|
Is there a difference between the ideas of transculturation and cultural appropriation besides one having a neutral and the other having a negative connotation due to power imbalance?
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
My guess would be that no, one is just an outgrowth of the other in a particular sociopolitical situation: cultural appropriation naturally occurs with transculturation between two groups' cultures meeting so long as one group has unequal power over the levers of cultural transmission (esp. control and access to media and policy), as the dominant group will try to appropriate anything, material or cultural, and then reinforce a narrative that that is the way things have always been. Therefore remedies to prevent such a thing shouldn't be on the symptom of the problem ('don't mix cultures', as some extreme proponents may imply with policing of any possible transculturation regardless of context. I'm not pointing to anyone itt as 'extreme proponents' btw.) but on the cause, aka fixing power imbalance between cultural groups through transfers of material wealth and proportional political representation
Rodatose fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Cultural appropriation is cool and should happen as much as possible with no regard for "respecting" anyone. your avatar reminds me that smoking is cool and should happen as much as possible with no regard for respecting the 'no smoking within 25 feet of the building' law of the local applebe's
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Except only smoking tobacco. weed is bad and whack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, you'd rather Led Zeppelin hadn't made any music? "Tom Sawyer" was their only good song. The rest - the world could have done without. And don't even say anything about The Wall being groundbreaking, the whole album was overblown and pretentious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Is there a difference between the ideas of transculturation and cultural appropriation besides one having a neutral and the other having a negative connotation due to power imbalance?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Or like 95% of pop country music. This doesn't come about because all off a sudden there were a bunch of suburban country singers and it coalesced into what amounts to a drastic change intone for the genre. It came about on the part of the country music industry, which decided it wanted to give voice, recognition and distribution to the works that had a certain message far removed from the populist, left-leaning work of older country artists who came from lower class rural backgrounds. The idea is " well, it's too popular to ignore so let's coopt it and make it more about individualistic authenticity through personal consumption choices instead of group solidarity." Similarly, see the difference between the message of earlier rap, coming from low class urbanites as a call for awareness and action against conditions of segregated slums and the message of mainstream rap today, after years of industry cherrypicking message to those who celebrate conspicuous consumption. Socially active rap is still alive, however now it competesj in a field swollen with stuff made for play on clear channel radio.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Nearly all rap is socially conscious. My statement was socially active, not socially conscious so if that's what you mean I don't agree. Songs that come from the POV of someone with a different habitus as middle-class suburbanite (a lower class urbanite in the case of rap or a lower class ruralite in the case of country) describing their woes (it's hard to get by on low pay of this economically depressed system that is stacked against me, too many people being killed by cops/mine cave-ins, etc) may seem activist to a suburbanite who didn't know these things before and therefore calls it activist for 'raising awareness' (which is a bit self centered if you ask me cuz the suburbanite is not the target audience the author has in mind), but simply describing troubles or a function of the habitus does not make it socially active, ie calling for a solution to social problems through action. If you only meant socially conscious and not socially active, well yeah but that doesn't say much. You might as well say "nearly all lyrical music is conscious" because some indie rocker moaning about how the suburbs they grew up in gave them malaise is showing consciousness of suburbs=ultimately unfulfilling, or anyone singing about how they are going to dance in the bar or club or ice cream social or hootenanny is conscious that by following certain social customs, you can get close to someone and dance and that closedancing feels good. e: The reason such genres get popular in the first place is because they speak to a certain cultural experience that connects with a bunch of people in a way that hasn't been done before. People sing and listen to songs to connect with that message and go, oh, I feel that way too. Unless there's an active instruction following that narrative, then it's just a narrative - you shouldn't mistake something foreign to your own cultural upbringing as more intrinsically insightful than something you are familiar with due to its relative novelty. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:My disgust with current intellectual property law and disdain of corporate branding doesn't preclude me from calling out attempts at forcing a particular ~societal ideal~ using those systems. In the case of trademarks, I think those who are arguing about a 'chilling effect on free speech' have a vital misconception: they are acting as if all parties involved fall singularly under the protection of the US legal code. What's really happening is that the party who comes from a vulnerable group and is asking for redress from the US legal system comes from a cultural group that have a different-desired legal code, but their unempowered status means that they don't have the means to enforce that legal code. If you continually offend someone by misconstruing who they are, and their legal system is not given due influence in your system (so there's no way for their greivance to be redressed), you may push them to a breaking point. If you own a newspaper and you continually run depictions of a situationally-vulnerable group as violent heathens, offended members may try to use their legal background to forward a grievance to the members of your judicial system - who dismiss it with a free speech argument, saying "yeah, you're here, where that law means nothing - how are you going to enforce your grievance? You and whose army?" Then, when you continue to demonize that group, you should not be surprised if they shoot up your newspaper office. Laws to dissuade the powerful from habitually infringing on a right to expression enshrined under a different legal code exist as a concession because a federalist domestic legal system does not want to give equal weight to the unempowered group's code of laws, but wants to avoid the (possibly violent) reprisals that completely ignoring grievances would bring. In other words, giving allowance for those with a protected status lets them be second class citizens somewhat peacefully. The Lanham Act is there for your own good if you are on the side of the powerful, because you don't want the underclasses having a rallying point do you? so you either play by it, or you can be Charlie. Native American tribes don't get to go by the trademark laws of their own choosing because legal treaties with them were violated time and again on the idea of might making right, and now it isn't their land to be able to go by their own laws. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
what are thread's thoughts on Wu Tang e: Wu Tang is a very broad subject area, so feel free to pursue any thread of conversation that the W brings to mind. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:After all this it's still unclear to me how 'a culture' can have an intellectual property interest in some broad practice or some aesthetic. The overriding legal system is just another 'culture' that enforces intellectual property rights according to its own values set on equally arbitrary lines over what is proprietary and what is public. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
I'd think of "playing" in the context of playing a part in the social script. Being aware of a social role makes one have to choose whether to continue to play that part or go by other parts in social script(s) or make up your own. By being told by an outsider that such a practice is no longer something of a specific local tradition, but instead, a wider definition made by the hegemonic culture (Indian, which lumps many unlike local cultures into one culture), you are suddenly faced with a choice of whether or not and in what ways to represent all of that definition put upon you to that hegemony whenever you interact with. Basically someone throws a second script at you and you have to choose whether to humor those writers or not in addition to doing everything the first script told you to do.
