Week 8- Vattimo/Transparent Society

Constantin Boym

Vattimo introduces modernity as ending because essentially, “human history is seen as an ongoing process of emancipation, as if it were the perfection of the human ideal” (Vattimo,2). Understanding this idea of history, it’s progressive and with time acquires value, so in theory that which is at the end or more ‘modern’ is more ‘advanced’. Vattimo states that progressive realization, required that history be seen as unilinear, however this concept is not applicable anymore with the end of modernity. History used to be thought as being centered around one point in time, and according to many that is the birth of Christ, and from then on did progression and development begin. Unilinear history represents a constructed past, mainly by dominant social groups. Thus the question that Vattimo poses: if history is not unilinear, then how are we proceeding towards an end?
According to Vattimo modernity is passé, and postmodernity, the ‘transparent society’ is decided by the mass media, which makes it more complex and chaotic, but within this chaos is where emancipation lies. Because of mass communication like radio, television and the broadcasting of news across the world, there was this birth of postmodernism. “The freedom given by the mass media to so many cultures has belied the ideal of a transparent society” (Vattimo, 6).

The liberation of differences for example is explained according to Nietzsche as ‘continuing to dream knowing one is dreaming’ . Vattimo uses dialect in this same sense, even though you speak your own in a world of others, you are conscious and accepting of the others and know that your own is not the only one. Also when looking at art, one can apply this same concept. We can experience it in other ways, different from our everyday. Multiplicities, pluralities and ‘other’ possibilities of existence are open—“we experience freedom as a continual oscillation between belonging and disorientation” (Vattimo, 10).

According to Vattimo, there was a transition from Utopias to Heterotopias and it was radical, beginning in the late 60’s. Usually when we think of Utopias, we think of totalitarian states, or the George Orwell story, 1984. Essentially the idea of a Utopia is that of a perfect society, one in which there is purity and unification of experience. Vattimo said in a Utopia the Avant-garde plays a role;

there is a ‘synthesis’ of other important aspects of the avant-garde such as the general transformation of relations between aesthetic experience and everyday existence instigated by surrealism and situationism” (Vattimo, 68).

This is an image from an exhibit at the MoMA in 2007. It was done by a studio of architects called Superstudio, and the title is Twelve Ideal Cities. It is an interpretation on a twentieth century modernist Utopias. This block shows cubic cells that are stacked on top one another to create one continuous building. The idea is that each cell contains anything and everything that a human needs. According to this interpretation all humans are equal, however if the inhabitants rebel, the cell will collapse, making way for the new ‘perfect citizen’.

To understand aesthetic, we must understand beauty. According to Gadamer,“the experience of beauty is characterized by mutual recognition within a community of those who appreciate similar, natural objects and artworks of beauty” (Vattimo, 66).By this he interprets if you are experiencing beauty, then you are experiencing community.

This Vietnamese woman with blackened teeth from chewing on a certain type of nut is considered beautiful to her community.
Mass culture in relation to beauty, according to Vattimo, has brought to light the proliferation of beauty not only to one community, but to humanity as a whole. But when

the beautiful is the experience of community, however community becomes universal and is multiplied and pluralized” (Vattimo, 68).

Then there is a problem of redefining the nature of aesthetics, which leaves, according to Vattimo, a sort of distorted Utopia, which is called a Heterotopia, which is in turn more plural that a Utopia. It encompasses many communities and experiences. “A communities recognition in a model must explicitly recall the multiplicity of models, when the beautiful is experienced, presented and recognized by the community as and absolute value” (Vattimo, 70).

Russian designer, Constantine Boym gives meaning to beauty in a heterotopic society. He explores, gathers and brings new life to old, ‘lifeless’ things, collecting them and assembling them in innovative ways. He also highlights the relativity, blending and acceptance of other and societies in one common space: New York City on the subway, post office and on the streets. Juxtaposing one another at points they all work together to create plurality of communities.

Week 7, Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism

A group of young boys, in Düsseldorf, wearing American street clothes, celebrate as Ghana makes it into the World Cup (soccer.)

Generally, Appiah is discussing the cultural differences of humans as simply circumstantial outcomes of the actions of humans, who maintain universal human traits that tie cultures together. He defends the contamination of culture as a legitimate act, as culture has never been static, and argues against the concept of cultural purity. Finally, he argues against Cultural Imperialism, as he outlines evidence that those within a culture are not passive, but chose the cultural aspects they maintain or change to suit them; that a culture cannot be maintained, only subsidized, without the willingness its members.

Chapter 6: Imaginary Stranger

Appiah opens chapter six by talking about people being from multiple “worlds,” different cultures, but maintaining some ability to understand each other. The people in Kumasi where Appiah grew up, people in New Jersey where Appiah lives, and people world wide are same, or similar, creatures. Biologically, they are not different so much as they have different solutions to similar problems. Different “Stuff” Tonkinwise might say; we’re different only in the different Things we have to address Universal Human Issues. Human difference is not beyond the grasp of larger human understanding, merely the chance solution to a similar problem.

Despite Appiah’s belief in humans to understand each other because they are biologically similar, have similar brains, he argues that human traits aren’t universal to every human; Appiah is wary of Universals. He cites autism, colorblindness, tetrachromats, and those that do not excel in mathematics and music as examples of humans who have different “machines” and do not grasp something that seems universal to humans; a human that couldn’t connect with another human in that aspect no matter how much it was explained to them, because they do not have a certain mental facility. So that, Appiah counters what is universal isn’t that every human has all human traits, but that in every large enough group, you find all human traits; that these human traits are the norm among humans. Appiah goes further and states that the traits humans have in common when entering into a cross cultural conversation don’t even have to be universal, but merely shared between those select humans.

