One of the main issues, that we seemed to conflict over in class, is who has the right to be the voice of culture, does it have to the culture themselves that provides the voice, or can some other outside influence provide the voice. In light of that, we come across a interesting situation during the Olympics, when those that represent their countries are supposedly from that country, which is technically true, since almost all the athletes are citizens of the country they represent, but here comes the interesting part. What is to be said of those will dual citizens. Are they allowed to represent a country that they never grew up in, just because they have citizenship.
I first came across this article on the weblog Angry Asian Man, a blog on all things Asian American. Which linked me to this article. Basically, a set of three siblings from the United States are all competing in this year's Winter Olympics, but they're not competing for the United States, even though they spent the majority of their lives in the United States and are citizens of the United States. Yet, because of certain technicalities they are allowed to compete for other nations. Two of the siblings are allowed to compete for Japan, because the siblings all hold dual nationalities, both in the United States and Japan. The third is competing for Georgia, on a technicality, her partner is of Georgian nationality.
However, all three siblings are only competing for these nations because they are not good enough to compete for the United States. So, how is it that these three athletes are representing nations, where they did not grow up. How are they the voice for these nations? Is it an authentic representation of these nation? Should it be allowed to be an authentic representation of these nations?
First off, I definitely don't view these athletes as the voices of these nations because they technically don't have a cultural context from which to speak regarding life lived or experiences within that particular culture. It is also not an authentic representation of that culture unless that culture believes that ethnicity and marriage are variable the are flexible enough for essentially lying about your athletic prowess. In conjunction with the above, it is also very interesting how the Griffiths article also mentions that when people become representative of these cultures that the assumption is made that the remaining members of that culture are in full support of the representative's actions and once, again that's probably not true.
ReplyDeleteI parallel this issue to that of Chinese actors playing Japanese parts in films and then are confused when their film doesn't do well or because they're being socially persecuted for their actions. It's absolutely ridiculous, ethnic or all peoples are going to want to witness a direct tie to the importance of that representative and if they don't feel that's present, they're going to speak up about it. These examples should not be allowed to be authentic representations of these nations not only because they're technically not cultural members residing in a space of cultural citizenship, but also because they are simply aiding in the further commodification of those people for the sake of camera time and possibly a medal. They're not contemplating about the meaning of cultural ties and whether or not this is the greatest thing for the sake of cultural authenticity and meaning.
Oh wow! graet posting! These are some challanging questions! As I agree with the poster of the blog along with Tichina. But yet I have some unsettling differences. In general, no I do not agree they should be able to be voices for nations in which they have to tie to what so ever. But yet I question myself and say "well if they are Japanesse and were raised in a household that practiced all the principles of this culture. Does that make them any less of a decedent from this nation just because they were not raised there or born there?" For a lack of better words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck? Regardless if was born in barn, pond or across the way in Russia. A duck is a duck correct? I mean I see the point being made about how can one represent a nation if it has yet to fully experience it. But then I feel people only say that if they feel the person is lacking in an area. But if one of these siblings were to win a Gold medal, do you think that nation outlook would change? And because the Japan nation frowns upon this, is meant for the black community to do the same. I mean there is now for the first time in history a black ice skating couple who placed 11th. But are not for America but London I believe. So are they identified as just an ice skating couple from London, or can I identify them as the first black ice skating couple to enter the olympics? I mean as we learned in class Selena was an American citizen. Her father explained to her how Mexico would not accept her as a representation of their country. But as time played of Selena is probably one of the highest and most valued idol of the country of Mexico that probably exists! Sometimes its not about where you are from but who you are and represent. If its a positive outlook I think people accept you, if it is negative I believe people will disregard you as representation.
