A year ago on Round and Square (27 July 2012)—The Accidental Ethnographer: Opening Geil's Book
Two years ago on Round and Square (27 July 2011)—Seinfeld Ethnography: Downtown
[a] Katmandu RF |
Click below for other items in this essay:
Dynamics of Ethnicity
[b] Interstices RF |
To set all of this into
motion, we will now examine two cultural theorists whose work has been
enormously influential in the past thirty years. During that time, we have gone
from thinking of ethnicity almost exclusively in terms of separable
elements—not unlike the dolls, rugs, or engine parts of our examples—to a
complex weave of similarity and difference. Homi Bhabha and Pierre Bourdieu
give us new ways of approaching the dynamics of ethnicity, in Asia and beyond.
The first key idea can be
seen in hints and passages in the sections above. In a nutshell, Homi Bhabha
emphasizes that the truly influential and fascinating aspects of culture must
be found in the intersections—the “interstices”—of actions, patterns of life,
and ways of knowing. The study of how group identity came to be is important,
to be sure, but the dynamics of understanding flow from the various cultural
units bumping up against each other, like so many rugs on a vast hallway floor.
Here is how Bhabha puts it. While his prose is sometimes challenging, note that
he emphasizes that “singularities” (our rugs, our dolls, our ethnicities) should
not only be understood alone.
[c] Unpacking RF |
The move away from the
singularities of ‘class’ or ‘gender’ as primary conceptual organizational categories,
has resulted in an awareness of the subject positions—of race, gender,
generation, institutional location, geopolitical locale, sexual
orientation—that inhabit any claim to identity in the modern world. What is
theoretically innovative, and politically crucial, is the need to think beyond
narratives of originary and initial subjectivities and to focus on those
moments or processes that are produced in the articulation of cultural
differences. These ‘in-between’ spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies
of selfhood—singular or communal—that initiate new signs of identity, and
innovative sites of collaboration, and contestation, in the act of defining the
idea of society itself.
It is in the emergence of
the interstices—the overlap and displacement of domains of difference—that the
intersubjective and collective experiences of nationness, community interest, or cultural value are negotiated.[1]
[d] Contested RF |
These ideas are worth
unpacking, pondering. They speak directly to the challenge we have before us in
understanding ethnic groups of Asia. While we surely must understand the
details in the entries themselves, we must never forget that the most dynamic
and persistent changes in Asian history took place when these entities
connected—from ethnic groups such as the Mongols or Manchus to budding nations
such as Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and even Taiwan (or the Republic of
China on Taiwan, in the increasingly fuzzy political language of the island).
We surely can understand individual entities, and must seek to do so. Yet it is
in the way they click, crash-into, and even displace others that we see the
flow of human history. As Bhabha maintains, that can be found only in the
interstices—in the ways that the Han and Bai people, for example, clashed (and
married), as well as the manner of conflict and redemption found between
smaller groups themselves, from the Miao and Zhuang to the Achang and Bouyei.
Take note of Bhabha’s use
of the word “contestation.” We often think of definitions, when we read them,
as the thing itself. Bhabha reminds us that definitions are always contested. In
isolation, this is a challenging concept. It is less so when we give it a
concrete meaning. Think of your favorite sport. I’ll use baseball as an example.
The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees meet more than a dozen times a year.
Fans in each city feel strongly about their teams. Ask a Yankees fan to
describe the Red Sox. In fact, ask her to write a description of the team. Now,
ask a Yankees fan to describe the Yankees, her home team.
[e] Angle RF |
You may see where this is
going. If you do the reverse for the Red Sox fan, asking him to describe both
the Yankees and his hometown Red Sox,
you will have a fairly stark set of renderings. Why is this so? Precisely
because it is “contested.” The participants care deeply about how they are
portrayed, and do what they can to portray others in a manner that suits them.
They are, to use Bhabha’s images, in the center of things.
If we move to the
interstices, we can start to sense ways in which the Red Sox and Yankees merge,
cohere, and repel. What if we were to ask another observer, someone who rooted
for, say, the St. Louis Cardinals, to describe the Yankees and the Red Sox?
Surely, her answer would not be quite as jaded as those of the participants.
But would it be “right?” Let’s take it just one step further. Imagine that we
engage a fine writer who is familiar with baseball, but not really a fan of any
team at all—a matter more of other interests than lack of passion for the
sport. She writes another account of the Red Sox and the Yankees. Is this one “true,”
if only because she has the least “interest” in the subject?
[f] Outgrowth RF |
Homi Bhabha, of course,
would say no, and quite emphatically. From his perspective, there is no “outside,”
“objective” position. We are all, and always, complex “subjectivities.” Even
the outside observer views the teams from an “angle.” Some people consider this
to be problematic, and rail against the “postmodern” assaults against our
knowing. I see it quite differently, and that is the spirit of this
introduction and this book. While we can, and should, strive, for accurate,
factual accounts (and we can get
many, even the vast majority, of details “right”) our overall accounts are
going to be an outgrowth of our very humanity. This is always “subjective” (we
have known this since Kant’s day) and the real key to understanding a complex
social world.
As Bhabha might say—if he
had interest in American baseball— the keys to understanding lie in jamming
together the various accounts. It is as though we imagined a complex geology of
understanding, and the various versions were so many tectonic plates ramming up
against each other and creating vast new
mountain ranges of knowledge. We cannot ever know the Red Sox or Yankees. We can come to know so much, and in such
dynamic fashion, however, that we never again want to go back to the false
pretenses of isolated portraits alone.
Although I have been
speaking of baseball, it is not difficult to see the same dynamic at work with
ethnicity in Asia. Ask a thirteenth century Mongol about northern groups
charging through the continent, and you will have one picture. Ask a sedentary
Han farmer in the Yellow River valley the same thing, and you will have quite
another. Now ask a historian of China…from China…the same question. Finally, ask
another historian of China…from, say, Britain, to do the same.
Ethnicity is
multi-layered and complex.
Click below for other items in this essay:
Click below for other items in this essay:
[g] Multi-layered RF |
Notes
Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture
(London and New York: Routledge Classics, 1994), 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment