The main argument of Handler and Linnekin's article on the idea of "tradition" is that tradition is a "model of the past" that also takes in pieces of the present as it is continued. In the article, we see this assertion backed up by two main pieces of evidence; Quebecois and Hawaiian culture. In Quebec, Handler and Linnekin assert, tradition developed not out of habit but out of a need for nationalism; here, we see even what may be described as an "invented culture." In Hawaii, traditional ways were lost for a time, and resurfaced with different aspects added to them; though these practices are not in fact entirely authentic, they are still seen as "traditional." Handler and Linnekin see tradition as a process, not a single object, and push the reader to challenge vague terms such as this.
Discussion question: How do we decide what can be called "traditional?" What is the process by which ideas transverse the path from habit to tradition?
No comments:
Post a Comment