Consumption of food as nostalgic practice...

This week’s articles on the consumption of food as nostalgic practice and a mode of processing experiences of displacement centre on several aspects. For Anita Mannur in “Culinary nostalgia,” diasporic community construction is a heterogeneous engagement, with the issue of availability playing a central role in the construction of this imagined community. The heterogeneity of culinary diasporic experience is shown in Mannur’s own retelling of migration, and the temporal and spatial diversity of this. Temporally, the changes in availability of spices and grocers, in the United States, and spatially, the move from Malaysia to Papua New Guinea, do in fact illustrate the difference in diasporic community engagement and practice, but simultaneously illustrate the continued presence and perseverance of food as a mode of collective identity construction around ‘the familiar’ (2010).

David Sutton takes a more rigorous scholarly take on the role of food in diasporic identity, and in particular, the nostalgia inherent in the partaking and consumption of specific foods which fit into the diasporic schema of ‘home’ - for examples, the role of basil and its scent (2001). In his article “Whole foods: Revitalization through everyday synesthetic experience,” Sutton takes on an anthropological examination of food as a means of reconstituting community post-displacement. He places this examination within notions of “the whole,” and the desire to return to this ‘whole’ following displacement, and the “recognition of a wider integrity of things....specifically triggered by the memory fo taste and smell” (2001, 125).

These two articles are not the most appropriate to directly compare and contrast, as they are written for different purposes and thus attempting to achieve differing objectives. While Sutton’s piece is a seemingly typical scholarly articles, Mannur’s piece was written for consumption (ha!) an Indian diasporic community on the internet. Nonetheless, I find there are interesting overlaps between the two. The first of these is clearly the links between movement/migration and food, and the role of food as an element in diasporic identity (re)construction. More interesting, to me at least, is the role of nostalgia in engagement with and consumption of foods which are linked in one’s own mind, or that of one’s community, as being connected to ideas of ‘home.’ Sutton places this nostalgia within the discourse of xenitia among Greeks. This xenitia, the “terrible overload” of this on people, is relieved, albeit only momentarily, by the consumption of ‘home’ - the consumption of food which grounds the consumer, individually and collectively, who otherwise feel(s) disconnected from the current position as displaced.

While this is certainly an interesting idea Sutton proposes, I think we should be careful to place too much emphasis on food as constituting an enormous part of diasporic identity construction, and rather focus on the relational aspects involved in ‘food.’ This is to say, while the very food itself may certainly be vital, the rituals surrounding the preparation and consumption are equally, if not more important in my view, and should not be ignored from discussions of ‘food.’

(1) For those of you who consider yourselves displaced (however you wish to define that), are there any particular foods that you miss and/or are able to consume?

(2) Do you feel the consumption is as ‘grounding’ of this displacement as I think Sutton argues?

(I personally have an unusual for rye bread - REAL rye bread, as it were. Very, very dark and dense. While it is available in certain less-than-ideal ways here in Toronto, I find these sorely lacking, and do not really derive any emotional satisfaction from this consumption.)

food, migrants, emotional affect

This weeks readings by Mannur and Sutton focus on food and explicitly link the emotional with the physical: the smell and taste with affect. Mannur and Sutton posit that the enjoyment of food acts for migrants as Turan's facilitating environments act for the Palestinian diaspora. In a way, consuming food, consuming the taste and smells are a replication of home. 

Sutton states that food acts as a remedy for fragmentation, a move towards 'wholeness' where one becomes aware (or is reminded) out of their state of individuality away from home into a "recognition of a wider integrity of things," (125) evoking knowledge that others are eating the same food. By grounding his essay in the work of Fernandez's theory of "return to the whole" for displaced persons, as well as Greek concepts such as xenitia (estrangement, death, loss of social relatedness) and the Kalymnian tradition of pestellomata (food sent to migrants), Sutton examines the burning desire for homeland and the accompanying answer of food triggering memory.  In focusing on Kalymnian migrants and food tradition, Sutton is careful to point out that local is not always the same as national, Kalymnian not equalling Greek, and that local differences become more intense in the migrant context, however this is not examined beyond citing a Greek couple in England and a disagreement on how a certain dish is made.

It is Anita Mannur who delves into this issue with more vigour. In relating "the powerful place food occupies in our cultural imagination" and how food forms community for migrant Indians, Mannur focuses on how the differences in regional foods and her migrant childhood consumption of such variety have created her sense of home. This sense of home is much different that the regionally specific repertoire of Indian restaurants in the U.S.  She comments that "not everyone necessarily feels 'at home' in these spaces [Little Indias that dot the U.S. landscape]…because they appear not to fit a standard expectation of what Indian means." Indeed, there is a common occurrence of diasporic homogenizations via the commercialization of culture. Chinese food in Toronto's downtown Chinatowns is regionally specific to Cantonese cuisine, and is not at all representative of the huge array of regionally varying cuisine in China. Yet this is all most of us have access to, and shapes our understanding of Chinese identity.

Again, I believe I was struck with the so-what?ness of these articles, as this concept of food triggering wholeness, emotional affect and memory is something we all experience whether this is in a diasporic context or a nostalgic non-diasporic context. I would have appreciated the examination of how food shapes and misshapes identity, along the lines of developing the idea brought up by both Mannur and Sutton of the homogenization of regional into national. The concept of food care packages and airport security is something only briefly hinted at in Sutton's piece, however creates a current problem, and possibly rupture for the continuing of pestellomata tradition which is pressing and relevant to examine as well. 

Questions:

1. how else has food misshapen the identity of diasporic communities in North America?

2. airport security and migrant food. discuss. 

A more interesting diasporic perspective- FOOD

Food has been an important element in human’s life throughout history. Not only it is an important element but also something that connects people together.

This week, we have 4 very different kinds of readings to describe food. Two are written in pretty academic manner while two others are written in a more vivid and easy going manner.

