I was caught off guard by the thesis of Handler and Linnekin’s article on tradition: their suggestion that even “spurious” traditions are “genuine” made me take a step back and see “tradition” in a different light. They draw an important distinction between commonsense tradition, which suggests that a core of traits are passed from one generation to another, and tradition as a symbolic interpretation of a society’s past. They demonstrate their hypothesis by suggesting that the Quebecois have a tradition only because they put so much stock in a shared heritage and culture, even though objectively, their culture is very similar to most Canadians. Similarly, they show that Hawaiians look to rural villages to learn about their heritage and consequently adopt “traditional” practices, while the villagers have adopted modern ways.
In a world where globalization is causing languages to die and cultures to change, what is the role of “tradition?” How do societies that value their past reconcile traditional culture with mass media and the sometimes-called Americanization of the rest of the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment