http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photos/national-geographic-milestones/#4489_600x450.jpg
Above is a photograph from the National Geographic Society Image Collection, a photography milestone. It depicts a Zulu bride and groom in
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/amazon-brazil-uncontacted-tribe-photos.php
Here is the story of an Amazon Rainforest tribal group being photographed, or contacted, by the “outside world.” Members of the tribe are seen in their everyday space, but are pointing their bow and arrows at the photographer who was hovering overhead in a helicopter. There are more untouched communities like this one than one might think. As the article states, “Brazil’s National Indian Foundation suspects there are 68 uncontacted tribes in Brazil with only 24 of those being confirmed.” This Foundation believes that making such photos public is a means to protect the groups. This particular forest community is threatened from the actions of illegal logging. Without such indigenous cultures being recognized, it is possible that they disappear without anyone ever knowing they existed to begin with. It is interesting to look at the uncivilized/civilized dichotomy here, as well as the outsider/insider dichotomy, in that to us, these groups are “others” to be possibly recognized, and to them, we are “others,” who for all they know could be out to kill them.
Building off of the Griffiths, “The Myth of Authenticity” reading, once an authentic subaltern group becomes exposed to the general awareness, it is prone to becoming a “fetishized cultural commodity.” The way media represents subaltern groups also may frame the way they are perceived. Further, subaltern groups are not homogenous, and often have flourishing diversity within; so which subgroup(s) of the subaltern would be recognized? If media itself is a socially constructed institution, would a subaltern representation/voice it presents be truly authentic? Photographs, like those above, are interesting to think about in this sense. Although one might say a photograph is a reflection of reality, it really is a representation of reality; what is photographed is historically-specific and is tied to larger discourses.
When the narrator highlighting a subaltern group derives from the dominant discourse, how can the authentic voice/true subaltern discourse be represented and legitimated authentically within the dominant discourse? Due to powerlessness, the way the subaltern voice is “spoken” is vulnerable to being conditioned by the dominant discourse. Another concept to think about is the re-instilling of a representation. How can an authentic representation disrupt the dominant discourse to replace the older/false/yet “appropriated” representation?
Do you think it is appropriate for us to disrupt undisrupted indigenous tribes? Even if our intentions are to protect, are we doing more harm than good? In the article, it says, often after a tribe being “contacted” diseases can spread posing great danger to their existence.
There are a bunch of questions here to probe.
I do not believe it is fair to disrupt indigenous tribes, even if the intentions are good.I say this because once the dominant group tries to re-create the representation of tribal people it is no longer authentic.As out siders we must take a step back, because once we become the narrators, the tribal people lose their story. And once the story is altered the subaltern group feels it neccesary to live up to the expectations the dominat groups has created for them.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is largely in our general culture. What is it in us that is ready and willing to commodify things that in other cultures are sacred and offlimits. One of these such examples of unbridled commodification is what has been done at the Luxor to the Sphinx :http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/11533 . Here we have a marker and foundation of ancient civilization, and spirituality being turned into a place of degenerration and corruption. Turning a Sphinx into a casino is one of the most disruptive and disrespectful ways of silencing and enslaving a culture. The same is for the indigenous you mentioned. White Supremacy renders everything as object and something to be known and studied and Capitalism which goes hand in hand with racism since it is based on the devaluation of human beings since its inception, means that everything can be reduced to an object to be sold as well.In terms of the Griffths reading I want to be careful about digesting the statement referenced above: 'once an authentic subaltern group becomes exposed to the general awareness, it is prone to becoming a “fetishized cultural commodity.” ' I do not want to normalize this oppressive behavior and speak it as a matter of fact phenomenon. This is not a scientific process that nessecarily happens. It happens largely because of Euro-centric ancient philosophy which replaced indigenous philosophies in a World wide conquest. If we operated within idegenous epistemology as the 'norm' I strongly feel these type of infractions would not occur because these groups epistemologically, ontologically, and axiologically could not reduce any thing of nature to an object in a hierarchical way. These type of pictures are results of the colonial underpinnings that are pervasive in all of our instititions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bola because it's just like when the Europeans took away the Africans in the Africa away from their homeland during slavery. The Africans lost their identity, language, and culture. So when they got to America they had to adopt to what they were seen as 'dehumanized people' and inferior. They felt like they were cursed because of the stories that people saw them to look upon. After that story they are misrepresented and misunderstood of their indigenous well-being.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I do believe that there is some kind of responsibility to protect "undiscovered" cultures, simply, just to ensure a way of wife continues to exist. Who is to say that these groups are never to be found, or even better, will remain in the dark as if they live a bubble that is impenetrable, which kind of reminds me of the movie The Village. If there is an uncontrolled "discovery" of these groups, are we to allow the actions to play out naturally and in most cases, since we are talking about commodities in this course, allowing these undiscovered cultures to be commodified, to the whim of the discoverer, not saying that the commodification isn't already occurring, but at least this is being done with the limited amount of change to these people.
