Review of Erich Kolig on Indigenous
Cultural Revival (Identity Politics)
An Explicitly Constructionist (vs Essentialist) View:
• i.e., says retraditionalisation (RTzn) involves the assembly
of a selection of deliberately chosen traditions for the
expressed purpose of achieving certain desired effects in
the political, legal and ideological realms (p. 7)
• revived culture as a strategic resource (p. 14)
•involves the idealization and reinvention of traditional
Indigenous culture (p. 9, 12)
•likely to be syncretic (p. 16)
Review of Kolig (p. 2): Academic Questions
About Indigenous Cultural Revival
• Transitional or Enduring?
• How relates to Post-Modernism and Globalization?
The easing or abandonment of assimilationist policies,
and post-modernism’s tolerance for cultural
alternatives are both conducive to re-traditionalisation.
(p. 8, 11)
Indig cultural revival occurs at the political level as a
backlash against globalization’s pressure toward
westernization (cultural homogeneity – the
consumerism and materialist individualism captured in
the labels “CocaColonization” &“MacDonaldisation”)
(p. 8)
c.f.: notions of a global village
Review of Kolig (p. 3): Authenticity Challenges
• Cynics regard Indigenous cultural revival as blatant,
calculated opportunism (p. 10, 12), sometimes for
economic gain (e.g., where sacred sites have value
to the mining industry).
• Those cynics question the authenticity of the
Indigenous cultural revival.
Their Discourse:
phrases like “invented traditions”, “fraudulent
practices”, “spurious historical reconstructions”,
“fabrications”, “concoctions”, and “reinvention of
culture”.
Review of Kolig (p. 4):
Reconceptualization of Culture
• In response, some anthropologists (e.g., R. Wagner) have
refined their conception of culture to emphasize its
negotiated, dynamic, and eternally shifting nature. (p. 12-13)
That is, culture is now seen as a volatile, eternally
metamorphising condition, rather than a stable entity.
It is constantly formed and reformed by individual
creativity, inventiveness, and self-interested
enterprise. It is seen as always negotiable and in the
midst of endorsement, contestation, and
transformation.
• This also raises questions about the meaning of
“tradition”.
i.e. Does it have to have a demonstrable or verifiable
continuity of great duration? Can it be modified (and if
so, how much) without losing its identity?
Review of Kolig (p.5):
Retraditionalisation as Anti-Hegemonic
• Gramsci would say that retraditionalisation
emerges because the hegemon (the dominant
group) has failed to win over and embrace and
empower the ‘subaltern’ (subordinated) group.
• Therefore, retraditionalisation emerges as a
counter-culture of resistance to the dominant
group, even though it uses the symbols (e.g., the
language of nationalism) of the hegemon.