From Appropriation to Subversion: Aboriginal Cultural Production in the Age of Postmodernism

Peter Kulchyski
{"title":"From Appropriation to Subversion: Aboriginal Cultural Production in the Age of Postmodernism","authors":"Peter Kulchyski","doi":"10.2307/1185715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the coming century, cultural products such as images, \"authentic\" artifacts, and perhaps even ceremonies and spiritual events, will likely be very widely circulated commodities. So-called \"authentic\" cultural products, which may only identify those that stem from a different cultural source than the dominant, established order, will likely be among the most valuable commodities. In this context, a strategic reassessment of Aboriginal cultural production has already begun in the intense arguments over cultural appropriation. In what follows I propose to reassess the issue of cultural appropriation through a discussion of the concept of \"culture\" itself. Since \"culture\" can be characterized as one of the most useful intellectual tools of the twentieth century slowly coming to replace the nineteenth century concept of \"race\" as a way of differentiating peoples it has come to be taken for granted and, to an extraordinary extent, vacated of focus or precision. Indeed, in its broadest sense culture can be and often is deployed as all that is not nature; the culture/nature divide has been the critical analytical tool of many anthropologists, notably Claude Levi-Strauss. In this sense culture is economy, is (almost) everything that people do, say, mean, or are. The \"(almost)\" here refers to the residual elements of nature we can't seem to shrug off: our fingernails and hair grow, we eat and shit, and, the sad truth is, sooner or later we die. All of these \"natural facts\" are, of course, culturally contained. Different cultures treat hair and fingernails, eating and shitting, and death itself quite differently; these events have very different meanings across cultural boundaries. This has led in part to the recent philosophically inspired distrust of the concept \"nature,\" which paradoxically has expired not at the expense of but to the revalorization of the other on which it might have thought to have codepended: \"culture.\"","PeriodicalId":80425,"journal":{"name":"American Indian quarterly","volume":"21 1","pages":"605"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1185715","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Indian quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1185715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

In the coming century, cultural products such as images, "authentic" artifacts, and perhaps even ceremonies and spiritual events, will likely be very widely circulated commodities. So-called "authentic" cultural products, which may only identify those that stem from a different cultural source than the dominant, established order, will likely be among the most valuable commodities. In this context, a strategic reassessment of Aboriginal cultural production has already begun in the intense arguments over cultural appropriation. In what follows I propose to reassess the issue of cultural appropriation through a discussion of the concept of "culture" itself. Since "culture" can be characterized as one of the most useful intellectual tools of the twentieth century slowly coming to replace the nineteenth century concept of "race" as a way of differentiating peoples it has come to be taken for granted and, to an extraordinary extent, vacated of focus or precision. Indeed, in its broadest sense culture can be and often is deployed as all that is not nature; the culture/nature divide has been the critical analytical tool of many anthropologists, notably Claude Levi-Strauss. In this sense culture is economy, is (almost) everything that people do, say, mean, or are. The "(almost)" here refers to the residual elements of nature we can't seem to shrug off: our fingernails and hair grow, we eat and shit, and, the sad truth is, sooner or later we die. All of these "natural facts" are, of course, culturally contained. Different cultures treat hair and fingernails, eating and shitting, and death itself quite differently; these events have very different meanings across cultural boundaries. This has led in part to the recent philosophically inspired distrust of the concept "nature," which paradoxically has expired not at the expense of but to the revalorization of the other on which it might have thought to have codepended: "culture."
从挪用到颠覆:后现代时代的原住民文化生产
在未来的一个世纪里,文化产品,如图像、“真实的”文物,甚至仪式和精神活动,很可能会成为非常广泛流通的商品。所谓的“正宗”文化产品可能是最有价值的商品之一,它可能只识别那些来自不同文化来源的产品,而不是主流的、既定的秩序。在此背景下,对原住民文化生产的策略性重新评估已经在激烈的文化挪用争论中开始。在接下来的内容中,我建议通过讨论“文化”本身的概念来重新评估文化挪用的问题。由于“文化”可以被描述为20世纪最有用的智力工具之一,它逐渐取代了19世纪的“种族”概念,成为区分不同民族的一种方式,因此它已被视为理所当然,而且在很大程度上缺乏重点或准确性。的确,从最广泛的意义上讲,文化可以而且经常被认为是一切非自然的东西;文化/自然的鸿沟一直是许多人类学家的关键分析工具,尤其是克劳德·列维-斯特劳斯。从这个意义上说,文化就是经济,(几乎)是人们所做、所说、所做或所是的一切。这里的“(几乎)”指的是我们似乎无法摆脱的自然残余元素:我们的指甲和头发会生长,我们吃东西和拉屎,可悲的事实是,我们迟早会死。当然,所有这些“自然事实”都包含在文化中。不同的文化对待头发和指甲、饮食和大便以及死亡本身的方式都大不相同;这些事件在不同的文化背景下有着不同的含义。这在一定程度上导致了最近哲学上对“自然”概念的不信任,矛盾的是,“自然”的消亡不是以牺牲“文化”为代价,而是以“文化”为代价,而“文化”本来可能是它赖以生存的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信