ReplyDeleteThe two previous points make great points. After reading, I immediately thought of how we discussed in class about Griffith's flaws of using the word authenticity. The timelessness of authenticity and in this case representing a nation, is extremely falsy and almost an impossible discussion. For the case of the Olympics, it is no longer about representing a country, it is about doing anything in your power to be able to qualify and compete at the Olympic level. But in the case of strictly representation, how can you tell someone that he or she does not relate to a specific culture? We have ties everywhere around us, particularly in American culture. Griffith's piece emphasizes how we define authenticity, but can it really be applied to the Olympics?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great discussion... I just want to point out that if Japan's Olympic committee allow these American and Japanese citizens to compete under Japan's flag, then to push the discussion further, one can question if the presence of a country in the Olympics is about having an authentic athlete representing or is an opportunity to be present, and to be represented? (similar to the idea that at least someone speaks for the subaltern)
ReplyDeleteAlso, athletes just want to compete! If they don't have the opportunity to represent the United States, they will look for a way to compete in the Olympics.
With this act they are claiming Japanese identity to gain access to the world of competition, to gain visibility...
It will be very interesting to see what would happen if a born American citizen living for years in Japan, would have the opportunity to represent US... sounds like a puritan discourse to me.
Hmmm....I also agree that more than likely, these competitors don't care about representing their country or culture but more so just care about being apart of the olympics. I do not think these individuals who were born and raised in the states authentically represent that nation. But as one of the comment postings said, we don't if they grew up with certain cultural upbringings that would make them out to be a somewhat authentic representation.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that if I were to compete in the olympics for the Philippines, although born and raised in America, I do feel that I would authentically represent the country because my upbringing and the culture itself is very much apart of me even though I may not share the same experiences as those from the Philippines.
I've noticed this year that the Olympic games are a great stage for overblown generalizations and the dramatization of nationalism. It provides narratives for the NBC commentators to spin. The final men's skating competition the other night was a great example. The two anticipated gold medal contenders bookended the competition, with the American skating a perfect routine first, and the Russian scheduled last. Throughout the night the cameras returned to the menacing-looking athlete preparing for his turn (who interestingly was wearing a somewhat menacing red and black outfit) as the commentators emphasized how hard he'd worked for this competition (because those others hadn't apparently). I'm not old enough to have witnessed the Olympics when the USSR was competing, but I feel like this is a subtle continuation of that same narrative. This is a little off the topic but I think that it's interesting.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Japanese-American skaters, their situation is not very unique. Yuko Kawaguchi gave up her Japanese citizenship to skate for Russia. (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/sports/20100215TDY03104.htm) Based on the class readings, I would argue that authenticity is not a concept that can be applied to the Olympics. Nationality is a complex idea and the fluidity of national identity in the Olympic games demonstrates this complexity.
You all have made great observations and made a careful analysis of this idea of authenticity and representation. I like the fact that Olivia mentioned that the Olympics should be discussed by means of nationality versus authenticity which applies to the complexity of the whole Olympic games. This made me really think about my answer and come up with something similar to what you all are discussing. I would like to note that representation is defined as likeness of something while authenticity refers to the state of being untouched by external forces (notes from class). With this being said, cultural purity in deciding who is the most authentic when it comes down to representing a nation's voice is crucial. Therefore, if there are no examples of culture purity within one's hegemonic make-up, then, people would look down on this form of representation. As Beheath2 mentioned, Selena's identity being cross-linked with Mexican and American culture seems to be approving simply because she posses the balance that is necessary in which her father wanted her to be aware of and conscience of. The same situation is seen within black communities in which African-descents would typically, in some cases, disagree that African-American people are descendants or true to their native land. Basically, African-Americans, according to some African people, are not authentically African. I would say that this is true is some aspects because I would definitely not understand much of the cultural things that would take place if I were to visit Africa. Although, our past tells me that I am authentic by trans-nationalism and by means of the Diaspora. However, the people that are actually from there would have a contemporary view as if I was simply a foreigner embodying a cultural representation that is not unique to my identity. What does this mean? I gave this example to make a personal analysis of the situation. Furthermore, I believe that one could represent a nation as the voice to only a certain extent. It is one' s identity that is crucial here. Should this representation be a visible one is an even better case? Basically, could you possibly be visibly representative (to the public) to a culture that you did not grow up in?
