Traditions, Globalization, and Nationalism

Inventing Traditions by Eric Hobsbawm was an extremely interesting article and gave me a lot to think about in light of the other readings. Cho Hae Joang’s article on Sopyonje stated that “…the desire to find tradition and, within changed circumstances, revive it.” (138). This made me think, can a tradition that was “lost” be found and revived in the customary sense or does it become an invented tradition?

It’s important to define invented tradition, which Hobsbawm says is something which invokes or represents the past but is presented in a novel or new situation. A custom would be more of a historical ritual without the change in context. Does this mean that reviving p’ansori in a new and globalized culture makes it an invented tradition?

Also intriguing is the desire to revive a dead or dying custom at all. Like the step son in Sopyonje, it can seem pointless to perform an art which there is no longer a demand for. The art may have changed or disappeared completely, but there is no reason to continue a medium which essentially doesn’t exist anymore.

I think that the almost-debate going on here about nationalism and globalism can sort of be understood through the idea of invented tradition. As globalism takes hold, a nation and culture changes. This in turn can inspire a revival for more traditional culture, inventing traditions if you will. People begin practicing their old traditions in a new environment and perhaps in a modified way (for example, using modern amplification techniques when performing p’ansori) and invent a tradition. You can celebrate your national culture and identity through this created ceremony. It’s sort of like the hybridization that we read about a few classes ago. I don’t think nationalism and globalism have to be at odds.

But this does raise another question, if it is true that when an environment changes and a new tradition is revived or invented which invokes or represents the past, can we really hang on to any of our customs in their true forms?

Any thoughts?

Analyses of P'ansori Contradicting Gi Wook-Shin's Paradox of Korean Globalism

Contrary to Melanie, I actually found it even more difficult to agree with Gi-Wook Shin’s The Paradox of Korean Globalization after reading Im Kwon-Taek. Shin’s argument is basically that Korea’s desire to globalize goes hand-in-hand with Korean nationalism. Shin’s point on “nationalist appropriation of globalization” discusses how nations aim to globalize is, in Social Darwinist terms, a way of ensuring well-being of the nation… meaning that these opposite ideas are both goals of the same journey. Yet the two ideas are such polar opposites that it is not paradox but impossibility... It makes sense, yes, but it just seems far-fetched. It’s like saying, “I do not enjoy tobacco. I will rid the world of tobacco by smoking all the cigarettes in the world until there are none left.” (Excuse my lack of a better analogy…) Is Shin arguing that the two concepts of globalization and nationalism can be one in the same? Because I can still only think of the two different entities as black and white with no grey area in between.

In Chapter 5 of the reading in Im Kwon-Taek, we learn a little more about the movie and its plot in more detail, beyond the short clip we’ve seen in class--which shows the boy and girl being trained by their father. We learn that the boy leaves home because he sees p’ansori as financially unbeneficial and a way of the past, while the daughter/father remain faithful to the art. The boy holds the mindset of those in favor of globalization in a gradually westernizing society. In a sense, the boy can represent globalization as a whole while the girl represents nationalism--sticking to her roots and traditions. The two are separate, conflicting entities.

The movie then follows with the brother’s search for his sister again… After having been torn from his roots (the nationalism symbolized by the girl), perhaps he understands that there is something missing from his life, a part of him he left behind when he left his family. On a larger scale, it means that with globalism, it is inevitable for a piece of one’s national identity to be lost in the process. Yet in the end of the movie, the brother and sister part without even knowing one another’s identity… in the end, they are not united even after the brother’s search for her. It is a strange ending, yes, but it makes sense in this interpretation. Ultimately, the brother and sister cannot live an existence together… their values, their beliefs, their beings are too different. They cannot coexist.

I do, however, understand and agree Shin’s argument that “globalization can also awake people to their own local/national culture” (Shin, 9), as in the case with Im Kwon-Taek’s film. The boy’s search for his sister is a result of his decision to sacrifice his past way of life in order to start a new “modern” one. But can anything be done about it after the deed is done? Indeed “National identity becomes more important as globalization proceeds” (Shin, 9). This argument is legitimate, and even confirmed by what we have read from this week’s reading of Im Kwon-Taek. However, my interpretation of this relationship between the two ideas differ. While Shin argues that Globalization can promote Nationalism, the only way I can see that happening is if people realize how detrimental the former can be to the latter, leading to an attempt to counter the process of globalization as a whole to return to one’s roots. In this case, the two ideas are still contradictory… they may share a cause-and-effect relationship, but never a unified, mutual relationship.

Availability and High Pop

After reading High-Pop: An Introduction, I became much more aware of the integral part that marketing techniques and accessibility play in creating popular culture. Author Jim Collins explained how the manner in which products and people are marketed in combination with technology creates culture that is popular due to its availability. I was especially struck by Collins’ example of “opera stars…promoted like pop stars but singing the classical repertoire”(Collins 8). Classical music is a prime example of the elitist culture, which is seemingly completely contrary to popular culture. However, performers within the realm of a roped off culture can break into the mainstream with the right marketing techniques. Without a website, print stories, and music in digital format, any artist would have trouble succeeding in today’s market. However, by utilizing the available technology and putting products out in the public’s view, artists that would have been ignorantly passed over can reach out and develop a fanbase. In fact, classical music has been able to thrive online with the help of music download services like iTunes. Sales statistics have shown that classical music has been able to increasingly turn a profit because the Internet makes it more accessible.
(See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/arts/music/28kozi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).Without high ticket prices and social stigmas, the Internet has make listening to classical music an equal opportunity pastime.

Additionally, I believe the example of classical music can be easily translated to the so-called “Korean wave”. Marketing and the Internet allow Korean artists to project their work out into the world and find audiences beyond their home country. The film Sopyonje made p’ansori performances more marketable, thanks to Im Kwon-Taek, who made a touching, well made film that found audiences across the world. By using a mainstream medium, film, to raise awareness about p’ansori and Korean traditions, Im Kwon-Taek successfully made those traditions more appealing to his audience. The example of the film Sopyonje makes me think that seemingly any tradition or product can be made popular with the right approach. I am much more aware that it may not be the products or ideas themselves, but rather the way they are marketed which determines their popularity, and the manner in which they are regarded by the masses, the elite, and the critics.