Rodatose fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That quote is basically the Fourteen Words for Indians. I think it's not as similar as the matches in certain words(with purity, preserve, for our children) makes it out to be. The importance is placed on preserving customs for the benefit of future generations' wellbeing, not on race/genetic/ethnic purity. It doesn't specify the children have to be of a certain breeding; it's a statement of traditionalism saying "don't overstep your natural bounds" which can be taken in many different ways due to cross-cultural differences in the way "Creator" is parsed. (especially if it's in a tradition that holds nature itself to be what humans are created from) It could easily be taken as an anarcho-primitivist or primitivist-communist (or naturalist instead of primitivist? does that work) declaration against the philosophy of francis bacon in extractively conquering nature without mindfulness of future consequences instead of sustainably respecting the limits of natural resources, and a warning to protect against encroachment of outside liberalizers who would (and historically, have) deprive(d) them of their means of subsistence so they have nothing to sell but their labor power. And at a discount rate, because the labor of social minorities get treated as an inferior commodity on the total market of labor due to the advantage capital-owners have in being able to choose who they like. e- this paragraph edited in: Meanwhile, the customs and practices that were good in the traditional society and could have benefited all of humankind if spread and integrated are at risk of being forgotten as generations are put through years of alienation and those philosophies and practices are no longer called on. (In case one thinks that a practice that would benefit all of humankind if allowed equal time on the world stage might automatically find its way to larger human society if it were intrinsically good enough, I'd contend that you might be understating how those who liberalize smaller cultures can assume their culture is superior and just not want to listen to those foreign ideas (see the active purging of heretical Mesoamerican records preventing things like the developed schools of Aztec philosophy from being added to humankind's world's knowledge), not have the opportunity to listen to them due to lack of exposure (housing segregation and ghettoing), might actively seek to suppress any outside ideas on sight to break the resolve of potential resistance (see slaveowners forbidding their slaves' practicing anything of their personal african heritage to prevent coded communication, formation of a consciousness and solidarity). Of course saying this I do know the flaws of a anarcho-primitivist or traditionalistic, nationalistic separatist ideology - the rejection of capital is Luddite-esque and means that so long as another power exists which does employ capital, it will be able to outproduce the separatist society and therefore have much greater ability to militarily conquer the separatist society if an ideological conflict pops up. So long as a larger power exists, your separate society can only exist unintruded-upon if you don't have things they want, or relying on the uncertainty of their good wishes (which can disappear in a flash if conditions change for them and scarcity causes them to find a new avenue to extract resources on land they had previously seen as marginal). Or as the Roots say about a society reprising the economic and climactic turmoil of the Grapes of Wrath "it don't matter how your gates are latched, you ain't safe from the danger, jack." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_dQeoWTeY8 Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I'd agree with that distinction, but I'm not sure that makes it any more permissible. That's still, in my mind, the elevation of the 'wellbeing' of a culture over the needs of a people today. That's a very conservative idea, one that I believe is motivated more by the preservation of a power structure than any real concern for future generations, and one I feel very strongly must be rejected wherever it is found. I think it might make it more permissible (depending on the specifics of cultural practice) because the wellbeing of a society today depends in large part on the actions of the previous generation's society. Take a hypothetical cultural outlook that urges old folks to plant fruit trees for public use, despite the fact that the old folks will be dead by the time the trees start yielding fruit. This leaves at least some kind of public capital for the next generation to make meeting means of subsistence easier. (Or take a ten year plan whose gains are socialized instead of snatched up by a state capitalist dictatorship of the proletariat that decides to consolidate power and become a dictatorship against the proletariat) Now, take a society living forever in the present that strip-mines the land for present benefit, strips the copper wiring from the walls of past works, and does not invest their earnings from their extractive economy for future generation's benefit. Without a previous generation establishing the ability for the next generation to provide for itself, then people in the present will have a harder time meeting their needs today. So the current generation can plan for that. It's an outlook that looks at society in the long-term and as a collective organ from which the wellbeing of the individual is created (instead of it being the other way around with liberalism's individualism), and whether it's rightist or leftist depends on interpretation of the specifics - does the proposed well-being of the community in the long-term come from a deterministic culture that has been rigidly determined on high from an atavistic time gone by (rightist, national myth), or is the Constitution (of a people) a living document, able to be modified with present and future considerations in mind? I can see how you might see it as the latter if Creator and "natural" are interpreted in the manner that most judeo-christian religious traditions with an emphasis on orthodoxy interpret it, but some other religious/ideological traditions interpret it differently. Take some animistic traditions (i'd ask effectronica here for some examples please because I know they know a lot about the subject and personally I'd like to learn more), taoism's spurning of piety and ritualism because living in the past is not keeping with the natural 'essence' of life from which all life is drawn, or buddhism's insistence that one's efforts for reducing the natural suffering of others can 'wrap around' karmaically for future creation. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 04:45
|
|