Appiah ends chapter six with another small counterargument, that humans inherently need an out-group to be part of an in-group and have an identity. So that, they cannot possibly seek to care about all humans, but can only care about humans who have a shared identity; humanity at large cannot be an identity because it would leave nothing to be contrasted against. Appiah counters, “… engagement with strangers is always going to be engagement with particular strangers; and the warmth that comes from shared identity will often be available.(98)” In essence, Appiah is stating that every human has something they share with another human, something they can identify with in another human.

Chapter 7: Cosmopolitan Contamination

“People who complain about the homogeneity produced by globalization often fail to notice that globalization is, equally, a threat to homogeneity.(101)”

What Appiah is saying is that globalization, in a way, isn’t homogeneous as can be seen in Kumasi where a multitude of languages are spoken; so that, as a place becomes globalized, it actually becomes more diverse. If you leave Kumasi for the country side, everyone begins to dress the same, eat the same, and speak the same language. In the face of globalization, these people might move away, or switch languages, or adjust the foods they eat, and become different. However, Appiah doesn’t see this as negative.

Appiah explains that the world around an individual, a villager maybe, in a Homogenous Pocket, may become threatened or unsettled by change. Yet this does not prevent change, often for the good, such as his examples of medicines or clean drinking water. Where this change creates homogeny with another group, the first group is quick to make new differences, or reinterpret cultural artifacts, such as new slang or hairstyles, that reinforce their inner homogeny and outer difference from the second culture.

Within these little pockets of homogeny there are individuals that long to be different or escape, and to incorporate aspects of another culture into their lives. By allowing contamination within a Homogeneous Pocket, and not attempting to prevent it, you allow individuals to shape their own lives instead of being oppressed into cultural homogeneity. To maintain a Homogeneous Pocket, or a “community of difference (from another homogenous pocket)” you must have the “free allegiance of (its) members.(105)” It becomes one thing to willingly and freely preserve an aspect of your culture, it becomes another thing to preserve cultures; Cultural Preservationists forcing people to or expecting people to maintain a homogenous pocket, even at the risk of becoming inauthentic.

Cultural Preservationists might argue that the contamination of one culture with another is an act of force onto an unwilling recipient, and not the liberation of an individual from a Homogenous Pocket. Appiah would generally agree with Cultural Preservationists that if people could afford native costume, they’d wear it and prefer it to western clothes, but only from time to time. He states that, were these people to become rich, and still wear western clothes (say, a suit and tie) than it doesn’t become a matter of western, or global, culture imposing on this homogenous pocket.

In fact, Appiah uses the argument of ethnic dress as segue into the argument that one cannot actually find an authentic culture. The Kente cloth is not native to Ghana, in that the prints arrived as Javanese batik, and were once milled by the Dutch. His point being, that if one were going to preserve an authentic culture, you’d have to find a culture that has not been shaped by contamination from outsiders in the ancient world, as it is today. Ultimately, cultural preservationists are attempting to halt the process that created the culture they’re trying to preserve.

A man sits weaving Kente cloth, fine silk, with patterns derivative of Javanese batik, on a loom, technology from the Dutch, as an example of Ghana culture.

Appiah also argues against the concept of “Cultural Imperialism” by preservationists, by citing researchers who explore responses to foreign TV shows by local populations. They discovered, one, that each group preferred a local product, in this case a local show that they could discuss with almost anyone in their Homogenous Pocket, and secondly how people responded to the products, in this case shows, depended on their cultural circumstances. It seemed these groups were finding in the shows reflections of themselves, or ideas/morals that don’t seem to work out well and so aren’t wanted in their culture. Ultimately Appiah is stating that individuals who incorporate aspects of another culture, cultural consumers, are thinking critically about what they’re coming into contact with, and are retaining what suits them. He states, the talk of Cultural Imperialism “… is deeply condescending. And it isn’t true. (111)”

A frame from the film The Gods Must be Crazy where a bushman decides that the gift of a coke bottle, seeming to fall from the heavens, is bad for his tribe and attempts to return it.

Appiah ultimately praises Cultural Contamination of the Homogenous Pocket. He cites Terence, an African slave who was brought to Ancient Rome and incorporated Greek plays into Latin drama, as one example of solitary migration (as opposed to mass migration.) These solitary migrations of the ancient world are the origins of Cosmopolitanism, of Contamination, and thus the foundation of cultures we seek to preserve today. It becomes evident then that cultural purity is an oxymoron.

Tying all his concepts together: Cultural consumers are critical consumers, and the cultural artifacts that they consume are often reinterpreted by the new culture as an act of re-solidifying one culture’s difference from another and ultimately maintaining their Homogenous Pocket. He then incorporates the previous chapter by quoting Terence, as having written the golden rule of Cosmopolitanism: “I am human: nothing human is Alien to me.” You see then, that if an aspect of someone’s culture is lost, what is lost is only one solution, for another, while the epitome of that human remains; And the ease at which cultures are contaminated is testament to universal human traits and human’s ability to understand and connect to each other.

Sources Cited:

Appiah, Anthony. Cosmopolitanism. New Jersy: Princeton University Press, 2006, pp. 87-113.

Tonkinwise, Cameron. “Thingly Cosmopolitanism: Caring for the other by Design,” The Radical Designist, Issue 0, July 14, 2006. <http://www.iade.pt/designist/issues/000_10.html&gt;