Ethnic resiliency reinforces constructed boundaries
"Most men's conscience, habits, and opinions are borrowed from convention and gather continually comforting assurances from the same social consensus that originally suggested them." - George Santayana
There was a time in more recent history that scholars believed that the notion of ethnicity would eventually disappear. Sociologists and social theorists had an idea in the 19th and early 20th centuries that ethnicity would have languished following the rise of modernity. But ethnicity is resilient. It was repackaged as a re-emergence of nationalism – this followed heightened state rules on immigration and citizenship and increased globalization. Globalization ironically bolstered borders and boundaries! The context of global communities juxtaposes “connection and alienation” simultaneously as we are not privy to the lives of those living across the globe from us, but rely on the networks of globalization daily (Pezullo, 2007, p. 141). Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” sums up how the seemingly arbitrary concept of nations and borders can manifest itself as a very real presence in our lives (Pezzullo, 2007, p. 139). We imagine the identities that borders shape for us, draw them on maps and create communities within these confines. This defines for us who we fight for and with, versus who we fight against. It helps create what we deem important through a meaningful connection. These border regulations also influenced how food is governed following the 19th century (Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 30). But, as Pezzullo says in her book, striving for this unity does not inherently lead to clarity – it helps us to compensate for our division as humans but does not mean we are bound to the same thoughts and values within a nation (2007, p. 140).
Marshall McLuhan famously coined the term “global village” in the 1960s (Appadurai, 2008, p. 48). This was the idea that the global population and its differences would contract due to more direct communication via electronic media. The closer we became via communications technologies the more we would come to understand each other and become narrower in ideologies, practices, beliefs etc. This has not happened exactly – at least not to the extent McLuhan and others may have thought. The speed that global flows are transferred and received are not really “coherent, but often a set of disjunctive dynamics” (Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 27). Globalization has not necessarily made everything into an amorphous blob but, because of the mixing with existing local identities, multiple globalisms (plural) are formed (Tsing, 2008, p. 71). Ethnicity has continued to be important to citizens today and perhaps even grown more important to shaping one’s identity. Think of the overt marketing-of-ethnicity that you’ve likely seen, or maybe even participate in regularly. For example, Direct to Customer (DTC) DNA kits, such as 23andme or Ancestry DNA, claim to be able to tell you the percentage of “what you are” and from where. Can a blood test ever tell you what “you” are? Do you become more German because you are told you are? Do you suddenly pop on a pair of lederhosen and have inherent knowledge of how to make schnitzel? That would be cool, but no. What you are is shaped through culture, learned, tacit, shifting culture (as we explored in previous posts). As an aside, the over 30 companies that regulate these kits all look at different parts of the human genome however, so one may say you are 12% Germanic while the other could say 22%. It all depends on which genetic material they choose to analyze!
Culture is a big ball of wibbly-wobbly…stuff (as Doctor Who might say). It is not a simple formulaic expression. As we build up definitions of what makes up a certain nation or citizen we still engage in migration. As we move from “homelands” we bring knowledges to our new homes. There is an organic interaction here of the transfer of information, including food practices. “Ethnic entrepreneurs” around the world are not opposed to bringing their “authentic” flavours to a new market – but they often alter an original vision to something more palatable (literally) for a new audience. Ku puts their ideas into words: “‘Welcome to our authentic restaurants,’ they say with a wink and a smile; ‘come taste the true flavors of the Orient,’” (emphasis mine; Ku, 2014, p. 3). It is exciting to try something new from those we deem as legitimate authorities, but a translation occurs and the original is left at home and we may not be aware of this. Think of dishes such as ginger beef or chop suey - despite many people in North America thinking these are Chinese dishes, they are an invention for a Western palate.
It’s interesting to note though that as culture is made up of the values that we uphold, maybe a part of our culture(s) objective includes the value of boundaries themselves. Boundaries could be valuable since they help preserve what makes societies unique, gives us a sense of belonging and meaning, and shapes our individual personalities. But rewind, back to what we discussed in Post #1 – no culture exists in a glass box! While boundaries are all well-and-good for preservation, they are no good for natural evolution. By upholding strict boundaries, we bind ourselves in a never-ending echo chamber, receiving immediate gratification, like a snake eating its own tail. But to stop here, that boundaries are solely valuable, is just an easy way to explain away bigotry of all kinds and simply doesn’t make sense. Boundaries hold us back in a larger scale. Too strong of ethnic nationalism is inward-looking and builds the limits that help construct the “Us versus Them” mentality. Take a minute and think – what is Indian? What is Chinese? What is Egyptian? What is Canadian? When do we build the boundaries that permeate our ideas of such cultures, and who defines them? Most importantly, when considering history versus the present, why must so many of us insist on keeping our doors closed when they have previously been a place of exchange and exploration?
