insider and outsider in group situations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-27 03:25 pm (UTC)So, yeah. Fill in all of these by some kind of public/private line for me, basically. Which means that, eg, "food" is always good and "tattoos" are always bad (well, I suppose some tattoos are in seldom-public places, but then you get into this whole other argument about how much cultural respect you are demonstrating with that Ta Moko on your ass).
Several of these have an additional complication in that they're inherently group activities -- eg, participating in religious ceremonies (in most cases). I am, personally, intensely uncomfortable with participating in religious ceremonies, because I am a foreigner to them, I don't generally believe in what's on offer, and I am sick-to-my-stomach horrified at the notion that people would assume I am representing something of that importance and sanctity when I am not. On the other hand, the religious ceremonies I've been at have all been ones where I could pass as a non-foreigner -- i.e. people's default assumption may be that I am participating in the same spirit which they are. (Hi, white person in a mainline Protestant church in the US! Um, yeah.) If I were in a context where the default assumption would be that I was a foreigner, and the regular celebrants invited me to join, that would be a different thing. Well, it wouldn't be totally different because I still wouldn't be sharing some belief elements that might be assumed to be shared, but there wouldn't be as much discomfort. And the broader issue I'm trying too-verbosely to get at here is that, if people who do have that level of cultural understanding invite you to participate, when it's clear to them that you're a foreigner, that's a different situation; it's an honor, it's not a problem, and indeed it might be insulting to refuse.
Yeah. So I think you're asking sort of the wrong set of questions here; it's not behaviors, although they condition the degree of appropriateness to some extent; it's about public vs. private consumption, and it's about the intersection of insider and outsider in group situations.