From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 07:48:04 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <C0K38J.Eo8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> msteiner@silver.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

 >      As I mentioned, most of the particiants were
 > professionals who were unquestioningly buying into his
                                .
                                .
                                .
 > time.  This sort of philosophy, it seems to me, really
 > justifies meism and complacency.  

Interesting that you explicitly cite urban professionals as those so
closely involved in the 1980s "New Age" phenomenon, where the thread's
originator had been more concerned with the fate of Christianity. But
before you run around to condemn them as so "unquestioning", perhaps
you might like to consider the correlative phenomenon of the failure
of their prophecies.

Please keep it in mind that the major social revolutions of the past
200 years were led by such people, and the type of "New Age" movement
you resent appears as a coping strategy in the wake of changing times
and expectations. The British Royal Family have been suffering from
the same historic backlash, and it is no secret whatever that the heir
to the throne is himself involved with this movement.

Suicide rates among these urban middle classes, including dentists and
psychiatrists among the highest, had been reaching crisis proportions
for years, and eventually something had to give way. If this really
untenable level of stress pattern was let out via a rather eccentric,
cathartic spirituality, surely that's fine. What is so dreadful after
all, that anyone would now complain about it?

What I have been observing myself here is not at all a process of
people appropriating someone else's spirituality, but people trying
to cope spiritually using whatever resources might be available to
them, followed not too much later by *another* group altogether, who
take their experience right out of context and seek rewrite it all as
something very much different from what it is.

 >      That was a personal, and rather negative response, to
 > one teacher.  However, I do think that the Movement raises
 > many questions, and I think that the notion of appropriation
 > of other cultures' spirituality needs to be addressed, both
 > as an anthropological phenomenon and from an ethical
 > standpoint.

The dynamics of cultural interraction, in particular involving the
processes of what we call religious syncretism, are commonplace in
Anthropology. If you wish to post here please do make some effort to
read up on the voluminous and manifold literature of Anthropology, and
get something of a clue.

The Christian Churches are known historically to have been among the
greatest and most persistent appropriators of culture and spiritual
experience during the past 2,000 years, including *all* of the major
holidays on the Western Calender.
^^^^
I really find it quite astonishing that any Christians anywhere would
now seek to claim some sort of spiritual purity, in particular within
the context of accusations being made against other groups of people
of "appropriating" something they call culture. Or is this all just
more of the same silly, sniping power game between the Catholics and
the Anglicans we have been obliged to endure for so long now, while
the Tykes take such very great care to see that their own "New Agers"
do not themselves become an embarrassment?

Is it just another "them, not us" round of blame and hypocrisy? When
the whole of Christianity itself as an historic phenomenon is under an
increasing scrutiny while the more gentle, clear-sighted spirituality
of indigenous and other peoples begins to assert itself on the world
stage?

              If we want to address this subject on a more
 > intellectual plane, I am aware of a new book by Danforth
 > Lorring {or is it Lorring Danforth?}  It has to do with
 > fire-walking and Religious Healing in the New Age.  He,
 > himself, was a participant-obsesrver.  I'm not sure I have
 > the exaact title, but maybe some of us could agree to read
 > it and carry on  a book discussion via this newsgroup.

This "New Age" has not begun anywhere near to establishing itself as
any sort of religious movement whatever, but emerges as merely another
syncreted phenomenon predictably in response to closely monitored and
well-documented social stresses among specific and readily identified
classes of people. Goodness, if we had access to such documentation on
the emergence of the Virgin of Guadalupe, as a good example the Church
might be interested in seeing destroyed, we would be in *clover*!

What is really very interesting indeed, however, is this new discussion
emerging now, which seeks to take the phenomenon out of context and to
rewrite the episode as something quite different from what it actually
is. Catholic scholars have been very much involved in what they have
been calling "New History" here in Australia as well, but it has not
succeeded very well in taking root. Some of you people don't happen to
be associated with Catholic Action, or the Society for the Propagation
of the Faith, do you per chance?

Please continue with your discussion. I would be very keen to monitor
how far it diverges from reality; how far people with an interest in
doing so will seek to propagate a rewriting of history and reframing
of cultural dynamics.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology