VILIUS IVANAUSKAS,
Erasmus-Socrates exchange student from Vilnius university
Copenhagen, March 25, 2002
Introduction
It could be difficult to talk about the issue of local contexts without recognition of existing determinatives (power), which make influence on contextualising locality. "I view locality as primarily relational and contextual rather than a scalar and spatial" (Appadurai), "In any event, this Maori or Hawaiian "culture" is not historically authentic because it is a reified and interested value, a self-conscious ideology rather than a way of life, which moreover owes more in content to imperialist forces than to indigenous sources" (M.Sahlins).
These quotations of famous anthropologists could lead us to ask, what and how makes the influence, or controls, or force, or has a coercive nature in the proceess of creating/contextualising, supporting and producing local contexts. Thus, we can use the concept "power", which in various literature it could be seen as a something covering a range of eventualities from(1) 1) the force, or 2) coercion mode to the influence 3) to the authority mode. Actually, sometimes is difficult to speak direct about the "power" as influential factor of changing social reality; sometimes different authors more stress some "historical circumstancies", or "ideology", "economic dependency", etc, in their explanations of forming local identities and contexts, but, otherwise, here we can find source of power in it as well.
In the first part of my essay I will try shortly to present, what's is the power's role in Appadurai's text "The Production of Locality" and how this observation would help to explain the creation of the idea (contex) of PanAmericanism. In the second part, I will compare M.Sahlins' ("Goodbye to Tristes Tropes") and A.Appadurai's understanding of producing locality and, then I will try to clarify what, according M.Sahlins, could make influence of creating (contextualising) indigenous cultures.
This explanation of power's role in locality (as a text) I will try to show in the context of globality (in Sahlins case in context of modernization as well), which one is involved in both authors', Sahlins' and Appadurai's , theoretical framework .
1. Power and neighbourhoods-context
Local subjects (and contexts) can produce other (dominating) contexts. How this idea of Apadurrai could deal with the idea of Panamericanism, which one I would like to analyse here. Lawrence E.Harrison in his book "The Pan-American dream" showed the existing intention of creating Pan-American identity.
"The Western Hemisphere was first articulated by President James Monroe at the the former Spanish colonies to the south were gaining their independence"(2)
The colonial experience, living in the other coast of Atlantic ocean, common economical interests (NAFTA) and maybe the tendency of globalization can be some of the characteristics supporting idea of Pan Americanism. Actually is not easy to talk about common identity between North (as a protestan culture) and Latin America's (Ibero-Catholic), but we can try to speculate (a little bit) with the idea of contextualization, and power, which one could participate (is participate) on making true the idea of PanAmericanism.
Maybe the example of PanAmericanism is not the best(3) one ,trying to show the Appadurai's understanding power's roles in contextualisation (which one is itself power), but it could be very interesting to analyse shortly this context, to see how nation-states can participate in creating/producing not only smaller, but much broader context. Here I will try to show the USA (as a North America's country) and, for example, Mexico (as Latin America's) as neighbourhoods or localities and how they can produce (or creates) broader context (Pan Americanism ).
We can imagine nation state as prerequisites for the production of local subjects. For example, the societies of USA or Mexico have their own localized rituals, social categories, expert practitioners and informed audiences and it we can see as locality in habitus dimension.
Sharing particular manners of buying, selling, making bussiness or making other custumary activity could show how are disciplined citizens of nation-states, both U.S. and Mexico. And local neighbourhoods,which are involve in nation-states by producing their driving, are dominated and controlled by these nation-states. Dominated neighbourhoods could be local communities or social groups, etc. As Appadurai says, local subjects carry on producing their neighbourhoods, so when other neighbourhoods are trying produce more dominating neighbourhood (nation-state) we can begin to talk about the power. Appadurai is saying that power is always a key feature of the contextual relations of neighbourhoods. Locality in the case of nation state is more context- generative than a context-driven process. When separate ethnic groups or community of scientists, or American actors,… producing their own contexts, mostly in the same time they are producing their common context-American culture. And this context in some situations very clear could be seen as dominating context . For instance, it was clear after September 11 in the case of the United States. And as well we can find analogical situations in the case of Mexico.
Going further to the issue about how these nation-states contexts can produce a common context (pan Americanism) we need to talk about relations between different context. Actually the creation of the context could often exceed, in the sense of Appadurai, the existing material and conceptual boundaries of the neighborhood. Different neighborhoods are always in contacts with each other, and also, as Appadurai says, local subjects carry on the continuing task of re-producing their neighborhood. American consumptionism fashion in Mexico or mexican's miggration (with their cultural habitus belonging to particular nation-state; translocalities) to the States shows how other neighbourhoods are involved in more complex hierarchical organizations as nation-states.
So we have idea that looking from relations between nation-state contexts, these neighbourhoods can also try to contextualize each other (USA influence to Mexico, Mexico influence to USA) or be contextualized by more dominating context -NAFTA (or other organization) dominates upon USA and Mexico (it is not probably true). So producing the idea of Pan American identity or idea of Western Hemisphere community could be influenced by one of the states (dominating position) or by higher context which influence to produce this context both, americans or mexicans.
Actually further conclusion require deeper analyse of countries societies(4), their policy, studies of global and local environment, etc, and I will stop here, but we can see in which way Appadurai's theory could be a frames of analysing the issue of power and contextualizition in creating PanAmerican identity.
2. Fabrication of culture in the light of Western imperialism
Global advertising display a marked consciousness of cultural heterogeneity, so we can see that in global cultural flow Appadurai finds the varieties of local contexts and shows the ways how they are produced. Not so far away from Appadurai's point of view stands M.Sahlins, when he is talking about indigenous culture, indigenous traditions. According him, incorporating "modernisation" and "globalisation" into the analysis of indigenous order could be very important.
The concept of modernisation could be tied to the idea of re-creating the world in the image of American and Western European principles and culture. Sahlins observed, that historiography and etnography takes the "great game" of imperialism as the only game in town and in the name of ancestral practice indigenous people begin to construct an essentialized culture.. Sahlin is saying, that Western capitalism, modernization creates the modern "World system", which has a powerful force to search the roots of authentic culture. He mentioned, that in any local sector of the global system, the transformation assumes the dual appearance of assimilation and differentiation. This assimilation could be a participation in common world history, describing "self " in the terms of dominating culture (Western). And actually this aggreement on "game" could be comparable with the Appadurai's idea of contextualization. Involving "others" into "ours" meaningful (indigenous people to Western categories) world looks alike to neighbourhoods' contextualisation of other neighbourhoods. Both, dominating neighbourhood (Appadurai) or Western culture (Sahlin), are powerful and has an ability to influent local contexts, local cultures. But when Sahlins begins to talk about the indigenous claims of authencity and autonomy, we can see some differences between these two authors. Local neighbourhoods, which produces higher contexts, are controlled by them. Indigenous cultures do not (pretend) express Western values. Yes, their creation could be influenced by the formation of a world system of cultures and otherness from Western societies, but indigenous culture not only feels Western fabrication of them, but also makes their own fabrication in response to the West: "We must find strength in our custums; we must base ourselves on what the Whites call culture"(5). So it means, "defenders of the indigenous order are prepared to make useful compromises with the dominant culture", but in the same time they got a chance distinquish their own. They can still be "others" to West. Once by agreeing to be part of modernized global world (a world culture of cultures), the indigenous movement could provide us an alternative view of culture as Western society. It means influence of Western mode and power could be limited.
Conclusions
Defining power's role in creating and producing contexts helps us to understand the origin of context, explains relationship between different contexts. This way of thinking perhaps could add some instrumentality in adopting theory of contexts to practical research.
The texts of Appadurai and Sahlins, where they are talking about localities, like neighbourhood (nation-state, etc) or indigenous culture (movement), can provide some understanding how formation (contextualisation) of these context is forced by the powerfull source: other neighbourhood (like nation state), or Western culture. The example about PanAmerican idea could be illustration how power can act in relationship between different neighbourhoods (in the sense of Appadurai).
Actually the influence of power, which I tried to analyse here is more external (forcing from outside), and it would be very interesting to extend this issue of power's role and more concentrate trying to look how power acts inside the context (I mean to analyse "ritual" and "symbol"), but perhaps it is another topic.
Literature
Appadurai, Arjun.(1995): " The Production of Locality", in Richard Fardon (ed.): Counterworks. Managing the Diversity of Knowledge, p.204-223, London & New York: Routledge.
Sahlins, Marshall (1994): "Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Etnography in the context of Modern World History", in Robert Borovsky (ed.): Assessing Cultural Anthropology, p.377-395, New York: McGraw Hill.
Harrison, Lawrence E (1997): The Pan American dream, New York. Evans G.(1998): The Penguin dictionary of International relations, p.446,London
Notes
1. Evans G.(1998): The Penguin dictionary of International relations, p.446,London.
2. Harrison, Lawrence E (1997): The Pan American dream. Do Latin America's cultural values discourage true partnership with the United States and Canada?, p..14.New York.-P.14.
3. More typical could be local contexts (youth culture or some imigrant groups) acting inside the nation- state's context.
4. It is possible to make some conclusions by noticing American dominance in this case (Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, John Kennedy's Alliance for Progress, U.S interest in expanding NAFTA, etc)
5. Sahlins, Marshall (1994): "Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Etnography in the context of Modern World History", in Robert Borovsky (ed.): Assessing Cultural Anthropology, p.379, New York: McGraw Hill.