_______________________________________
References
Ku, R. J.-S. (2014). Dubious Gastronomy: The Cultural Politics of Eating Asian in the USA. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.macewan.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=732403&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Pezzullo, P. C. (2007). Toxic tourism : Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environmental justice. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. doi:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.macewan.ca
Oosterveer, P., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2012). Food, globalization and sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Tsing, A. The global situation. In J. X. Inda and R. Rosaldo (eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization (pp. 66-98). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
There was a time in more recent history that scholars believed that the notion of ethnicity would eventually disappear. Sociologists and social theorists had an idea in the 19th and early 20th centuries that ethnicity would have languished following the rise of modernity. But ethnicity is resilient. It was repackaged as a re-emergence of nationalism – this followed heightened state rules on immigration and citizenship and increased globalization. Globalization ironically bolstered borders and boundaries! The context of global communities juxtaposes “connection and alienation” simultaneously as we are not privy to the lives of those living across the globe from us, but rely on the networks of globalization daily (Pezullo, 2007, p. 141). Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” sums up how the seemingly arbitrary concept of nations and borders can manifest itself as a very real presence in our lives (Pezzullo, 2007, p. 139). We imagine the identities that borders shape for us, draw them on maps and create communities within these confines. This defines for us who we fight for and with, versus who we fight against. It helps create what we deem important through a meaningful connection. These border regulations also influenced how food is governed following the 19th century (Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 30). But, as Pezzullo says in her book, striving for this unity does not inherently lead to clarity – it helps us to compensate for our division as humans but does not mean we are bound to the same thoughts and values within a nation (2007, p. 140).
Marshall McLuhan famously coined the term “global village” in the 1960s (Appadurai, 2008, p. 48). This was the idea that the global population and its differences would contract due to more direct communication via electronic media. The closer we became via communications technologies the more we would come to understand each other and become narrower in ideologies, practices, beliefs etc. This has not happened exactly – at least not to the extent McLuhan and others may have thought. The speed that global flows are transferred and received are not really “coherent, but often a set of disjunctive dynamics” (Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 27). Globalization has not necessarily made everything into an amorphous blob but, because of the mixing with existing local identities, multiple globalisms (plural) are formed (Tsing, 2008, p. 71). Ethnicity has continued to be important to citizens today and perhaps even grown more important to shaping one’s identity. Think of the overt marketing-of-ethnicity that you’ve likely seen, or maybe even participate in regularly. For example, Direct to Customer (DTC) DNA kits, such as 23andme or Ancestry DNA, claim to be able to tell you the percentage of “what you are” and from where. Can a blood test ever tell you what “you” are? Do you become more German because you are told you are? Do you suddenly pop on a pair of lederhosen and have inherent knowledge of how to make schnitzel? That would be cool, but no. What you are is shaped through culture, learned, tacit, shifting culture (as we explored in previous posts). As an aside, the over 30 companies that regulate these kits all look at different parts of the human genome however, so one may say you are 12% Germanic while the other could say 22%. It all depends on which genetic material they choose to analyze!
Culture is a big ball of wibbly-wobbly…stuff (as Doctor Who might say). It is not a simple formulaic expression. As we build up definitions of what makes up a certain nation or citizen we still engage in migration. As we move from “homelands” we bring knowledges to our new homes. There is an organic interaction here of the transfer of information, including food practices. “Ethnic entrepreneurs” around the world are not opposed to bringing their “authentic” flavours to a new market – but they often alter an original vision to something more palatable (literally) for a new audience. Ku puts their ideas into words: “‘Welcome to our authentic restaurants,’ they say with a wink and a smile; ‘come taste the true flavors of the Orient,’” (emphasis mine; Ku, 2014, p. 3). It is exciting to try something new from those we deem as legitimate authorities, but a translation occurs and the original is left at home and we may not be aware of this. Think of dishes such as ginger beef or chop suey - despite many people in North America thinking these are Chinese dishes, they are an invention for a Western palate.
It’s interesting to note though that as culture is made up of the values that we uphold, maybe a part of our culture(s) objective includes the value of boundaries themselves. Boundaries could be valuable since they help preserve what makes societies unique, gives us a sense of belonging and meaning, and shapes our individual personalities. But rewind, back to what we discussed in Post #1 – no culture exists in a glass box! While boundaries are all well-and-good for preservation, they are no good for natural evolution. By upholding strict boundaries, we bind ourselves in a never-ending echo chamber, receiving immediate gratification, like a snake eating its own tail. But to stop here, that boundaries are solely valuable, is just an easy way to explain away bigotry of all kinds and simply doesn’t make sense. Boundaries hold us back in a larger scale. Too strong of ethnic nationalism is inward-looking and builds the limits that help construct the “Us versus Them” mentality. Take a minute and think – what is Indian? What is Chinese? What is Egyptian? What is Canadian? When do we build the boundaries that permeate our ideas of such cultures, and who defines them? Most importantly, when considering history versus the present, why must so many of us insist on keeping our doors closed when they have previously been a place of exchange and exploration?
_______________________________________
Pezzullo, P. C. (2007). Toxic tourism : Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environmental justice. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. doi:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.macewan.ca
Oosterveer, P., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2012). Food, globalization and sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Tsing, A. The global situation. In J. X. Inda and R. Rosaldo (eds.), The Anthropology of Globalization (pp. 66-98). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Comments
Post a Comment