Sheryl Dare asks the students in her Ideas in Western Literature class to design and carrry out an independent project which examines a cultural assumption. Here is the assignment sheet which frames the project for the students, and a sample student response.

The purpose of the project is twofold. It's an opportunity to 1 ) exercise your academic FREEDOM in connection with some investigation of the TRUTH, by designing and implementing a collaborative project in a way that 2) takes some aspect of the putative KNOWLEDGE you've gained in this course and put it into ACTION.

Translated into plain language, Phase III asks that you identify, define, gather evidence for, critically think and come to some conclusion about a cultural assumption. The content and actual format can be anything you want them to be. BUT, be reminded that with freedom comes the burden of RESPONSIBILITY (implications and consequences), so please do nothing dangerous, hurtful or illegal.

Here are some of the concepts we've touched on in the course reading that you may want to explore. The concepts, along with references to the texts we've read, must be embedded in your final paper.

Freedom
Truth
Individual vs. Society (Plato, Cuckoo)
Post-modern bankruptcy of values (Kafka, Hollow Men, 2nd Coming, No Exit) Consciousness (Sisyphus, Hamlet)
Obedience
Ethics (Job, Ishrnael, Grand Inquisitor)
Knowledge = Action = Responsibility (Maslow, Hamlet)
Any or all elements of the CT process

You will be assessed according to these common descriptors of Understanding:

1. Interpretation: How did you interpret the raw data you gathered in order to arrive at your conclusions? Did you account for your own biases in your interpretation?

2. Application: How have you applied the knowledge you've gained in this class in some tangible way?

3. Perspective: Can you step back and see your problem/hypothesis in some Bigger Picture? Can you see the problem from different points of view? Consequences and implications leading from different courses of action?

4. Self-Knowledge (meta-cognition): What did this project teach you about yourselves? About the way/s you think?

5. Explanation: You (as a group) will need to be able to explain the parameters of your project to the class orally, and to me in writing. (5 pages typewritten, doublespaced, not including your raw data).

Sara A.
Sara C.
Tiara K.

Testing Our Tastes

Phase 111 Project

Purpose: To test the cultural assumption that more expensive, more popular products are of a higher quality than cheaper, more generic brands.

Hypothesis: Our personal opinion has more to do with what we hear from the media and those around us than our actual individual taste.

Materials: Coca Cola Classic Soda (~ six-pack for $2.59) Springfield Cola (1 six-pack for $1.69) 24 taste testers

Method: Out of the 24 taste testers randomly selected to participate in our experiment, half were subjected to Test#1 while the remaining half were subjected to Test #2. Test #1 involved preparing two small cups of cola, one containing the more expensive and popular Coca Cola Classic Soda and the other containing the cheaper, generic Springfield Cola. We did not inform the taste testers of the contents in each cup and asked them to sample each cola and tell us which they preferred. Test #2 involved preparing the two cups as we did in Test #1. However, this time, we revealed to the taste tester which cup contained Coca Cola Classic and which contained Springfield Cola. Once again, we asked them which cola they preferred. In both tests, we recorded the decision of each taste tester and drew conclusions from our compiled data.

Data:

Test One

Springfield Cola 58% (1/12)
Coca-Cola 42% (5/12)

Test Two

Springfield Cola 25% (3/12)
Coca Cola 75% (9/12)

Conclusion:

For the most part, the results of our experiment support our initial hypothesis that our opinions are influenced more by society than our actual personal taste. As we predicted, when we did not inform the taste testers of the brand of cola they were sampling, more taste testers indicated a preference for the cheaper, more generic Springfield Cola than when they were aware of which cola they were drinking. This suggests that our personal tastes are largely manipulated by outside societal influences such as the media and those around us... that we are more a product of society than one of our own making. If we know that a product is more expensive and more "popular" than another product, we often assume that it is of higher quality and therefore "better". Almost every day, we encounter some type of Coca Cola Classic promotion: commercials... magazine advertisements, a classmate quenching their thirst with the all-American beverage of choice. Even the Punahou School cafeteria serves all soft drinks in a bright red cup emblazoned with the oh-so-familiar white, cursive letters of the Coca Cola Classic logo, and the majority of soda machines we encounter showcase Coca Cola Classic above the hundreds of other sodas on the market. It is therefore not surprising that a taste tester would "prefer" Coca Cola Classic over a generic brand of cola they've never even heard of. That is, of course, only if they are aware of which cola is which. However, when taste testers are kept in the dark, and, presumably, left to make a decision entirely based on personal taste rather than one influenced by cultural assumptions and stereotypes, our results show that Coca Cola Classic, though it is more expensive, more advertised and more popular than Springfield Cola, is not necessarily the preferred cola.

