Comments on: Hypothetical #1 – Secret designs

By: Patty Gunther

Patty Gunther — Mon, 26 May 2008 09:52:00 +0000

I have many examples of that, like a mapuche weaver which appeared on a Sunday magazine offering "MANTA CACIQUE" in a great amount of money but she said that, please, everyone that get one has to put it over a furniture or on the wall but never in the floor. Do you believe the owner of a Manta Cacique might obey to her demands? Why?Manta Cacique is a "poncho" with ikat technique, dyed in black or red and only the Cacique (or Machi if is a man), can wear it for their ceremonys.
With the rural comunities I had work, I have the same problem. We go and teach them something, they do their own interpretations and sometimes do something new that born of interaction. But which is the real thing?
The artisans that do their work every day, have a skill and do changes by their own. The weavers of Valle Hermoso that do the "manta huasa" use acrilic since 1970, more or less. They are doing that for 38 years so acrilic belong to them. They know how to use it, not ironing for don´t make the cloth be brilliant because "una manta nunca debe brillar".
The women of Juntas de Valeriano in III Región de Atacama, north of Chile, have traditional looms and do some works on them, but also they have metal looms that somebody gave them 15 years ago or more(some project)and we propose them to work with them in a product that have relation with the cloth that they take from the ancient looms. This issue is very dificult because they are declared by our president "diaguita people" (indian people) and our project has to teach them what diaguitas have to weave, without information because it doesnt exist research about diaguita ancient textiles.
So when and what. Manta Cacique has a place in the mapuche world and the cilean world also (and Argentina ), but there are some products that are no so significant but belong to a comunity. Were they created by the people or somebody, like us, told them to do that? In any case, the artisans take the new idea and do what they believe is good. Which is the value of that?
Well, for the Ganapi I think they don´t have to put their treasure, that treasure, in profane hands. I don´t think also that a great amount of money will save the men of the tribe from alcohol and discourage. I believe that they could give to others what they want to give. Like in love, if you give evrything you will be "vulnerable" (I don´t know the word).
And, why the company Infoglobal needs such gancho to sell their product?
The client of Infoglobal, is he interested on Ganapi people to have something of them? Isn´t rather snob to do that?
No, the Ganapi people has to do some other thing to go out of poverty but not sell their soul.

By: Kevin Murray

Kevin Murray — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:56:00 +0000

The comments so far seem to suggest that a third solution should be possible – one that helps keep pace with the challenges of the modern world while preserving core elements of culture. That may indeed be the case. But there might also be situations were there is no middle ground. You either sell your culture to stay in the game, or risk noble annihilation. It seems in our pragmatic age, we would tend to prefer the former.

By: heaven

heaven — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:17:00 +0000

I voted 'yes' in the poll, but I think the question could have been formulated differently. For instance, just because products with a 'clear social narrative' is popular among a certain target market, it does not necessarily mean there is anything beyond that, i.e. it could just be the general trend that motivates an elite group to go for these products rather than an awareness of a deeper issue.

I think the way the hypothetical is formulated, it presumes that financial value and exposure to a wider world is beneficial to the Ganapi culture, even if that means violating sacred codes held in the community (for instance, the fact that 'no man can wear the xanak of another' is ignored when the offer of mass producing the design is made). If the design is mass-produced to function as the cover for a new gadget which has no value other than technological ease and excellence, it is then divorced from the original associations of the xanak and is now served in marketing a product developed with an entirely different set of priorities in mind. I do not think it would help to revive the xanak design no help to regenerate the dying culture of the Ganapi people, but will only create a consumer commodity from a design once held sacred with special meanings.

Of course there might be other ways for the modern world to engage with the Ganapi culture; but if they are to be meaningful, sacredness (however subjective and relative it may be) cannot be compromised for exposure or financial benefits.

By: annadee

annadee — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:19:00 +0000

My advice to Moses would be to put forward a different proposition to that suggested by Infoglobal. It is curious to me that the organisation would choose to get the cover manufactured in China. If the product is so valuable surely it is deserving of a cover which is made by hand by the Ganapi people. Could the Ganapi develop a design which reflects their traditions but does not compromise their cultural integrity? And if they are engaged in the manufacture of the product, they would be passing on their traditions to future generations of Ganapi and I imagine they would have an ongoing income rather than a one-off lump sum.

PS there’s no link to vote in the poll

By: Damian

Damian — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:37:00 +0000

Typically, the western consumers want authenticity at the price of someone else’s integrity. But perhaps the company would be happy with a design created by Ganapi artists especially for the cover? Why must it be one of the designs used in the initiation ceremony? Perhaps the cultural wealth of the Ganapi people would allow for a kind of cross-cultural exchange in which something new is created, and sent out into the world. There must be a way to engage, but also maintain Ganapi control of Ganapi culture.

Maybe the problem with this thought exercise – which is stimulating – is that it allows only winning and losing. It sounds like old-school anthropology, where you are either maintaining traditions (inviolate) or being destroyed by modernity (contagion). I don’t want to avoid the challenge that is articulated here, nor deny the significant challenges to sovereignty and intellectual property that globalisation brings. But how come the friendly anthropologist didn’t think about these issues in developing his proposal? They are not new issues, and some pretty smart people are addressing them all the time.