final: Late

Click–> Records of Mani

⑨ 「Crime against ‘Culture’ = Tragedy for Humanity」

According to their official website, UNESCO’s mission is “Building peace in the minds of men and women”.  (…) &so, what’s that supposed to mean?

Well, after reading this week’s readings, I think I have an approximate grasp on the approximate meaning.

 

boo yeah

source: http://www.retroskatestickers.com/gal/alienworkshop/mindcontrol.htm

Brainwashing, no?

All jokes aside, institutions like UNESCO or the UN represent themselves as global entities dedicated to the construction of a progressive ‘betterment’ of the ‘international community’. To put it briefly, I suppose.., they promote something called cultural diversity under a singular rubric of universality.

And BAM.

brick wall.

We are supposed to be different, yet share a same set of values? And if we are different, and share a different set of values, are we then morally deprived, sick in our minds, and criminals against all of humanity?

Now, I am not trying to justify the destruction of the figures at Bamiyan, and to some degree, I do support some of the things these ~*UNIVERSAL*~ organizations stand for (, for I am thoroughly brainwashed, you see…), but after this week’s reading’s (particularly the Francioni and Lenzerini one), I can’t help but wince at how these “universal values” supposedly common to all of mankind are constructed. Nice and neat; ‘modern’ frameworks of artifice. (Sort of like that weird sterile cleanliness feeling … ?)

These organizations say they promote all kinds of ‘diversities’: linguistically, religiously, ethnically, culturally, and et cetera; yet, it seems that they are defined within specific definitions. Christian Manhart’s article on “UNESCO’s Rehabilitation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage: Mandate and Recent Activities” talks about the re-establishment’ of endangered Afghanistan ‘culture’ and ‘cultural heritage’ prior to their damage and destruction from two decades of civil unrest. To me, this reads: you are progressing towards a direction that threatens our universality; we will stop you. Call me paranoid, but isn’t ‘culture’ something that fluctuates in response to the times?

Why is there a need to preserve ‘culture’?

Where does this come from?

What is this ‘preservation of culture’ a reaction to?

❽ Islam and the rhetoric of Modernity.

A few weeks ago, I stumbled across the website of an organization called Western Culture Global; their mission is to promote Western ideas and cultures, such as reason, individualism, capitalism, worldly happiness (amusing), around the world. And what better way to promote the existence of “Western Culture” than by juxtaposing it with notions like socialism, communism, and Islam.

Several excerpts from the site:

From the “Individualism Rejected” section

Non-Western culture rejects individualism… Islam, for example, literally means ‘to submit’.

From the “Non-Western Culture and Happiness Incompatible” section

And non-Western culture does not take worldly happiness seriously because it often does not take this life seriously. Islamic culture, especially, regards this life on earth to be, not an end in itself, but merely a test for or precursor to a life after this one—a life that promises happiness. According to this view, the more a person denies his or her own worldly well-being, that is, the more he or she suffers in this life in the service of God, the more prepared and worthy he or she is to achieve happines s in the next life.

From “Reason Devalued in Third World”

…a society that embraces mysticism places emphasis, not on this world, but on “true” reality. Specifically, such a society often emphasizes the existence and power of a supernatural being, such as Allah (the Islamic God), who is believed to represent “true” reality.

wow. What a way to draw boundaries.

It’s like saying: “If you are associated with Islam, you will never obtain ‘individualism’, ‘happiness’, ‘reason’, and et cetera.”

In less explicit form, however, that might be exactly what the majority of  Western media and scholarship are saying: the idea that progress and modernization is solely a Western phenomenon, and Islam has nothing to do with it. In fact, Islam is a threat to the West’s progress into the future.

But what does “Islam” mean? What does the “West” mean? How useful are these labels, as Said calls them, to understanding… well, anything at all?

❼ Cosmopolitan Chang’an (LATE ENTRY. forgot. )

After the Han Dynasty, the Tang Dynasty is commonly recognized as the embodiment of Chinese Culture. It is remembered by most as a point in time where Chinese thought and practices flourished, particularly within the walls of the capital of Chang’an. The splendors of the capital drew in people from far and wide; people who wished for wealth and fame, people who wished for knowledge, people who wished for power, Chang’an was the place to be.

However, despite the Tang’s considerable influence on its neighbours, the reverse transfer of thoughts and practices into this “Chinese Culture” can not be ignored. Chinese Buddhism for example, (correct me if I’m wrong…,) supposedly reached China sometime in the beginning of the Common Era. Nevertheless, it took several centuries to be incorporated into the “sinicized sphere”, and I hypothesize that it was perhaps due to the increasing influx of other competing religious practices that further consolidated Buddhism into certain lines of thoughts and practices.

Nestorian Christianity, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and so on, even though they had different degrees of influence upon the peoples of Chang’an, they cannot be ousted from the greater Chang’an narrative; their churches may be segregated into the exotic quarters of the city, but this does not mean that the non-exotic sections of Chang’an are kept in ignorance from seeing and hearing about them. Particularly during the xenophobic times in the later Tang.

posted 17:15

 

❻ Dunhuang

The Mogao Caves are usually one of the first things that come into mind when talking about Dunhuang. The caves, covered with spectacular murals, contain a myriad of Buddhism related manuscripts and images.

Why are their so many images? What went into producing these images? How did these images link with the bodies of people situated in Dunhuang and elsewhere? no clue.

The demand for the production of Buddhist images, as Fraser and Ma discusses, extends beyond monastic and imperial institutions; lay patronage from wealthy locals such as the ruling Cao family during the Five Dynasties funded these immense projects, leading to the formation of guilds of artists specialized in the production of these religiously associated images. From these demands, the establishment of procedural techniques particular to the trade were born.

Although Fraser talks about the creative execution of figures even through the standardized production protocols, to some degree, with the formation of an institutionalized body of artists, would the images, more so than in the past, take on a more definitive form? In other words, would there not then be “correct” and “incorrect” renditions of certain figures, decided by the institution and, more specifically, its patrons?

 

❺ The Sogdians: images

Since Sogdians were situated in a strategically ideal location for the exchange of goods between various regions along the trade routes, mercantile activities were carried out pretty successfully. As the in between of a variety of different peoples, it would not be a surprise to see a high degree of syncretization of the various different thoughts, practices, and technologies acquired through interactions from trade. Be that as it may, it’s hard to deny just how amazing! it is. From burial practices, to murals, music, and material goods, the Sogdian archaeological findings, especially the images shown in Whitfield’s The Silk Road: trade, travel, war and faith, demonstrate the complexity of exchanges in and around the trade routes of Eurasia. Though the images may not be of an “original” style, as both image contents and styles are said to have been derived from Greek, Indian, Iranian, and Chinese sources (Marshak, 231), it can (and should) be regarded as an “original” type of art, as only within such a context would this style of Sogdian artwork be produced.

I’m getting lazy :0

❹「Buddhist pilgrimage & Tang diplomacy」

When thinking about diplomatic relations between various peoples, commercial and political based interactions are the first things that come into mind. Tansen Sen’s article, however, points out that diplomatic contacts are much more complex, than say, the establishing of political alliances, and such. Sen argues that the Tang and Indian exchanges were founded on the grounds of spiritual endeavors, particularly Buddhism, in which led to the flourishing of commercial, military, technological, and intellectual dialogue.

I find that I tend to use the ‘rational’ lens too much when reasoning; things MUST have a specific reason, and a “rational” reason at that, particularly when it comes to diplomacy. One might take the ‘rational’ perspective and say that Xuanzang ventured to India in order to satisfy his curiosity for knowledge. Another might say that Xuanzang was really on a spiritual quest of “heroic quality”, as Wriggins puts it.  Before reaching an conclusive statement however,  we might need to question what “rational” and “spiritual” mean specifically with a certain context. Can it be separated that clearly in the 7th century C.E.? When discussing about the “rational” and the “spiritual”, I tend to default to the views that I’ve grown up with; “rational” being logical reason and spiritual being all that other stuff that I can’t possibly logically reason my way out off. But that’s what I’ve been taught, and not exactly what someone from 7th century Tang or Kanauj would relate to.

Take the example Emperor Taizong, and his desire for longevity drugs from the Brahmin doctors of India. We might laugh and point at his futile efforts for locating some  mystic alchemist that failed to prolong the emperor’s life, but don’t we, in the 21st century do the same thing? We too seek out methods for the betterment of health and  prolongation of life; otherwise, all those purported health related companies with their magical life changing pills wouldn’t be raking in millions. How is this “rational”? Is it “spiritual”? I don’t know.