ReplyDeleteThe dominant discourse is coming, regardless of how long we wait, we're just delaying the inevitable if we wait, and ensuring the destruction of the the entire culture, verses the preservation of part of the culture. Cultures will always change, the question is, how can the culture adapt to the current culture. Or rather, how does this subaltern culture have its best shot at injecting some of their own culture into the mainstream culture. The question that we might want to ask here, is how shall this subaltern culture then not just fight to exist as authentically as possible, but how can they change a society they have yet to meet.
I think that it is interesting that the claim is made that this photograph is capturing the indigenous people in their natural environment. Yet, in this photo, they are dealing with the cumbersome outside forces that are enthralled by their different way of life. As Gareth Griffiths says in "The Post Colonial Reader", "There are real dangers in recent representations of indigenous peoples in popular discourse, and especially in the media, which stress claims to an 'authentic' voice. For these claims, by overwriting the actual complexity of difference may write out that voice as effectively as earlier oppressive discourses of reportage. In fact, it may well be the same process at work, and the result may be just as crippling to the effort of the indigenous peoples to evolve an effective strategy of recuperation and resistance" (237). I think that this photograph is a clear example of the '"authentic voice" of the indigenous people not being heard. Instead this is a portrayal from a helicopter hovering above the land, which depicts the subaltern group as barbaric and hostile. As Griffiths said in this quote, this is the same process that originally excluded the different subaltern groups. Though this may seem to give a picture from the natives eyes, it is actually an unauthentic look into their world.
ReplyDeleteI aswell feel that there is some type of responsibility to protect and have indiginous cultures be known. But then again, when protected and shown through the media in photos, the act of doing this becomes more negative then positive. Although it may be meant to protect these cultures what is it about the media and what is it about our cultures perception of photographs like this that make someone automatically think that these people are barbaric dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matthew in saying that this particular photo does not look like we are stepping into the world of these indignous people. This picture does not protect the culture or show their culture at all, more so it seems as if the photographer has placed these two individuals in the center of the frame standing stiff with no expression. This photo signals to me a short of showcase of how these people dress.
I also thought that you asked a really great question that I don't even know if I can answer...You asked how can authentic representations disrupt dominant discourses to replace the older/ false appropiated representation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though indigenous tribes are the world's version of life resisting power (as discussed in class). They are in a space that was previously untouched by the dominant culture and purposes of the world and this is becoming an underground reason for the invasion into their cultural space. With regard to the molestation of these indigenous cultures, I don't feel it's fair for them to be represented simply for the sake of societal notification. Their possibly unconscientious resistance to the dominant societal norms is a great thing, but the danger that they face as a result of their lack of publicity is also something to consider. According to Griffiths, "Many of the problems raised by this issue have also been addressed by those who have sought to theorize the difficulties which arise when we consider the possibility of a subaltern subject "speaking" within any dominant discourse such as colonialism or patriarchy". The tribes photographed are not technically given the right to “speak” with their version of authenticity because as the outside world, the ability to comprehend their cultural language is null and void. These indigenous cultures are not something to be exposed or commodified and I don't think that there's anything authentic about their representation in the media.
