Mementos and Authenticity

My object is a large silk scarf from Singapore. It has a traditional Batik pattern on it. I got it at the airport the last time I was leaving Singapore, along with other souvenirs for friends. The pattern is specifically from the uniform Singapore Airlines flight attendants wear, called a sarong kebaya made up of a tight-fitting long skirt and blouse. Pierre Balmain designed the current ‘Singapore Girl’ uniforms in the 1960s. Both the Singapore Airlines uniform, and the pattern itself have become national symbols. In Singapore many souvenirs are items with this pattern on it in various colours, from aprons to umbrellas and scarves. In this case Singapore Airlines’ corporate branding has become part and parcel of national symbols and mythology. Singapore Airlines flight attendants adhere to a particular stereotype of ‘Asian women’ that has been criticized, and is certainly not representative of Singaporean women. Yet this particular print is recognizable as distinctly Singaporean. This is an instance of national and corporate branding being intertwined.

The Singapore Airlines uniform is defended as being traditional, yet the sarong kebaya is an Indonesian tradition. Singapore itself is a young nation and thus its national symbols and mythologies have been recently constructed, in this case a uniform that was designed for an airline by a French designer.

Rains’ article on Celtic Kitsch explored the process by which the American Irish diaspora engages with an Irish Material culture that is produced for their consumption. The relationship or exchange with Singaporean material culture is somewhat different because its primary consumers are tourists, not Singaporeans living abroad. There isn’t really a unified community or Singaporean diaspora in the way that Irish Americans represent a distinct community. For tourists to Singapore souvenir models of the Merlion, Singapore Airlines uniforms, and magnets about laws against chewing gum are ubiquitous. Together they offer a unified picture of the tourist artefacts Singapore has to offer, and construct the nation beyond its boundaries. They are markers of Singaporean identity produced through capitalist exchange; these objects gain authenticity through movement.

Rains’ writes “For, while visitors to Ireland are clearly justified in feeling that they do have connections to the local culture which go beyond those of more typical touristic relationships, in most cases they have very few ways of actually marking or demonstrating these connections outside of the typical touristic relations of production and consumption in the form of souvenirs and heritage networks” (56-57). As a diasporic consumer of Singaporean culture I can recognize how kitschy these items are, but when I bring them back to my friends in Canada they’re appreciated as artefacts of an exotic place. In Singapore you wouldn’t be caught dead with a Merlion shirt, or carrying a bag/umbrella/scarf with the Singapore Airlines pattern on it. Especially within certain circles these items would be extremely tacky ways of adhering to constructed patriotism. The very objects that allow tourists to access local culture aren’t really a part of local culture at all. Rains’ article and my relationship with the scarf demonstrate how an objects ability to perform authenticity is contingent upon the space and context it occupies, and travels through.