❸ No Entry

❷ The construction of identity.

In “Myth and the Construction of Foreign Ethnic Identity in Early and Medieval China”, Hinsch states that early and medieval China “sinicized” or “exoticized” the ancestral myths of various neighbouring peoples. This, according to Hinsch, was consciously carried out by various historians throughout the history of China as a strategic maneuver to legitimize political endeavors of the ruling authority. The exploitation of ancestral myths, he argues, led to a deliberate construction (or perhaps various reconstructions) of the ethnic identities of China’s surrounding polities. The three identities he examines are:

❶ Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu & Tujue/Göktürks(?)

❷ Xianbei/Hsien-pei/Xianbi/Hsien-pi

❸ Chosŏn/Joseon/Chaoxian (the one before our era) & Goguryeo/Koguryo/Gaojuli

—-

I’m usually a bit slow on things, so I still don’t think I’ve yet to get my head around this idea of a constructed ethnicity. I mean, stand back and take a look… on the one hand, we have people like Hinsch arguing that ethnic identities are made and manipulated; nothing beyond the tools of politics. On the other hand, you have people that are willing to die for their people/country/identities. To imply that these people are mere consequences of political maneuvering, is awfully discomforting. As unsettling as it may be though, it’s hard to deny that there isn’t an ounce of truth in what Hinsch and many others have maintained.

Though some degree of truth may be found in what Hinsch argues, he has failed to convince me that “Chinese and non-Chinese identities were constructed…according to both heartfelt ideals and short-term political goals.” (82) Thoughts and ideas do not exist for the pure sake of an objective. And though I dare not attempt to locate the roots of anyone’s mind, there is one thing I am (fairly?) certain of– that power struggles can only form aspects of identity, and not the totality of it.

 

❶ Defining ancient cultures?

When “culture” comes to mind, I like to automatically assume that there is a static arrangement of elements that fall neatly into specific categories. (Perhaps you call that stereotyping..) Born from my assumptions is a far-off universe where different religions, ethnicities, knowledge, languages, and so on, would arrange themselves neatly, without ambiguity. Something like the different departments in a department store – socks will always belong to the clothing department, and never the cosmetic department. So simple and neat (and less head scratching), but far away from reality.

So… How is one to go about and define culture? Or, adhering to the theme of the week (if culture itself is not mind-boggling-ly complicated), ancient culture? Where does one start? Where does one end? What?

First of all, I think I need to trash my assumptions and start from the very basics. The context. Who were the people of this ancient culture? Where were they located? Multiple locations? When? With whom and what were they in contact with? etc…. (Maybe I should just go back to the bin and pick up my assumptions?)

Instead of having “culture” stand as the epitome of behaviour and thought of certain peoples, it is important to remember that culture is relative to a variety of elements, and can change, and is changed by these elements. Take for example, languages. Interactions with different terrain and/or people of other languages can produce various linguistic changes, though certain structural/phonetic formations persist through time. Languages/dialects can also erode away when other politically/economically dominating languages are in and around the area. Old Turkic, according to Tafazzoli et al., consisted of many loan words from Chinese, Sogdian, Tokharian/Tocharian, and Sanskrit, largely due to the transmission of Buddhist texts (332).

And of course, when dealing with ancient cultures, one should always be mindful of the time period. Although it may seem obvious enough, in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.), it was mentioned that translators of religious works had to satisfy two categories “which are always incompatible” (388).

❶　”…be historically accurate, faithfully representing the meaning of the source…”

❷　”be acceptable to the intended users of the translation… must be intelligible…capable of relating to current trends…” (388)

The need to be historically accurate is obvious, but it is much easier said than done. How can students of anthropology, religion, and so on, come to an agreement of what is historically accurate or not? And what would the accuracy be based off of?

Scholars have come a long way from the “primitive” and “civilized” models, but who’s to say that the West has dethroned themselves at the top of “civilized” hierarchy? Perhaps it is not the best time to come to a definite answer. There are still many pieces missing in the puzzle. The rationality of today may just be the “hocus pocus” of tomorrow.

Maybe it is better to keep scratching our heads for now.

all images belong to QIAN, unless otherwise stated.