ReplyDeleteAuthenticity comes from a space of permission and growth, the photo of the Amazonian Rain Forest tribe is one depicting threat and invasion. Although the goal is noble (protecting them from logging), the methodologies are terrible. And in that, the authenticity fades (not to acknowledge that it ever existed in the first place).
I agree with Bola and a lot of what everyone has said I think authenticity has become some sort of side show for people everywhere and what they don't realize often is that the minute we stick our nose into some untouched tribe or culture we ruin its authenticity. I think it's a matter of spectacle and we need to stop viewing these "others" as a show.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Tichina's post and find myself in complete agreement. Discussions such as these make me wonder, who gave us the "rescue the world" badge? Griffiths' piece plays with the word "liberal" when describing the violence dominant populations push on the subaltern and the golden untouched people. We're that kid who thinks they really need to have a bite of everyone's lunch in the cafeteria because of some ordain right placed upon us (oh wait that was me). We consume and then we justify. Discourse such as "authenticity" and "salvaging the people" are fluffy words with nothing in the center; those words are our shiny badges that we flash at the human beings before we say "don't worry someone will remember you." Indeed Griffiths' piece alludes to how "authentic speech" is transformed into a "cultural commodity." Yummy.
ReplyDeleteIn Tichina's post she states, "their possibly unconscientious resistance to the dominant societal norms is a great thing, but the danger that they face as a result of their lack of publicity is also something to consider."
What is the real danger?
“It is interesting to look at the uncivilized/civilized dichotomy here, as well as the outsider/insider dichotomy, in that to us, these groups are “others” to be possibly recognized, and to them, we are “others,” who for all they know could be out to kill them.” The way how this posting understands “otherness” and “authenticity” reminds me of one of Banksy Graffiti’s works. http://www.flickr.com/photos/whorange/2285710966/ (here’s the link to the picture!) In this picture, there are three tribal-like people and two shopping carts. Obviously, these people consider the shopping carts as “others” and things that are dangerous. Therefore, they gather together in order to attack the carts. For me, though this picture is being a little bit exaggerating and sarcastic, it implicates the conflicting relationship between indigenous and modern consumerism, and how “we” and our culture, is being intrusive and destructive for “them”. Just like what the photo of the Amazonian Rain Forest tribe depicts, our culture is posing threats on these indigenous cultures. From my point of view, it is important for “us” to figure out a way to coexist with “them” while assuring that the harm on both parties can be minimized.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Matt’s post and how the picture is anything but a look into the world of these indigenous people. This photograph illustrates that we are trying to be the “conquerors” in a position of power and make a spectacle of the “others” by the way that this picture was taken. The photographer is taking the picture from the air and looking down on them which shows that we are already asserting our dominance onto these people by assuming the higher position. Also, the photographer is invading their space by hovering over their homes in a huge, noisy helicopter which would scare and threaten anyone. Griffiths points out that the conquerors would cut out the tongues of the native people in order to silence their story, and in a sense this is exactly what we are doing. By coming in with a big show of power we have put them on the defensive and thus lost the native voice. I think that we need to take a much less aggressive approach in order to protect and preserve the true discourse of this tribe.
ReplyDeleteI am really fascinated by some of the comments on here in that it seems like our discourse is still bogged down by our inability to communicate apolitically about the subaltern or indigenous. By this I mean that we betray the power relations involved and even replicate them. I'll use a couple quotes to illustrate this. Please don't take offence if I took a quote from you. I'm sure my own post is ripe for similar critique.
ReplyDelete"Griffiths' piece plays with the word "liberal" when describing the violence dominant populations push on the subaltern and the golden untouched people." Here I am fascinated by Audrey's comment in that while speaking of the violence the dominant populations inflict, it may be read as reinflicting this violence by characterizing the amazonian tribes as "golden" and "untouched." While perhaps superficially placing them above what I suppose may be described as our guilded and fondled civilization, Audrey may also be seen as fetishizing these peoples prior to their 'exposure to general awareness,' as Knecast2 might say.