ReplyDeleteColonization has definitely had an influence in deciding and defining authenticity. It is because of this in which no one could possibly decide who is being true to the culture unless a careful study of the earliest traces of the various cultures represented in our world today is done. This will prove the true authenticity of the past inhabitants of the earth. It is hybridity that makes this question complex because we can only discuss the level of visibility not fully authenticity because no one truly knows the exact criteria to follow.
ReplyDeleteAuthenticity is a very complicated subject, especially for Americans who are not really able to define it for themselves. Gareth Griffiths believes that authenticity helps to diminish the factors of "displacement, disruption, ambivalence, or mimicry" (241). Displacement is a factor for all Americans, excluding Native Americans, regardless of how recent their family came to the States. We're all an outcome of some sort of displacement. Ambivalence is another aspect which regards these figure skaters, because due to their dual citizenship, they are ambivalent about their national identity. I think it is also important to consider that, in the end, the Olympics are a fierce competition that is important to the whole world. Countries will do whatever is most beneficial to achieve victory. I'm sure that the two siblings could have technically competed for the United States figure skating team, but this would not benefit us, so it was decided to let them compete for the country where they were born. However, I do not think that this should be a concrete decision of their identity.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it is not fair they are allowed represent nation’s in which they did not come from. However as stated in the above comment post if they were born into a Japanese family and raised with the same Japanese cultural practices what makes them any less Japanese. I look at it like this if we can accept an African American born and raised in the U.S portraying an African born and raised Nigeria or a Puerto Rican woman portraying a Mexican American or white women for that matter in the movies. Why can’t we accept these Olympic Athletes? In short they may lack the knowledge and experience nation but they are definitely authentic because it's in their blood.
ReplyDeleteThe tensions and intersections between authenticity and nationality are extremely interesting when thinking about the Olympics. For, what are athletes representing when competing? Are they representatives of a nation understood as a culturally cohesive group or the nation understood politically?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Kraidy, hybridity allows one to adopt and detach from certain identities. It seems that the athletes mentioned in the blog post have hybrid identities, at least according to this understanding. For this reason, the question of authenticity is especially tricky and I think many of the commenters have really picked up on that. Can you claim to have an authentic identity without the political citizenship? Can cultural citizenship exist without actual citizenship? Or are the two too intertwined to make such a distinction?
I'm inclined to say that identities are entirely too fluid to claim certain people to be authentic representations - because you can get dangerously close to prohibiting identities to certain people. I think in this case of the Olympics, it is more of a question of using nation and nationhood as brand identity. This certainly has implications for authenticity, but as we have discussed in length - authenticity is entirely too difficult to pinpoint. The case of the Olympics simply complicates our understanding of what it means to authentic.
I agree with the comment that most athletes see themselves as individuals in a competition rather than a representative of their nation. From my point of view, this is just like how there are foreign aids participating in soccer games. In Olympics’ case, the athletes at least have the dual citizenship, while most of those foreign aids don’t have the citizenship of the nation team that they play for. So I guess for an athlete, whether having an authentic identity or not is not very important. On the contrary, to grasp every opportunity they can in order to prove their professional skills may be more important to them. Having hybrid identities, the athletes may be able to represent more than one identity. For instance, they may physically look like the representative of one identity, but they may culturally represent someone completely different. Therefore, I think it should be the athletes themselves who decide the identity they want to present.
ReplyDeleteI think Bola makes a really valid point. As much as we love the Olympics for the sense of global unity and nationalistic pride that it brings, to an extent this is just a creation of the media. If we can look at minorities as a representation across cultures such as an African American being the same in mediated representations as a South African then why shouldn't the same be for athletes?
ReplyDeleteI think it's also interesting to look at the history of the Olympics...in 1936 Germany held the Olympics under Hitler's Nazi rule. Only Aryan athletes were allowed to compete for Germany, yet all the anti-Jew signs were removed. The idea of international unity was obviously a front for the profits, considering they rounded up all gypsies in the town and removed them from Berlin. What does this say about the two-week validity of national and international representation?