Tory,
I agree with what you are saying here and feel that you have really explained well some of the key themes in the class. While Latin America represents a huge mixing of culture, race, tradition, belief, etc., it would be wrong to assume that this automatically signifies a sense of social equality. While the concept of 'Mestizo' may seem attractive in its inclusiveness, it is undeniable that a strong and even rigid racial hierarchy exists in much of Latin America. I think that a lot of this has to do with legacies of conquest and colonization as much of Latin America culture and history can be defined through shifting relations of power. However, I think that it is important keep in mind that in in the face of domination, there is a strong sense of resiliency that causes culture to constantly reinvent itself rather than merely being crushed.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Reflections
Hard to believe that we are already half way done! So far, I have enjoyed many aspects of this class. In discussing many elements of both the meaning of culture and the people, and specific cultural traditions in Latin America, I feel that my knowledge has expanded in all areas. Interestingly, though I have taken many classes in anthropology, I feel that I have learned at least as much about what 'culture' is in this class, and likewise, am probably more confused by it as well. I have never really had the opportunity to study 'popular' culture to such an extent, and I find that it adds a fundamental dimension to the study and understanding of culture as a whole. I also find that I have been able to make connections about culture, popular culture, and the people that we have discussed in this class in many of my other classes, which is exciting.
I really enjoyed the first two articles that we read by Williams and Keesing. I like the concept of culture being ordinary; that it is not an authentic relic of the past that can be found in a museum, or a form of high art only accessable to the elite, but rather it is all around us. Everything we see, from infrastructure and architecture, to human interaction and social relations sheds light on the embedded history that has sculpted the culture that we see today. Culture in Latin America can not be reduced to strictly indigenous culture or legacies of European culture, but rather it represent the mixing of it all. In comparing culture to a Coral Reef, I really enjoyed how Keesing dismanteled this idea, suggesting that culture is not simply a natural process that slowly changes over time and is unintentional in doing so, but rather culture is reactionary. Culture exists out of a serious of power relations and struggle that have conciously dominated and resisted domination. Forces of globalization, modernization, and colonization have effected culture, and people have continuously resiseted and reacted to these forces thus adding yet another dimension of the culture we see today.
In Evita Peron's book In My Own Words she adresses the 'people' in a passionite way. However reading this article brings into question, who exactly are the people? According to Peron, the people are generally those who have in some way been disenfranchised by the system, ie the women, the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. Many definition of the 'people' can exist, but as this relates to the study of popular culture, one can see that culture can both come from a trickelling of culture from the elites of above, or an absorbing of culture from the masses of below. Cultural exchanges are multideimensional in their flows.
This concept is well defined in Rowe and Schelling's "The Faces of Popular Culture." Though this article cuased some debate in class, I feel that its aims were explain how parts of indigenous life and culture were 'crushed' during the time of conquest an colonization, there is a certain resiliancy of culture that have not allowed for domination, but rather hybridization and mixing of cultures. In this article we see the exchange of culture from 'top down' and 'bottom up,' along with an extreme hybridization of customs and religions. The authors note that as capitalism effects culture, commercial processes can make art pre-packaged and for profit, thus cheapining their form. Rowe and Schelling note that at certain points commodification can go too far and get eaten up by the 'culture industry' which leads to a degradation in quality and creativity. They suggest that history is not nuetral by guided by popular culture that can get absorbed into commercial and state culture.
Lastly, I will comment on the discussion of race. I find race a particularily interesting concept in Latin America. Through conquest, colonization, and slavery, many mixed races were created that further created social hierarchies. In The Cosmic Race Vasconcelos suggests that it is in the mixtures of race that make Latin America strong and unique. However through his language, it becomes very obvious that race is far from nuetral. Wade argues that even in the concept of 'mestizo' that signifies to many an inclusion of all, their still exists a strong sense of racial hierarchy, and this mixing has not equated to social and racial equality. In Latin America, generally speaking, lightness of skin often equates to social status, and black or indigenous colouring can often be found at the bottom of this hierachy.
I really enjoyed the first two articles that we read by Williams and Keesing. I like the concept of culture being ordinary; that it is not an authentic relic of the past that can be found in a museum, or a form of high art only accessable to the elite, but rather it is all around us. Everything we see, from infrastructure and architecture, to human interaction and social relations sheds light on the embedded history that has sculpted the culture that we see today. Culture in Latin America can not be reduced to strictly indigenous culture or legacies of European culture, but rather it represent the mixing of it all. In comparing culture to a Coral Reef, I really enjoyed how Keesing dismanteled this idea, suggesting that culture is not simply a natural process that slowly changes over time and is unintentional in doing so, but rather culture is reactionary. Culture exists out of a serious of power relations and struggle that have conciously dominated and resisted domination. Forces of globalization, modernization, and colonization have effected culture, and people have continuously resiseted and reacted to these forces thus adding yet another dimension of the culture we see today.
In Evita Peron's book In My Own Words she adresses the 'people' in a passionite way. However reading this article brings into question, who exactly are the people? According to Peron, the people are generally those who have in some way been disenfranchised by the system, ie the women, the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. Many definition of the 'people' can exist, but as this relates to the study of popular culture, one can see that culture can both come from a trickelling of culture from the elites of above, or an absorbing of culture from the masses of below. Cultural exchanges are multideimensional in their flows.
This concept is well defined in Rowe and Schelling's "The Faces of Popular Culture." Though this article cuased some debate in class, I feel that its aims were explain how parts of indigenous life and culture were 'crushed' during the time of conquest an colonization, there is a certain resiliancy of culture that have not allowed for domination, but rather hybridization and mixing of cultures. In this article we see the exchange of culture from 'top down' and 'bottom up,' along with an extreme hybridization of customs and religions. The authors note that as capitalism effects culture, commercial processes can make art pre-packaged and for profit, thus cheapining their form. Rowe and Schelling note that at certain points commodification can go too far and get eaten up by the 'culture industry' which leads to a degradation in quality and creativity. They suggest that history is not nuetral by guided by popular culture that can get absorbed into commercial and state culture.
Lastly, I will comment on the discussion of race. I find race a particularily interesting concept in Latin America. Through conquest, colonization, and slavery, many mixed races were created that further created social hierarchies. In The Cosmic Race Vasconcelos suggests that it is in the mixtures of race that make Latin America strong and unique. However through his language, it becomes very obvious that race is far from nuetral. Wade argues that even in the concept of 'mestizo' that signifies to many an inclusion of all, their still exists a strong sense of racial hierarchy, and this mixing has not equated to social and racial equality. In Latin America, generally speaking, lightness of skin often equates to social status, and black or indigenous colouring can often be found at the bottom of this hierachy.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Understanding Culture through Stories
I found this weeks readings interesting and thought provoking, but still challenging, though in an entirely different way that the readings prior. The Asturias readings represented a resignification of indigenous ideas and were loaded with symbolism about cultures in contact, hybridization of culture, and resilience in the face of domination. I feel that these are the types of readings that need to be read several times to fully understand the complex messages embedded in the sureal writing style. The style of writing was very poetic and beautiful, but in its non-linear style, it was hard for me to fully grasp the message upon first read. Though I'm not entirly sure how, I feel that these readings exemplify the concepts that we discussed in class about cultural flows moving in many directions, and a certain resiliance in the way that indigenous culture was practiced in the face of Spanish domination. In "The Legend of the Crystal Mask," Asturias refers to "the men with the worm white skin," which I assume alludes to the Spanish. In the same story, the priest concludes with the thought, "The one who adds creatures of artifice to creation must know that these creatures are rebellious. See, they have buried him, yet they remain!" I think that this quote refers to the idea that even if a group is 'dominated,' the nature of humans and of culture is that they will find ways to reinvent themselves in a rebellious way to fight back: culture and the human spirit are too strong to be broken.
As many of my classmates have mentioned, the second reading was a lot of straightforward with a simple plot and punch line. This story to me symbolized again the rebelious nature that people maintain even in the face of outward domination. While it may have seemed that Pongo was sucumbing to the outward domination of his Master, the end of this story shows that subtley, his spirit will not be broken.
I think that it is interesting to attempt to understand culture via understanding it through the interpretation of myth and story and I look forward to further discussing this in class.
As many of my classmates have mentioned, the second reading was a lot of straightforward with a simple plot and punch line. This story to me symbolized again the rebelious nature that people maintain even in the face of outward domination. While it may have seemed that Pongo was sucumbing to the outward domination of his Master, the end of this story shows that subtley, his spirit will not be broken.
I think that it is interesting to attempt to understand culture via understanding it through the interpretation of myth and story and I look forward to further discussing this in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)