Another term I have found problematic in the writing here is "authenticity." Here I will quote from Knecast2: "once an authentic subaltern group becomes exposed to the general awareness, it is prone to becoming a 'fetishized cultural commodity.'" Again it seems as though these groups are already fetishized as "authentic," and in viewing them as in a 'prone' position, we are already revoking their agency, and therefore reinforcing their powerlessness.
The concept of "liberal violence" is definitely not new to me. Being a student of sociology I have read, learned, and interacted with many texts and people that show how good intentions pave the way to hell. I found myself surprised with how common sense to me that within every single population there is are certain structures of power and that there are wide ranges of existing within said cultural group.
ReplyDeleteI had to deal with the responsibility of confronting how my simple "oh yea...duh" moment points to how I still need to work on being able to conceptualize people, questioning where the texts/representations come from, and how complex they are. The idea of critical agency to decide who gets represented in what context is so key here.
To answer your question, I'm not sure the situation is as simple as you make it. I foresee that any populations we have not found yet are bound to be interacted with in some way or another, be it through direct trade, curiosity, random exploration, or most likely the destruction of the environment in a weird manifest destiny of capitalism that requires consumers to support expeditions into uncharted areas to extract finite resources. I would definitely like careful and critical negotiation between the groups of contact and that would require much time and understanding, but should this occur in the first place...I'm still split because of the chance of exploitation due to the probable instance of imbalanced power relations to begin with.
Well, I'm not sure I can answer this question in one way - or in one comment. I think that the larger question at hand, and I am reiterating points made in some previous comments here, is this rhetoric of disturbing an "untouched" tribe. In many ways this rhetoric romanticizes notions of primitiveness and savageness, and inevitably places indigenous cultures in a realm of an anachronistic reality. Our world is violent, industrial, modern - whereas "untouched cultures" exist in a world that pre-exists modernity. What we often fail to realize is that these cultures are existing simultaneously with modern, industrial society. They have existed from pre-modernity, and to assume that they have not changed is to both simplify and romanticize indigenous cultures.
ReplyDeleteGriffiths rightly addresses the problem of perceiving indigenous people as homogenous, and speaking of "disturbing" untouched people comes dangerously close to ignoring the very differences which Griffiths points to.
This is a difficult subject to pin down and I don't think there's any way to delineate right or wrong answers. It's an issue that has always been in the back of my mind when flipping through National Geographic: how much can we really learn from outsiders that observe a community for a short period of time, however much effort they put into interacting and engaging with the people they are writing about? Yet readers want to learn about cultures they are not exposed to, and I'm not ready to condemn that desire for knowledge about people other than themselves. However - an article, and certainly a photograph, is of course only a representation. National Geographic is definitely a case of the dominant force constructing a narrative, but I would argue that from recent articles I've read, the magazine is very aware of their position and does not seek to "showcase" anyone, but tries to explain historical and political situations that readers would otherwise not know about. I'd like to add that I'm not sure how I feel about the notion that interacting with cultures "ruins their authenticity" as stated in a previous comment. As Steve mentioned, "authenticity" is a problematic word here. It reminded me of Kraidy's description of the dystopian view of globalization and culture, "an authentic national culture threatened by the spread of soulless global forms." I would agree with the argument that culture is really much more complex, and made up of heterogeneous elements.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that it is unfair for disrupt indigenous tribes. I feel the American society alway believe "we know whats wrong here. We can show you a better way of living. We can protect you". But I think we have to learn how to leave societies be. We can barely protect our selves. And we damn sure can't even solve our own problems. I think if we actually took time out to see how these tribes and counties function that we may learn a lot more. We are great talkers but bad listeners. I feel although we are always trying to reach out and do charity but at the end of the day our idea of saving ends up sailing the others culture. We end up commodifying them and trying to indulge them into or cultural. When actual reality we just need to leave them alone. Stop interrupting small private societies and focus on our own. There's a difference from learning about another culture and disturbing it. And its a fine line that runs between it. To bad many don't see it.