The results of our experiment reveal several assumptions that factor into our everyday choices. For example, the fact that when people were not informed of which cola they were drinking more people chose Springfield Cola than when they were informed of the difference implies that many of us assume that higher priced, more popular products are superior to lesser-known, cheaper products. We automatically correlate price and popularity with quality, often forgetting to even consider our actual personal preference. We assume that what we see and hear in advertisements and from those around us is the truth, often adapting our own "truth" to the popular "truth." We ask ourselves "What do most people like?" and "What should I like?" rather than "What do I like?" We define our "selves" by societal standards rather than discovering our own true identity. Our results show that people not only "prefer" Coca Cola Classic to the more generic Springfield Cola, but that they actually pay nearly twice as much for this brand name cola for reasons, apparently, often having nothing to do with their personal taste. Furthermore, our decisions are also often affected by the societal assumption that there is some correlation between what we buy and who we are. Many people assume that those who buy name brand products (which are usually high priced) are "high class" while they pity or look down upon those that buy cheaper, more generic brands as "poor," "cheap" or "low class."

Several connections can be drawn between the results of our experiment and the texts we have been reading and discussing throughout the semester. In his novel Ishmael Daniel Quinn depicts our civilization as one influenced by an invisible force he calls "Mother Culture" which encroaches into every corner of our lives, dictating what we believe, how we act and who we are. Similarly, in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," he asserts that society is a cave in which we are restrained by chains. The media, popular opinion and other external factors that influence our opinions can be considered "Mother Culture" in disguise: the chains that bind, the veils that blind. The mighty powers of Mother Culture were at work while our informed taste testers selected their cola of choice; yet our uninformed taste testers, released from their chains in the form of assumptions and stereotypes they might attach to each cola, were far less vulnerable to her evil clutches. Quinn describes our civilization as being ensnared behind invisible bars constructed by "Mother Culture." Thus, as our informed taste testers sampled their cola, they were trapped behind and restrained by cultural assumptions that prevented them from being true to themselves. Furthermore, the fact that we are often unaware of these assumptions and their restrictive influences renders us less likely to escape them. As Quinn posits, "If you can't discover what's keeping you in, the will to get out soon becomes confused and ineffectual" (25).

Similar to "Mother Culture" which influences our choices, "The Combine," which symbolizes society in Ken Kesey's novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, also controls the way we behave and act. The Combine encompasses the "norms" of society, rejecting any type of behavior that deviates frorn what is deemed normal or conventional by popular belief. This connects to the results we observed in our experiment, which showed that people are more inclined to "choose" the more popular, accepted Coca Cola Classic instead of the generic, unconventional Springfield cola when they are aware of which brand they are drinking. As mentioned before, assumptions about these two products influence people's choices. By purchasing a generic brand that is considered unconventional by society, a person is more vulnerable to negative stereotypes, since his or her choice goes against the accepted "norm." Nurse Ratched, who is an enforcer of the Combine, advocates conforming to the rules of society. She tells the patients, "A good many of you are in here because you could not adjust to the rules of society in the Outside World, because you refused to face up to them, because you tried to circumvent them and avoid them" (171). By articulating the consequences of defying or circumventing societal rules, Nurse Ratched suggests that it is in a person's best interest to choose the "conventional" path. Thus, this explains why people subjected to Test #2 were more inclined to choose Coca Cola Classic. By conforming to popular taste, which is a product of the media and other external societal forces, people are more likely to be accepted by society, which often criminalizes difference. People's desire to be accepted by others often affects the way they behave and the choices they make, as supported by the results of our experiment.

