Review of Erich Kolig on Indigenous Cultural Revival (Identity Politics)

1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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”.

4. 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?

5. 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.