ReplyDeleteI do not think we have any business disrupting a community that would not even care if they are "protected" by the dominant culture that is just so intrigued by them. Who is to say that a culture needs saving and protection? When in reality, they need protection from people who think they are doing them a favor.
ReplyDeleteI have a real problem with people who say that they are just trying to show the world how people live in other cultures/communities because it just goes back to this idea that difference can be a spectacle for the people who are "living in modern times". I understand if we are truly trying to learn about their culture, but we have to be careful not to cross that thin line between difference as spectacle and understanding the culture of the people.
Well this post obviously touched an interesting chord with this class. At the heart of it, it seems to provoke several issues: the relationship between hybridity and commodification; the ideology of authenticity; the spectacle of "the authentic." There is much to unpack here -- the assumption that this group of native people did not themselves engage in the practices of hybridity with other cultures/groups; that native culture is "pure" or essential; that visibility itself produces commodification. Perhaps it might be useful to separate out a couple of concepts -- authenticity as commodity; hybridity and cultural citizenship; and hybridity as commodity.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that it is appropriate to disrupt an undisrupted indigenous tribe like Bola and Matthew discussed in there post. Griffiths discusses the danger in the representation of indigenous peoples within the media because it takes away for the true voice of the people. I believe that America has a fascination with explore indigenous cultures because of their resistance to conform to modern societal ways.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how one photograph can stimulate so much profound discussion.
ReplyDelete“The contemporaneous salience of hybridity should not obscure the long history of intercultural borrowing and fusion” (Kraidy, 46).
I think an interesting notion brought up in discussion was that of “when does authenticity begin?” The assumption that ‘what is authentic is not hybrid’ is a misconception, and is problematic in defining culture through authenticity; for there has to be intercultural exchange. Culture, the production and circulation of meaning, is fluid and constantly evolving and being negotiated. It is also always historically specific, tied to the past and embedded with discursive practices. It is important to not overlook the notion that authenticity is embedded in power relations. When analyzing culture, it always comes down to power. An interesting question that was brought up in discussion was: whose voice(s) get(s) heard over others? Those from the “outside,” often due to hierarchical positioning, possess the ability to define the “authenticity” of the authentic. Consequent policing into “inclusion”/”exclusion” often happens thereafter.
Kraidy and Valdivia argue that hybridity has the potential to be transformative and disrupt power relations, because it is a way of asserting cultural citizenship and political identity. Kraidy claims that rather than erasing difference completely, hybridity produces a space that is uniquely its own. Kraidy says, “the notion of hybridity invokes the fusion of two (or more) components into a third term irreducible to the sum of its parts” (66). How do you think hybridity can be transformative?
Looking at President Obama as a hybrid figure in this sense, given his heritage, would be a pertinent example to discuss. Given our understanding that hybridity is inextricably tied to the past, what do you think set the stage for this breakthrough in our country’s history? One interesting, potential influence from popular culture, which I probed in another class, is The Cosby Show. Here is a relevant article from The New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3D71E30F93BA35752C1A96E9C8B63
News flash America! The first time foreigners went poking their noses into other civilizations and groups unbothered and pure, colonization took place. To simply go in and take away this authenticity of this indigenous group would be agreeing to mental, physical, and economic enslavement in the future. Europeans sought to destroy civilizations that were barbaric and lacking in technology and current advancements. I think, these indigenous people are the smart ones because they are doing what they want to do and not caring about what others are doing. "Subaltern speech has been obtained through the discourse of the oppressor" according to Griffith's article about "The Myths of Authenticity"
ReplyDeleteIn Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" we see this same process unfolding into a steady intention of modern societies to disturb the progress of tribes in order to benefit them. In turn, the modern advancements imposed on the civilizations, strips them of their authenticity and shapes them in the eyes of their oppressors slash imposers. I agree with you Kortney and everyone else mostly who posted here. Authenticity does not rest on the shoulders of the outside.Definitely not!
ReplyDelete