Mannur has used Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel “The Namesake” when the character, Ashima Ganguli, the protagonist’s immigrant mother assembles the dish to make a quintessentially Bengali dish more Bengali. The passage has begun with the replacement of taking canola oil over mustard oil because of diasporic perspectives. I like how the author Mannur has used a page from the novel on the side to share with the reader her personal experience how roti canai, flying pancakes, this taste of simple dish can transport herself to an earlier time and place. She has made a comparison of how roti canai in different places such as Malaysia, India, Singapore and Australia are very different and also a point how people have used food to think about their cultural identity. Through eating, Mannur has built up friendship with some Pakistani and Sri Lankan friends. This is an evidence how food connects people together. This piece of writing is convincing because it is a first-hand account of Mannur how she has learnt about being India was based on a diasporic upbringing. She is also intrigued by the role food has played in creating or destabilizing a sense of place and identity. She is eloquent enough to put her words to describe the nostalgic feeling due to diaspora. She can feel uncomfortable when there are spaces in the US landscape that don’t fit a standard expectation of what Indian means. It is interesting for reader to note her transition from disliking Indian spaces in the US to liking and exploring Indian spaces there. Indian food is re- imagined in exciting new ways. It is also through finding her favourite taste that she has re- imagined her childhood. Reading this has intrigued me to read her novel sometime. Her writing is easy to understand and keeps the reader anticipated to flip to the second page.

Sandra has taken another perspective in seeing food with a diasporic meaning. She has taken food as an object that connects the specific ethnic group, particularly the first-generation resident Koreans in Japan through the concept of bodily memory. Instead of using a personal account of lived experience as Mannur, it has used a more abstract concept of bodily memory, meaning the sensations and feelings that come along when eating Kimchee which can remind them of their painful history of moving to Japan. In attached with some background information here, being Koreans in Japan is not a glorious thing. They have been discriminated quite subtly. And in this case of the elderly, because they are old, they experience difficult relationship with their native cuisine due to their aging physiology, a.k.a. their stomach can’t take this like they used to be. Examples like Cho Han Chul and Koo Young Ja are used to deliver messages of how food has produce a bodily memory through Kimchee. This concept has been tied to Pierre Bordieau’s extension of Mauss’ framework, how there is the relationship between objective perceptions and social structure on human behaviour by locating bodily acts within a framework of behavioural strategies. He is concerned with integration of the body into social space and its refraction of embedded social relationships and meanings. (205) I appreciate how this article has been clear and lucid in talking about how Koreans in Japan contribute to this topic of diaspora in terms of food. After giving a general example of using Cho Han Chul, I like how the Sandra gives a historical framework “Colonial subjectivities” so readers can first understand how this topic first falls into place. It is because of how 90% Korean labourers in Japan were displaced therefore there is the special role which Kimchee plays in. Then Sandra explains the “Generational Locations”, meaning the element of generation in this whole picture. If it is set up in an elderly (first generation) setting, it might not be relevant to the theme of food in a diasporic persepective. Then when it comes to the last section before conclusion, Sandra has included “Postcolonial Identity and the Eating of Difference” subtopic so that the understanding of food can be better understood. The change in eating has been supported by the example of Koo Young Ja. Sandra has given another dimension of how food not only connects people to their personal but also social and political identities, as well as how they use what they eat to distinguish themselves from others. I personally think this article has explained and fulfilled the purpose of writing it well. The conclusion is useful to bring all the terms and suggested thoughts into a good closing.

Food for Thought:

(1) Can you imagine a situation or transition you’ve been through? For example: How you first hated the thing but through time, you begin to like it?

(2) Does Sandra’s article apply to the Koreans here in Toronto, Canada? And why?

Food for thought

 The Sutton piece is a discussion on how food represents much more that just sustenance, but is also a means of creating identity. From preparation to consumption, Sutton explains that it fosters the same feelings of home that was once enjoyed. Specifically, Sutton is making reference to the Greek Diasporic community and their use of food to further national identify and pride amongst themselves…whereby doing so, re-creating a collective Greek identity. It is a discussion on the reconstruction of this “lost” identity that Sutton is trying to focus on. In this “loss” I mean to say the feelings of home and community that have either been shifted away from those individuals, or taken away all together due to, what Sutton calls, displacement. Sutton is taking Jim Fernandez’s retrospective ideas on sensory anthropology, and furthering it. The idea of wholeness, which Sutton touches on throughout the piece, is the reconstitution of the aforementioned sense of community, which has been lost in transition, from home to the new environment. This fractured sense of identity is brought back together through food, made in the new home and or old… but essentially, it is a reminder of who “we are” as more than just individuals, but within the context of shared ethnical distinctiveness and culture.

Much of these same core ideas are brought into discussion in the Mannur piece, where she is discussing nostalgia as a means of reconstituting home, through food.

Mannur delves into her own past by referring to the cuisine she had as a child…and the inventive way her mother would use spices and uncongenial methods for re-creating the food they enjoyed back home. This innovative way of taking something new and making it familiar again is part and parcel to what Sutton was referring to in his point on “wholeness”… patching up fragments of the old with things from the new.

Mannur also takes this idea further by bringing the idea of entrepreneurship into play. By taking these new ways of cooking and successfully re-creating memories through food, there begins to be a niche market for this ethnic food, which ties into the feeling of being closer to ethnic identity. By offering a passage way to “home,” this food is able to transport the consumer back to comfort and familiarity…and this is what Mannur is saying can also be profitable… ultimately giving back to the community by contributing to the success of those in it.

Questions:

1.     Simply, this imagined home (I refer to second generation immigrants, which some of us are) that is conjured by cooking affects the parents and grandparents who prepare them, but what of ‘us’? What emotions do we garner from it? The story that we’ve been told about home?

2.     Do you have a dish that reminds you of home… but which home if any are we talking about? Canada, or one re-created here?

yummy food

This commentary discusses the Sutton readings Whole Foods: Revitilization Through Everyday Synthetic Experience and Mannur’s article Culinary Nostalgia.

Sutton’s article discusses the role of food and eating as part of migrant communities’ response to the experience of displacement. Sutton talks about how migrants use food as a strategy for creating community and cultural continuity. Through food events, migrants displaced or newly settled abroad are able to participate in a kind of cultural revitalization. Sutton uses the example of the Greek community to illustrate her various claims and arguments. For Greeks, the herb basil holds special resonance as the smell reminds Greeks around the world of the homeland, Greece. Sutton also talks about how families send food abroad to migrants in “Western” societies or where food from the homeland isn’t readily available. In her Greek example, Sutton notes how many of the individuals she talked to had food sent to them from mothers, fathers, siblings, grandmothers, etc. and that this type of participation with food, again, resonates with memories of home. Sutton argues that for the Greek community, food helps them come to terms with their experience of displacement. She uses the term “wholeness” to mean that through food, migrants are able to return to the whole, wholeness, a cultural site that is familiar to them. Honestly, I thought the article was going to be about whole foods, trends towards eating whole foods when reading the article title but actually the term denotes migrants countering the fragmentation that often occurs with experiences of displacement.

The Mannur article similarly discusses cultural identity and food. Mannur remembers the different kinds of Indian food she has eaten all over the world, from the Indian food she was raised with in Papua New Guinea to in the Indian food she is now exposed to in the United States. Mannur talks about the innovative way her mother (and other women, other cooks of ethnic cuisine) have had to substitute ingredients for ethnic ingradients were not available in countries of settlemtnt. This brings to bear Mannur’s point that food for migrants also has the ability to develop and create entrepreneurship activities. We see examples of this all over Toronto – immigrants, either by choice or not being able to find 9-5 jobs – set up ethnic food restaurants/shops thereby supplying the immigrant community not only with the “right” ingredients but also supplying the community with memories of home.

I also want to bring up the point that food for diasporic communities can do more than recall memories of home or create entrepreneurial opportunities. For some diasporas, food can actually mobilize a community to achieve better status within the host society. Take for example, the large Turkish population in Germany. The massive popularity of the Doener Kebab in Germany has made it possible for Turks in Germany to access powerful levels of government, and in doing so, begin discussions with policy makers about important topics like integration and citizenship rights.

Q. Can you think of some other functions food has for diasporic communities?

Examining Food as Diasporic Practice

Mannur’s article explores the significance of food to her ethnic identity, “Eating Indian food was what made me Indian…I wanted to probe how food forms community in various places where Indians have migrated in the late 20th century” (Mannur, 2). Mannur’s experiences in the US, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea are examples of communities, and identity being bult around and shaped by food. As I was reading the article I was really struck by her descriptions of roti canai in Malaysia, because that’s an experience I share and it was interesting to read a description from a complete stranger that I could identify with so strongly. I have the same vivid associations of the oily paper that the roti comes wrapped in and the curries that come in plastic bags—it’s the quintessential Malaysian Indian breakfast. And I think only a description of food could be so evocative for me because unlike other objects food has more of a bodily connection and presence. Through this fuction food can have a significant role to play in the repositioning of objects, as Lee writes, ““Bodily memory problematizes Cartesian separation of mind from body by shifting the body from being objectified knowledge to a source of existential meaning” (Lee, 219).

De Certeau’s exploration of the significance of bread and wine rang less true for me to a diasporic experience because his article was centred around how the bread and wine in a French household cannot be replaced. These are not fungible commodities, but as Mannur’s article articulates, I think diasporic food practices are more a process of mixing, matching and collaging than having specific traditions and positionings of food that are always adhered to. For example in my family we have always eaten Tamil, Singaporean/Malaysian, and Western food, but there are always elements of each of these different styles of food intermingled. My dad who is Sri Lankan Tamil, is sometimes amused at the way my mothers’ Singaporean/Malaysian Tamil family engages with food, and will point out that even though they are eating the same things no one in Sri Lanka eats specific items or cooks curries in that way. To take it even further, my Canadian cousins eat pittu like cereal with milk and sugar whereas my dad would only eat it with curry. In a way these practices can be positioned as less authentic, or inauthentic, and this is the anxiety Lee explores in her article about Koreans living in Japan. The interviews with Korean residents in Japan who can no longer eat the ‘authentically’ spicy Korean food consumed in Korea demonstrates an interesting tension that is evident in the food practices of diasporic communities.

The formation of diasporic communities around food, both cooking and eating practices is evident in Toronto. Last year I did a service-learning placement at an Access Alliance program called Newcomers Cooking Together where migrant women gathered and shared different recipes from their own cultures and traditions every week. Or, I should say that was the idea behind the group but often the participants would ask the facilitators how to prepare so-called ‘Canadian’ foods like chicken noodle soup, or pasta because it was evident to them that they didn’t share or couldn’t partake in what were generalized national food practices. When the group did prepare recipes that participants were sharing the discussion was often about how they had a similar version in their own culture, for example talking about the many different forms or versions of biriyani. Food then is an important and interesting site of negotiation for diasporic communities, and it holds the potential for both creativity in the exploration of culture and identity, as well as a vehicle for collective memory and community-building in particular because of the many conversations it can raise around authenticity.

Q: Is food an object, an experience, something in-between?
Q: Food is often the focal point of celebrations and gatherings, have you experienced dietary restrictions that then limit your participation in such events? How does this affect the dynamic of a gathering?

The food continuum

Whole Foods: Revitalization through Everyday Synesthetic Experience by David Sutton discusses the use of food as a continuation of national identity for the Greek diaspora. This taste of home and different smells travel around the globe to maintain a memory of the past/home. Worthy of note that some of these products are local to the area but change identity depending who is smelling and past associations with the object “The basil sniffed in a pot in London reminds the new migrant of "Greece" in this instance rather than any more localized association”(127). I believe the repetition of cultural practices is what Sutton discusses as ‘returning to the whole’. Returning to the whole is “state of relatedness—a kind of conviviality in experience” (122). In the diasporic sense retuning to the whole is building bridges with the home by the use of foods and other cultural practices.

Food amongst language, and cultural practices (dance, religion) are crucial components of national identity. I believe that acknowledging and understanding these components would be a determination factor of national authenticity. For example in Costa Rica, Gallo Pinto is a mixed of beans, rice, and vegetables; this is a traditional meal especially for breakfast. To be aware of the importance of Gallo Pinto and the ability to make the dish are markers of national identity of Costa Rica.

Sutton also highlights the importance of the senses, for example the smell of basil as evoking the smell of Greece. In a way I view the ‘smell of Greece’ as Carrier would describe Khat as the ‘taste of Africa’ both of these objects evoke, recreate, and revive the memory of home.