The results of our experiment can also be interpreted in light of Susan Blackmore's portrayal of the "self' in her article about memes and genes. In her article, she asserts that, "the idea of 'self is an illusion." She defines "memes" as "ideas, skills, habits, stories, songs or inventions that are passed from person to person by imitation." Blackmore argues that our "selves" are simply an accumulation of memes absorbed from the world around us. Our opinions and beliefs are a reflection of the memes we successfully absorb... we are the end product of a sort of 'survival of the fittest." In the end, "the choices [we] make are not made by an inner self who has free will, but are just the consequences of the replicators playing out their competition in a particular environment. In the process they create the illusion of a self who is in control." With respects to our experiment, perhaps our informed taste testers' opinions were simply a reflection of the memes they have inherited from their surroundings... from what they have seen and heard in advertisements and from those around them. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of the informed taste testers, daily bombarded with memes promoting Coca Cola Classic, almost immediately selected Coca Cola Classic as their preferred cola... for in a game of "survival of the fittest," the squeaky wheel most often gets the oil. Though we like to believe that taste is entirely subjective, it is indeed, largely manipulated and controlled by society. As Blackmore contends and our experiment suggests, we do not shape ourselves; memes shape us.

In conducting our experiment and writing our report, our group made numerous assumptions about society, the taste testers and the results. In identifying these assumptions, however, we can account for the discrepancies that may have occurred in our experiment.

Firstly, we assumed all of our taste testers have the same taste: that they look for the same qualities in soda (i.e. carbonation level, sweetness, etc.) or that they even like soda at all. It was impossible to know what each person tasted and eliminate the different factors that cause one to choose one soda over the other, thus making it more difficult to assess society's influence. We learned in biology, for example, that some people are unable to taste certain ingredients that produce a sweet or bitter taste. Therefore, discrepancies in one's preference may be linked to biology and our genes as opposed to the "memes" of society. We also assumed our taste testers would not recognize the taste or scent of either soda, and automatically choose a soda hasQd on this recognition or assumption rather than their instinctive taste and preference. In addition, due to our time limitations, we were unable to test a large group of people. Although the taste testers covered a wide variety of ages and included both males and females, the results of our experiment may not accurately reflect what the results of a larger sample size would be. We furthermore ruled out the possibility of coincidence, assuming that the people who chose Coca Cola Classic in Test #2 had been exposed to the media. We assumed that the people who participated in our experiment had been affected by their exposure to the media, and thus drew the conclusion that external forces such as "memes" solely shape our opinion and preferences rather than our true "selves."

No experiment can be complete without identifying the error that could have factored into the experiment. Therefore, in addition to recognizing our assumptions, we felt it important to identify the factors that may have skewed our data, most of which had to do with the individual sodas. After completing our experiment, for example, we realized that the expiration date, temperature, dilution, and carbonation of each soda could have affected a person's preference. The aforementioned list was not accounted for in most of our conclusions, and we assumed that those factors were held constant in each trial. Yet another factor that we must consider is that we interpreted our data with our hypothesis fresh in our minds.

The implications and consequences of the results of our experiment are almost overwhelming. Perhaps the most potent implication is that we are a product of society rather than one of our own creation. This realization raises the conflict which lies at the heart of existentialist thought: how do we function in the world with the knowledge that life is futile? For, we live our lives believing that we are indeed living our lives... that we are making our own decisions, thinking our own thoughts, creating our own "selves." This sense of control over our lives is what keeps many of us going; it is how we justify and deal with adversity. Yet, how do we function with the knowledge that we are controlled more by society than by ourselves? Like Sisyphus in Sartre's "The Myth of Sisyphus" and Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning we must learn to triumph in the face of despair by creating our own meaning. We must accept our lack of control and the absurdity of our lives but we cannot let this realization hinder us to the point of giving up. We still must examine our assumptions, see past stereotypes and forge ahead in our quest for meaning, our search for our "selves."

We designed our experiment to test the cultural assumption that the more expensive, more popular products are of a higher quality than cheaper, more generic brands. Before we even began our experiment, we predicted that we would find proof that this cultural assumption exists; but that it is indeed only an assumption. Thus, as we conducted our experiment and analyzed our results, we had our hypothesis (what we thought would happen) fresh in our minds. After we performed our experiment, we analyzed our results in terms of our hypothesis, meaning we checked to see whether our results proved or disproved our hypothesis. Thus, we analyzed our results from a rather focused, and thus limited, perspective. Thus, due to our parochial analysis, it is quite possible that other conclusions could have been drawn from our results. Once we realized that our results, for the most part, supported our hypothesis, we turned to the texts we have studied throughout the semester and tried to draw connections between what we read and learned, and what the results of our experiment implied in order to explain and justify our results. It was largely these connections we were able to make that directed our thinking and guided our logic, allowing us to thoroughly ans systematically explore the underlying assumptions, implications, and consequences of the results of our experiment.