In "Tradition, Genuine or Spurious," Handler and Linnekin discuss the concept of tradition, which, although popularly understood in an informal sense, is difficult to define rigorously. Two definitions of tradition are presented: the naturalistic one, which defines tradition as stable and objective, and the symbolic one, which argues that tradition is constantly in flux and subjective. Drawing from case studies in Quebec and Hawaii, the authors find that in those and presumably in all cultures, tradition is constantly reinterpreted in the present. Cultural elements that are perceived as traditional are so not because of some external reality of past practices and beliefs, but because of this perception itself. Additionally, in the cases of both Quebec and Hawaii, there is a sort of "chicken and the egg" question concerning the relationship of nationality and tradition. The desire for a national identity provides the impetus for the development of tradition, while shared tradition helps to define the nation itself. Ultimatiely, Handler and Linnekin find that the symbolic definition of tradition is the more useful one.
Discussion question: Edward Shils posits that culture develops in almsot imperceptibly small steps in a way that Handler and Linnekin compare "organisms that grow and change while yet remaining themselves." Although the authors' phrasing of this viewpoint states that cultures do not stop being themselves, could a form of cultural speciation in which cultures do indeed morph into new cultures be possible? Why or why not? And if so, how might this process come to be?
No comments:
Post a Comment