Food and Wine by De Certeau is an analysis of the vital roles bread and wine hold for French cuisine. They cannot be replaced by any other food, without these ingredients “nothing has flavor anymore, everything falls apart” (85). Bread represents the hard labour of the working class, that labour cannot be wasted it would be sacrilegious, this bread even when its old transforms into something, it does not go to the garbage (pudding or food for birds). Then De Certeau explains the crucial role of wine when celebrating special occasions; celebration without wine is not signified. I don’t completely agree with this view, maybe this is a French costume but the way people desire to celebrate cannot be ranked as signified depending on what objects they have at their disposal.

Do you think the importance of bread and wine are tied somewhat to the Catholic belief of communion?

Steelpan, Diasporas, Types of 'Play'

This weeks article focuses on the steel pan and the Caribbean and West Indian diasporas throughout the world.  One of the authors, Dudley, tells us about the Carnival festival that is very prominent in these cultures, specifically in Trinidad and Tobago, and how its appeal has grown throughout the world.  One of the articles, by Walrond ,discusses the importance of trying to understand the social impact of the Carnival, and how it can also play the role of a “safety valve” to protect the status quo, as the writer calls it.  The author does and excellent job in questioning whether the freedom and rejoicing can actually be beneficial to the diasporas in creating significant changes and progression towards the communities overall development.  Then we also contrast between seriousness and ‘play’, in relation to Trinidadian steel pan players and the way it was at one point looked at as not being serious enough or relevant.  There was a gradual shifting of boundaries, and the perception of the steel pan as a simple instrument became a widespread way of elevating the user experience and combining all levels of society to play a role in building the community through creative and strategic ways.

            Later, we discuss the ideological differences between the different forms of play, and how governmental ‘play’ and citizen-level play may differ because they are perceived as ‘serious’ or ‘frivolous’ play types.  When it comes to politics and governmental bodies using play, Dudley raises a great point about how there are always agendas that can be aided by the tactical use of play.  So we can question, is that type of play really considered as play, if the governing body predetermines things?  The steelbands began as a form of self-expression of people who did not have power in the political sense, but through the use of Carnival, gathered immense integration and consolidation of different levels of society, communities, and musicians.  In a cross-border diasporic sense, steel pans and the thrilling preparations, costume designs, and other activities of the Carnival act as a way of giving people around the world a sense of home and yearning.  The sights and sounds that resemble the Carnival in Trinidad provides a real life example of diasporic communities that can congregate together in the masses to awaken one of the liveliest festivities within the community.   Again from the reading, do we question the role of the event and how play has gone from its initial understanding, to what is considered as ‘play’ that is significant and needed.  It’s interesting to try and understand the different types of play, because it is something so simple and overlooked because we never really try to understand that play is something we will do naturally, but can be crafted and controlled by those in power, if needed.

Question #1: The next time you play something, whether it’s an instrument or a game, will you stop to think about why you are playing it? Is it really relevant/important? Can you do it as a career?

Question #2: How do you think Toronto’s annual Caribana resembles the Trinidadian Carnival in the sense of ‘play’?  Also, what does the Caribana say about Toronto (Canada) to the international world, or what message do you think is trying to be sent by the citizens and the government?

maharaja response

This post is in response to the Maharaja exhibit. Unfortunately it wasn’t so much the objects and their opulence that interested me, but rather the Q&A session preceding our seeing the exhibit. I don’t recall the positions of the two individuals who led the discussion, but their discussion of the struggles and debates that arose around the creation and execution of the exhibit closely followed issues the exhibits in the readings faced. Most notably, it was mentioned that the AGO wanted to involve the community in the presentation and formulation of the exhibit, right from the initial stages. This follows with what the Museum for African Art attempted to do in their specific exhibitions. The AGO (specifically the guy in our Q&A session) was particularly adamant in explaining that these community relations wouldn’t just be used and then forgotten, but rather that South Asian community collaborated with would continue to play an important role in the AGO…I think the woman mentioned that a number of individuals had become volunteers and permanent staff members.

I think that contemporary museums really do try to come to terms with the colonialist, hegemonic, power structures and associations their institutions reflect. The woman speaker noted how her work on the language pertaining to the exhibit was really important, as is the language we use generally when describing the South Asian community. It has become pretty clear from the readings and Q&A session that museums understand the political and sometimes highly controversial trajectories of their objects. While steps can be made to actively involve the people an institution such as a museum represents (e.g. community volunteers), these actions won’t amount to much change unless the entire power dynamics within the larger institution are also changed. It seems like a really obvious observation, but if it is then how come we have still not seen such institutional change take place? Relating to the Maharaja exhibit, why is an exhibit about the South Asian community still curated by someone not of South Asian descent? The obvious answer is that clearly this grand institutional change wouldn’t be in the best interests of those who, currently, control the power dynamics and “the better end of the stick”. Still the question remains however, that if museums and other such institutions deeply care about presenting objects in their truest, most authentic form, what is it that holds them back from that realization in the ultimate step of letting the community they present “run the show”? Sorry this commentary it’s not focusing on the objects, per se, but rather the power dynamics behind the presentation of objects.

Reflections of the Maharaja Exhibit

To be honest one of the main reasons why I was exited to see the Maharaja exhibit was to see the diamonds and the pearls. After hearing the story behind the iconic necklace and seeing photographs I had to see them in person; I was not disappointed they were stunning.

After seeing the beautiful jewelry my attention was focused on people that were visiting the exhibit and their reaction to these objects. Usually the reaction I perceived was of awed and from class mat we would wonder the monetary value of the objects. I did notice a number of families that seemed to be from an East Indian decent, and a number of men wearing Dastars. Then I guess to some extend aim to foster and promote East Indian culture worked. From the following encounter I would perceive this Maharaja exhibit was one of pride: one individual upon seeing the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's throne said jokingly, something along the lines “baby’s chair” or something related to its size. Then a man quickly corrected the person firmly “it’s the Ranjit Singh's throne”. From previous readings about museums cultivating culture I understand how in the Maharaja exhibit they provide national pride, and a presentation of India’s wealth… but how can this be if these objects don’t even belong to India? They belong to the English in the Victoria and Albert Museum, does it matter to whom they belong to? Or what really should matter is their existence and the goal to preserve them?

