165 culture and identity in anthropology: reflections on 'unity'

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VAN MEIJLhow he or she is viewed <strong>and</strong> identified by other(s). Thus, <strong>identity</strong> referred to a welladjustedpersonality that emerges from the same, or: identical, identification of self byself <strong>and</strong> other (Erikson, 1950). This mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>identity</strong> proceeds directly from theetymology of the concept, which is derived from the Lat<strong>in</strong> identitat <strong>and</strong>/or identitas,which, <strong>in</strong> turn, was derived from identidem, a contraction of idem et idem, mean<strong>in</strong>g‘repeatedly’ (literally ‘same <strong>and</strong> same’; cf. Sökefeld, 1999). It goes without say<strong>in</strong>g,however, that ‘sameness’ <strong>in</strong> this context must be understood <strong>in</strong> the sense of ‘similar’rather than as a unify<strong>in</strong>g concept (Sovran, 1992).The connotation of sameness is also apparent <strong>in</strong> the more sociological mean<strong>in</strong>gof <strong>identity</strong> that emerged <strong>in</strong> the structural-functional tradition of <strong>anthropology</strong>. Identitycame to be understood as the historically <strong>and</strong> culturally rooted self-image of a group ofpeople that was predom<strong>in</strong>antly sketched <strong>and</strong> sharpened <strong>in</strong> contact vis-à-vis other groupsof peoples. This mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>identity</strong> was related to other anthropological concepts, suchas worldview, value, ethos, <strong>and</strong>, last but not least, <strong>culture</strong>, all of which suggested acerta<strong>in</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of homogeneity among members of a community (Abu-Lughod, 1991).Correspond<strong>in</strong>g with the assumption of homogeneity was the view that the <strong>identity</strong> of<strong>in</strong>dividuals reflected the <strong>identity</strong> of their cultural group. As mentioned above, the<strong>identity</strong> of <strong>in</strong>dividuals was supposed to be identitical to the <strong>identity</strong> of the group towhich they belonged, which was consistent with anthropological theories about therelation between person <strong>and</strong> group or community (La Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, 1985). Anotherimportant aspect of this view of <strong>identity</strong> concerned the presupposition of stability <strong>and</strong>permanence. People were regarded to share the same <strong>identity</strong> because they also sharedthe same history. The community or society to which they belonged was consequentlyconsidered to be solid <strong>and</strong> immutable.The conclusion to be drawn from this brief excursion <strong>in</strong>to anthropological<strong>in</strong>terpretations of the relationship between <strong>culture</strong> <strong>and</strong> personality, or, more recently,between <strong>culture</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>identity</strong>, is that at both social <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual levels of analysis theseconcepts share the same assumptions of sameness <strong>and</strong> stability. In recent years,however, the anthropological focus on homogeneity <strong>and</strong> permanence has graduallyfallen <strong>in</strong>to disarray. For that reason, too, the concepts of <strong>culture</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>identity</strong> have been<strong>in</strong>tensely debated, as has the relationship between the two (e.g., Friedman, 1994). Thenotion of <strong>identity</strong> has not only been criticized for its lack of explanatory power(Brubaker & Cooper, 2000), but, paradoxically, too, the narratives of <strong>identity</strong> that are socharacteristic of the contemporary era of globalisation cannot be understood asexpressions of social homogeneity or as representations of immutable realities either.Not <strong>in</strong>frequently they highlight the supposedly unique aspects of local identities, which<strong>in</strong>variably are <strong>in</strong>tertw<strong>in</strong>ed with rapid changes <strong>in</strong> the social <strong>and</strong> cultural organisation ofsocieties result<strong>in</strong>g from their <strong>in</strong>ter-l<strong>in</strong>kages with the global community. And thechang<strong>in</strong>g conditions for the expression of local identities are itself entangled with a newmean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>culture</strong>.170
CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOGY‘Culture’ <strong>in</strong> the Present DayIn view of Eric Wolf’s critique of <strong>culture</strong> <strong>and</strong> the concept’s position <strong>in</strong> formeranthropological accounts of colonial history, it is useful to situate the emerg<strong>in</strong>g newmean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>culture</strong> <strong>in</strong> a historical perspective aga<strong>in</strong>. The end of colonialism that<strong>in</strong>fluenced the old mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>culture</strong> was marked by chang<strong>in</strong>g political <strong>and</strong> economicconditions. Most countries <strong>in</strong> the world became <strong>in</strong>dependent dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1970s, but thatdid not stop the cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g expansion <strong>in</strong>to new areas of relations of production <strong>and</strong>exchange based on capital (Jameson, 1991). Most recently, these new doma<strong>in</strong>s would<strong>in</strong>clude the <strong>in</strong>ternational organisation of production <strong>and</strong> consumption, the <strong>in</strong>ternational<strong>in</strong>tegration of f<strong>in</strong>ancial systems, <strong>and</strong>, last but not least, the rapid spread of globalcommunication <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation networks. These changes have, <strong>in</strong> turn, sparked offlarge-scale movements of labour, people <strong>and</strong> cultural mean<strong>in</strong>gs, with due consequencesfor contemporary constitutions of <strong>culture</strong>.Above I already <strong>in</strong>dicated that currently <strong>in</strong>ternational movements of people arequantitatively <strong>and</strong> qualitatively dist<strong>in</strong>ct from those <strong>in</strong> the past. Migration has never beenas pervasive as it is today <strong>and</strong> it is not only significant for economic reasons, but itsconsequences for the transformation <strong>and</strong> differentiation of <strong>culture</strong> are equally important.In this context, it might be useful to briefly consider migration <strong>in</strong> the Asia-Pacificregion, which is one of the most <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g regions s<strong>in</strong>ce it accounts for almost 40 % ofthe millions of people who cross national borders each year (Goss <strong>and</strong> L<strong>in</strong>dquist, 2000).In Asia the most conspicuous case is made up by the Philipp<strong>in</strong>es s<strong>in</strong>ce currently morethan 10% of the Philipp<strong>in</strong>e population is work<strong>in</strong>g overseas <strong>in</strong> 130 different countries. Inthe year 2000 their remittances contributed about 21% of the country’s gross nationalproduct. It is also remarkable that Filip<strong>in</strong>os have not only moved to other Asiancountries, with which they share more cultural similarities than with other countries, butalso to the Pacific. It began as early as 1950, when a military base was established <strong>in</strong>Guam, where they now account for more than 25% of the total population of 145,000.They are also found <strong>in</strong> other areas <strong>in</strong> the Pacific, where also many other Asian migrantsare to be found, <strong>and</strong> then the migration of Pacific people themselves has not even beenmentioned.Theories of <strong>in</strong>ternational migration rarely consider the case of the PacificIsl<strong>and</strong>s, despite persistent <strong>and</strong> extensive circulation <strong>and</strong> small isl<strong>and</strong> depopulation thatcharacterizes the movement of migration <strong>in</strong> the Pacific. In this context, it is relevant todist<strong>in</strong>guish the Pacific <strong>in</strong>to three different cultural areas, <strong>and</strong> to clarify that Polynesia ischaracterized by <strong>in</strong>ternational migration to metropolitan countries of the Pacific or thePacific Rim, notably Australia, New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the USA, that Melanesia ischaracterized by <strong>in</strong>ternal migration, ma<strong>in</strong>ly from rural to urban areas, <strong>and</strong> thatMicronesia is characterized by both patterns. Polynesia is <strong>in</strong> this context the most<strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g. I mentioned Guam already, which is part of Micronesia, but <strong>in</strong> Polynesiaone can also f<strong>in</strong>d American Samoa <strong>and</strong> Hawaii, where the presence of the US171
Page 1 and 2: International Journal for Dialogica
Page 3 and 4: CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOG
Page 5: CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN ANTHROPOLOG

165 culture and identity in anthropology: reflections on 'unity'

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?