Also what is our aim in studying museums? To repatriate? Learning history? Just what are we trying to accomplish?

Steelpan

Chapter 12: Popular Culture and Nationalism addresses points of contention surrounding who is entitled or seen to be the producers of nationalism. Essentially, the arguments fall into the category of the elites, or that of “the masses” and the elites. The former positions nationalism as “reserved” for a certain class, giving the sense of entitlement and ultirmate power. In this case, the “commoners” are seen are responsible for national sentiment. However in the latter this “sentiment” is recognized as “popular nationalism” which speaks more to the concerns of the people, and in the wake of multi forms of media, allows for greater participation.
I found that the author did a great job in framing both he issues and benefits of either side. In this way, I found that the reading was not forceful in outlook, but rather provided a balanced position (at least in contrast to other readings for the week). I especially liked how the power of the elite to define the feelings of the masses was brought to light, and that in wake of either outlook, people will continue to believe in what they want. Touching on the tendency for the elite to engulf popular culture spoke to the potential for manipulation and robbery, but also was framed to be an indicator of rise in popularity and ability to reach greater demographics. In its recontextualized state, the popular culture can become butchered, but sometimes altered to the point of becoming anew.
The gap that exists between popular culture and the elite seems to me to embody a space of hybridity, and I think that this is an idea that is touched on within the article, and I especially liked the quote "…concepts of local and foreign, elite and popular, high and low obscures an important reality; that musical experiences of real people do not respect those boundaries".

The Steelpan, Caribbean Identity and Culturally Relevant Adult Programs addresses the rise of Steelpan within Trinidad and Tobago, and shares how its defiant and resistant birthing has been both continued and lost within the Diaspora. Walrond addresses a need for females of Caribbean heritage to have access to programs which will aid in their individual development and sense of identity. A lack of culturally relevant programming, as well as poor educational experiences are positioned at the root of this cause. Issues of drop-out, and lack of community are cited, and Walrond points to steelpan groups for woman as needed to remedy this issues. While these parallels are not directly stated, it seemed to me to be the underlying message.
My reading of Steelpan, Caribbean Identity and Culturally Relevant Adult Programs article left me feeling unsatisfied, and in general, greatly confused as to how the author hoped to back his thesis with the arguments made. In drawing on the experiences of a select few young women, I found that his large claims were poorly supported. Although many of his points have been brought up in previous articles read in this class, and other classes of mine, I had a difficult time understanding how the idea of steelpan adult programming for woman could prove to be a solution worth making note of. This is not to entirely discredit the benefits of community bonding, and cultural re-connection, but rather that this idea seems too small scale in comparison to the issues brought to light.
I think that steelpan groups are a great idea, but do not think that this article frames this initiative in a way that serves to solve the issues that are addressed. I have learnt several art forms derivative of my heritage, but I do not think that they have given me greater sense of identity, anymore than any other kind of group I have taken part in.
I found that Walrond undercut the value of community groups at large, and in so doing left the idea of steelpan womans groups seeming half explored and short sighted.

Do you think that community groups designated to ones cultural heritage are more likely to bring about a sense of identity than those which are not linked to culture? Should these be promoted as beneficial to those whose culture they are derivate of? Or can these benefits be felt more widespread?

Reflection on Visiting AGO- Maharaja Exhibition

I know my post is very different from the other ones but here is a small reflection of my visit to AGO. Academic perspectives of things are great but so as the more personal ones.

------------------------------
Arts objects are created and exhibited because of the high relevance and responsiveness to the specific ethnic group community. They are deeply tied into history, an example would be, Maharaja’s patronage. And no matter what, arts objects are ultimately designed for opulence & appreciation.

There are a few things which are adjusted to make the exhibition display more socially acceptable especially in this place with great diversity, like Canada. 6 guiding principles are used to justify before an art object can be exhibited. Passive voice is not used for exhibition display to prevent the misconception of presumption. Another example for adjustment would be having no boundary between Pakistan and India on the map because of some political reasons. All of these adjustments are helpful to describe the objects in a way that connects people and groups together. In this context, it will be for the South Asians especially as their history is very fragmented. The setting in which the object is important too in displaying authenticity of the piece of art.

This style of writing for exhibition is beneficial in focusing on diversity in culture rather than diversity in arts and achieving the state of unity in the midst of diversity. The terms are also defined by the curator to make sure the visitors that are coming are content with the materials. All of these give reason for expanding the definition of arts and also representing the museum as a sign of money as well as power. This will thereby give strength to the exhibition. And through this exhibition, the South Asian culture in Toronto has been greatly addressed and acknowledged. This is a great step in celebrating multiculturalism in Toronto. An example given by the curator from AGO is how “In the search for mother’s garden”, using guilt, cooking and gardening to express has spoken volume to South Asian community because this art is described and expressed in a way that connects South Asian community.

From understanding how objects can be used to connect ethnic groups together to the museum, the exhibition can further build and sustain the special relationship between the community and the museum. The art store opposite to the museum provides an alternative angle to see arts in a contemporary manner.

Besides art objects, concepts like “colonialism” can be something in common that connect people together. “Victoria Albert Museum” is the world’s greatest museum of art and design. This is a kind of museum that

Personally, I find this trip to AGO extremely fruitful. This is my second time going to Maharaja Exhibition and it is very different from the first time because this time I went to see this exhibition from a curator’s perspective instead of just having my own and my friends’ some minimal perspectives. It is different in a sense how the curator’s perspective has helped in expanding my view from a personal appreciative one (E.g. How I am learning to appreciate the Indian Maharaja’s culture especially), to a wider (E.g. How it is connecting museum and community together as well as uniting the ethnic groups together) appreciative one. It has given a greater meaning in looking at the arts that expand from benefiting an individual to a community level. This view has been rewarding as I have been studying Diaspora and Transnational Studies so far.

Objects occupy micro and macro level 'frames'

I’d like to use this week’s response to formulate some thoughts from the exhibit.

What has remained with me since visiting the exhibit was the presentation of objects. Particularly, objects such as bowls, jewelry and the like which are exhibited in glass cases which either stand on the floor, or are mounted to the walls. I think of this as a particular ‘museum mode of object presentation,’ as this is not in any way unique to this exhibit, but rather a common mode of presenting objects in a manner which is both easily visibly, yet still protected from the curiously prying hands of children and inquisitive persons, wanting to feel the object. (Full disclosure: I never feel I’m really able to see something without touching it, and having that particular sensory understanding of the thing. I may come back to this.) This image has, I believe, stayed with me following our excursion, as it is the first time I have observed museum objects with the scholarly gaze enabled by our readings and discussions in this seminar. So, this image of an object (or objects, depending on the creative designers mode of presentation) encased in glass brings forth, for me, the notion of the frame. In my previous response I commented that: This week we return to the presentation of objects which are viewed within a specific frame. This is to say, to me, museums are similar to the picture frame we have previously discussed as determining the “gaze” of individuals and communities. Museums portray objects to convey a particular mode of seeing the objects, and this is executed within a specific (albeit fluid) structure of power dichotomies. If museums, are then considered a macro level frame, glass cases can thus be conceptualized as a micro level, or microcosm, of framing objects. This is to say, objects are framed twice-fold: Once in their immediate presentation in a glass case, with curator notes and specifically-designed colours and lighting to best present the object within the overall design visualization of the exhibit; second, as part of a greater, yet spatio-temporally diverse collection of objects. Not only are objects presented in and of themselves, they are presented as constituting part of a seemingly natural ‘whole,’ i.e. collection.

Again, along the lines of framing discourse, what a previous scholar has argued in our readings, that which is interesting is what is outside the frame. In light of this, I’d to pose just one question for this week. (With a rambling preamble.)

While we have discussed how the exhibit portrays a specific type(s) of “Indian” culture, and the problems therein, including the lack of adequate historical background, what I find interesting is then what is outside the micro/macrocosm of the exhibit/museum. How can (or should?) we (who is we?) theorize objects which were not exhibited. Is there any merit in theorizing what is beyond the frame, if we have already dismissed that which is being framed as part of a hegemonic statist definition of multicultural celebration, reifying power dichotomies of the global South and North, and minimizing the intersections of colonialism, transnational ties and capitalist notions of wealth?

hybrid nationalism and culturally appropriate education

Dudley and Walrond approach the steelpan and steelband within different lights. Dudley's focus is localized in the Caribbean, in Trinidad and Tobago, on the rupture in the offical/popular, cultural/political, elite/lower-class dichotomous nationalism that steelband via creolization causes there. While Walrond sets research in Canada with Caribbean women playing the steelpan as part of TrinCan Steel Ochestra, and steers the conversation towards the cultural inappropriateness of the Canadian school system and subsequently worries about the alienation of Caribbean women in the adult education system.

Dudley starts off by presenting theories on popular nationalism and sentiment by Anderson, Turino, and Hutchinson. Follow-up theory is presented through Berrios-Miranda's work on salsa music as consolidation of national sentiment through popular music, a sentiment against colonial subjugation, whereby the meaning is produced by both the producers and listeners/dancers. Bridging these theories is Dudley's explanation that in the  Caribbean, everyone is a newcomer, and a creolization process is driven by non-european elements, non-elite, and the elite attempting to abstract calypso and steelband. Gellner writes that the deception of nationalism "involves the incorporation of popular culture icons into a format that is more congruent with elite aesthetics". (267) Dudley goes on to present this creolization as the rupture in the dichotomy of elite and popular culture. Lovelace and Job explain that the 1950s rising middle class in Trinidad, occurred simultaneously with the construction of national identity and 'colonization' of calypso and steel pan, i.e. attempts to stylize as symphony orchestra (concert hall performance v. street march). But labourers have enjoyed renderings of western classical music on stage, and business execs in festive street march, this is all drawn on at Panorama (festival of Caribbean arts). Not to be left out is the fact that lower-class panmen traditionally have rendered Mozart and Beethoven and middle-class politics have attempted to purge this from Carnival. Dudley concludes with thoughts that Panorama has a changing audience: more tourists, more expats, fewer youth and working-class adults) -- increased sponsor participation in steelband, decreased community participation in steelband. 

I think here about kitsch and authenticity, as reappropriation and abstraction come up in Dudley's examination of the steelband tradition in Trinidad. With the changing demographics of Panorama, there is a changing aesthetic to steelband, namely the concerthallitization of a formerly public march type atmosphere. I wonder about the diaspora which due to radicalization which often times forces one to be closer o to their culture, acts similarly to the non-racialized Irish American diaspora who fervently consumes the reappropriated official and elite symbols of nationalism. I appreciated Dudley's complication of colonial state nationalist and tradition construction as something that has always been a space of mixing elite, lower-class, colonized, colonizer, official and popular, cultural and political. 

Walrond further complicates ideas of nationalism and tradition with the second diaspora, Caribbeans in Canada, and the realm of women players of steelpan. However, Walrond's focus is not nationalism at all, but rather education, using on focus group interviews with  Caribbean students in Edmonton and their experiences with sharing steelpan. The paper asks how can this critical Caribbean instrument be used in adult education for caribbean people in canada to make it more culturally relevant, in an environment that has traditionally been troublemsome to Caribbean people's education. Walrond steeps the first part of the paper in critical race pedagogical theory about the 'cultural absenteeism' practiced as part of 'multiculturalism' in public schools and their effects on young Caribbean women. Walrond uses Sleeter's study of schools which found they "had little (if any) connection with community-based movements that aim toward equality and social justice" (25), while maintaining special tokenistic events like Culture Days, or bring you cultural instrument to school day, at which the interviewees in the paper had experienced and used to share their steelpan with the other children. Walrond leads cultural absentism pedagogy into questions of adult education for Caribbean women living in Canada, occupying a 'third space' of 'home/Caribbean' and 'home/Canada': and their "exclusion from activities that are necessary to sustain a quality of life that first world countries such as Canada excel at and are proud to acclaim." (25) This is further signified by Guy's observation of white predominence in adult education spaces in 'first world communities'. The interviewees express pan as passing on of culture of resistance, as integral to their lives, as fun, as informal structure,  as community: Caribbean Canadian and African Canadian women together in an environment of learning. 

With Walrond, I found it difficult to make the links from the critical race theory on pedagogy to the interviewees experiences documented in the paper. Although I understand and have experienced the alienation of the 'multicultural' Canadian school curriculum, and witnessed the failure its had for black female students around me, I'm not sure this comes through in the paper itself. I would have appreciated a clearer linking and contrasting of Caribbean women's steelpan pedagogical experience with colonial Canadian mandatory pedagogical experiences. Also, I don't feel the gendered aspect of mandatory colonial Canadian education was expressed clearly in the paper. This definitely could have been drawn out more and linked more heartily with the interviewees. For example, how does the Canadian public school system disempower Caribbean women in ways that steelpan community education has repaired? 

Questions

1) Walrond's essay makes implicit links between Caribbean students to black students in Canadian school systems that use culturally inappropriate pedagogy to educate them. However, is the lack of mention of specifically Indo-Caribbean women's experience significant?

2) How is the Canadian colonial school system, though Eurocentric, also a space of contrary hybridity like steelband tradition in Trinidad? What are we forgetting when we gloss over the material presented as white-owned?

Debates on tight rope walking

I would like to focus this commentary on a few specific points brought up during our discussion with our hosts at the AGO. As we've been getting better acquainted with the idea of objects on display over the past few weeks, these exhibits are meant to be authentic representations of the cultures that these objects represent... The issue of authenticity was brought up, as it becomes difficult to know exactly how much the museum is willing to represent...and what they chose to omit. With that said, after care, deliberation and scores of opinions, the museum is representing only in parts, the whole culture on display. The importance of authenticity to me was very telling of this tight rope walk public spaces must continue doing... As they are appealing to a public (or public(s)) they have to reach out to such a wide audience, does that not take away from the authenticity then? I mean to say, that if they are (as we were told) trying to convey something to a wide range of people, and essentially "dumbing" down the exhibit, what does that say to the understanding of what this stuff is, in the eyes of someone from that culture?

Second point I wanted to mention was this heavy emphasis on ART... I thought it was so crucial to remind oneself that we were not in just any museum, this is an ART museum. These objects are meant to be artistic, perhaps not in their intended purpose, but we (as an audience) are suppose to see the artistic "value" of these things... this struck me as kind of odd. I completely understand the importance of looking at the creative, and artistic worth of these pieces of history, but they are just that...piece of history. I feel like I'm contracting myself when I say this because, is not all art, but maybe a part of history, a representation of time and place, and perhaps of people? But this Maharajah exhibit, to me, was a direct link to a people, a culture, time and place of India. It was so much more that just "art" at its core definition. I know Cat is going to bring this up, but when I was sternly corrected by a Sikh man for mistaking the king's thrown for a child's seat... just the way he looked put me into this frame of thought: "this stuff is not JUST art, it may not even be art, it may be a compendium of artifacts... this stuff really means something to India (Indians), good or bad, each object is significant far beyond art... it's living culture"
And this is where I started to think that although we tend to speak of objects as static, perhaps they are more full of life than I had thought before.

We've looked at object history, object value, and a whole host meaningful attributes that objects have... but this exhibit really spoke to me about living history being so far removed from what I read in text day in and day out... this stuff is literally what those texts are talking about... they (objects) embody history and culture simultaneously (and I am just scratching the surface)

I don't really have any two specific questions, but when we engage this stuff in discussion on Wenesday, I am sure we will all have something to ask ourselves about these things we're studying. 

Maharaja counter-exhibit

Thought folks would be interested in one of the responses to the Maharajah exhibit:

The Museum of Found Objects: Toronto (Maharaja and——)

"In response to the current AGO exhibition Maharaja: The Splendour of India's Royal Courts, The Museum of Found Objects proposes to create an archive of everyday objects fueled by Toronto's South Asian neighbourhoods. A direct line will be drawn between historic objects and present-day objects, cleverly updating the AGO's Maharaja exhibition."

The website for the exhibit:
The Museum of Found Objects

Hilden Debate

This commentary focuses on the Hilden piece titled Race for Sale: Narratives of Posession in Two “Ethnic” Museums as well as Carol Thompson’s titled Slaves to Sculpture: A Response to Patricia Penn Hilden, both articles published in the Drama Review.

The Hilden article discusses two museums: the George Gustav Heye Centre for the National Musuem of the American and the Museum for African Art. In the article, Hilden attempts to uncover the extent to which these two museums have “moved their centre” from the overculture’s national history of Europe to that of Africa and the African diaspora. Hilden argues that both spaces attempt to reconfigure a “new museum” by, for example, collaborating with the diasporic populations in their presentation of exhibitions and inverting negative stereotypes i.e. (turning artifact into ART). Hilden problematizes these initiatives and the vision of the “new museum” by asserting that good intentions aside, museums continue to be “post modern muddles dressed up in global disguises.” In other words, the two museums she takes as examples have not made much movement (if any) away from the Eurocentric centre. “Underneath the post colonial skin breathes the same old Euro-body, Euro-centre…,” she concludes.

Hilden brings up many thought provoking arguments to make her claim and this was really the strong point of the article. Among the most memorable are her dilemmas with multiculturalism, the commodity of art, connections to the market economy, and guest curators – she artfully and really thoughtfully summarizes the various arguments against museums as “new”, “different”, and culturally sensitive. Particularly, her mention of the importance of the role language in museums and how it maintains Europe as the centre was extremely central to her main claim. But what I think the article did best was walk us through both the museums and some of their problematic exhibitions to really give the reader a clear picture of what’s going on, why is it a problem, etc.

In Carol Thompson’s response article to Hilden it was a little bit difficult to discern her primary claims and objectives. At some points, she agreed with Hilden, at other moments she vehemently disagreed. She also made a lot of interesting arguments and connections in between. It seemed to be that Thomas’ primary articulation was that museum exhibitions are powerful engines of meaning and can have an “agency of display”. She argues that in order to get away from the Eurocentric centre, museums along with diasporic populations, need to look at the art themselves which has the potential to communicate African cultural ideals. She closely follows with last week’s readings on the power of museums and similarly argues that museums are a strong cultural resource.

For some reason, unlike last week’s readings, Thompson does a good job of thoroughly explaining how cultural resources and ideals can be acquired from museums by diasporic populations – by visiting museums, diasporic people can go there and see their history. She explains how this concept works and ultimately makes it clear how, for example, the African diaspora may look at African art and seek it as a cultural resource for understanding their culture. While not everyone may agree with this opinion, Thompson explains the process in a far less defensive manner than some of the readings from last week. Further, she also does a good job of explaining the process of how art pieces make it from all over Africa to all over Europe and the connections to slavery such a process invokes.

Questions:

1. What are the commonalities in issues and dilemmas faced by the Maharaja exhibition and the various exhibitions at the Museum for African Art?

2. What was Thompson’s main claim?

Panman Pat McNeilly in class next week

Next class we're going to have Panman Pat join us for the second hour.  He's an icon of pan in Toronto and was the only steel pan player in Toronto's first Caribana in 1967.  Give the video a look and check the PanMan website www.panman.ca

Week 9 - Deconstruction of Museums

One of the readings for the week by Hilden, talks about the way museologists have been trying to totally 'deconstruct' the overall idea of a traditional museums so that displays and ideas do not look as if they are 'produced' or shaped in any specific way.  There is often a racialized and gendered nature within the different museums, and Hilden speaks about how the 'universalist' approach to modern curators still does not do justice in a way that prevents people from thinking in a Euro-centered way.  At the end of the day, museums get their shaping and orientation in a specific way depending on the curator, their areas of expertise, and even because of sponsors and bodies that fund the institution which play a big role in the overall orientation of the museum.

Hilden makes a very good point about how museums further push the limitless impression of colonialism as an aid to groups of people in the past, as well as Eurocentric practices and norms as a focal point of viewing the different displays within a museum.  What does one consider as normal, or in what way can people look at something and think they are better or worse than another culture? When it comes to museums, they shouldn't portray any particular sides favouring nor should their be a portrayal of something like colonialism as an advancing agent in a country or groups of peoples development.  However, it is very hard to do so because of what exactly a museum is in the first place -- Museums as mentioned above, are influenced by particular people and is basically an institution that houses a collection of 'things' which are chosen at the end of the day.  What gets chosen, and what doesn't can always be questioned regardless of what type of museum it is or where it is located.  Everything simply cannot be stored and displayed in a museum from every single country or point in time, but we trust the judgement of curators to display items that they think are significant to display to people or are in rotation across the globe.  Hilden refers to 'timeless Africa' and the clustering of objects that show a 'universal' appreciation for the capitalist structure, and also the fact that such objects can be replicated and found for sale so that the classic, timeless, and African look 'can be yours too'.  We can then understand the significance and overall power that a museum can have on a mainstream audience in the western world.

Question #1: Is there a way for museums to become a place where the general public can drop off items and have them displayed?

Question #2: How do you see museums evolving over the next 50 years? More accessible? More digital content online?

Museums and Culture

In the readings for today’s lecture, we are given insight into the role museums play in the preservation, presentation, and promotion of culture. This is a contentious area of study as the readings have shown, with there existing many social, cultural, and political implications when it comes to the collection and exhibition of cultural items.                                                                       

      In the reading by Gurian, the author delves into the nature of museums as sites of memory. This is a theme present in all of the readings, but Gurian goes into great detail assessing the role that museums play in both preserving and constructing memory through the exhibition of certain objects. Museums are institutions which are socially significant around the world, with much importance being placed on them as centers of education and culture. As such, museums exist as a “social contract” (pg.36) as Gurian puts it; they cement the historical in the present, allowing future generations to remember the past. Gurian sets out to define what “museum objects” are, and how museums are defined by these objects, while at the same time giving definition to these very items. She discusses the fact that objects in the museum sense are generally defined as ‘real’ objects. But this definition is troublesome in and of itself. Real objects are not simply one cohesive group, but are made up of things that are “one of a kind” and “an example of” (pg. 26). With this in mind, the discussion moves onto how these objects are treated in museums in comparison to other institutions such as aquariums and zoos. This comparison brings to light the fact that a collection of “real” objects isn’t exclusively the domain of the inanimate, but can also extend to the living as well. As well it is brought to the reader’s attention that even though certain objects may be viewable in two different institutions, it does not necessarily mean that both are to be considered museums.                                                                                 

      Another area touched upon by Gurian’s article is the issue of where the meaning of an object comes from. Is it the visual image? The historical story? Its cultural context? All of these are important questions to think about. For example Gurian discusses how a bowl which has been labelled as having been used in Auschwitz is immediately thrown into a new world of historical and cultural significance which the same bowl would not have been if it were not labelled as such (pg. 29). This brings light to the realization that in some cases presentation may be important for creating a cultural and historical awareness for the object and the public which are viewing it. Gurian ends her article by postulating that civilized society needs museums as an agent of social cohesion and history. The use of the term civilized is something which bothered me throughout much of the article. It places cultural objects as items which Western/civilized society must take care of; otherwise they may be lost to the ages. This of course means that the appropriation of cultural items will occur under the guise of protection, an issue which has plagued many museums in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.                                                                        

      This issue of ownership is something discussed in some detail in the Catalani article. Like the Gurian article, Catalani centers her discussion of museums on the notions of history, memory, and culture. The importance of museums as catalysts for cultural identity formation is something which is discussed more thoroughly in Catalani’s article. By placing objects into museums, they are given a place in a historical context, which can aid in the formation of cultural identity for those people viewing the object; especially in the case of those in Diasporas. In order to preserve memory, museums are an essential part of the process as many of these items may be lost otherwise.                                                                                                                  Unlike Gurian, Catalani does speak directly to the role which colonialization has played in the collection and exhibition of cultural items from non-Western civilizations, and how this history underscores the Western-centric nature of museums as a whole. This is where the issue of ownership comes into play. If an object, which is of cultural importance to a certain people is removed from their homeland, do those people have a right to request the item be returned? Catalani suggests that collaboration between those peoples and the cultural institutions be bartered, as museums in essence are looking to preserve these items, but at the same time they have been appropriated in most cases under the guise of colonial rule. This seems like an acceptable solution to the questions raised by both articles.