the other side of appropriation
21 Mar 2011 03:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI recall that when Sita Sings the Blues came out, there were some rumblings (might've been louder, but I only noticed rumblings) about the issue of appropriation. The story retells Sita's story, contrasting it with a Westerner/American's story of heartbreak, and mixes it up with songs from a now-less-known blues singer. The story doesn't entirely cast Sita as a feminist -- I don't think you can do that without really butchering the original -- but it does call out the assumptions that Rama is such a great guy, seeing the way he treats the alleged love of his life (and the mother of his children). To me, what saves the story from being complete appropriation is that the bulk of the narration is provided by three Indian expats discussing the legend, the characters, the stories around them, colored by their own take on things, sort of like a gentle critique within a critique.
But still, for a non-Hindu to take the story of Rama and Sita and use it as the framework for her own travails and self-discovery... on one hand, you could argue that this demonstrates the universality of Sita's story. Or maybe we might put it: that Sita's story, despite being a thousand (or more?) years old, still speaks to women, regardless of their cultural background. But on the other hand, you could also see it as one more case of a Westerner adopting a marginalized culture's story to serve the Western purposes.
It's been long enough that I can say I will probably always remain ambivalent -- just to head you off at the pass if you're about to argue one way or the other. My privilege lets me see both sides, and I think the question is complicated by the fact that (to me) there's a certain amount of cultural payment going on (by the Western storyteller) in that she sought not just to stick to the original legend, but to involve speakers for the culture. She could've trimmed down their rambling (if hugely entertaining) discourse, but she didn't. In a way, that means we who watch the story are also granting time to more than just the simplest version, and getting the messy complex version instead.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that appropriation is lessened when you get the messy version. At the very least, you're avoiding the risks of the Single Story.
An alternate case of appropriation is one that took me a little longer to tease out the logic, but I think it's illustrative of how appropriation -- like with Sita -- might also sometimes be a good thing. In which case, maybe we need to call it something else. Cross-cultural critique, perhaps?
The second case in point is from the manga, D.Gray-man, where the bad guys are called Noahs. As in, the family of Noah, from the Pentateuch/Old Testament. Except these are the bad guys, and within the Judeo-Christian framework, Noah is definitely one of the patriarchs. After all, when the rest of the world (or at least the corner ruled by Yahweh) had gone totally bad, Noah and his family were saved because they were supposed to be the only remaining upstanding, good, people.
Following along with the manga, eventually one of the Noahs (and I think "Noah" is being treated as a surname, or a class, by the mangaka) explains why they're determined to overthrow Yahweh/god. It's because they loathe him -- for using them as examples, for destroying everything else. I guess a bit of survivor's guilt, mixed in with what -- taken from that perspective -- looks like a rather justified anger. To be circled out as the Only Good People and to watch the entire rest of your world be destroyed, and then to spend days on end stuck on a big boat with no idea if land will ever come back... It's Job on a larger scale, but the mangaka grants the Noahs the retaliatory anger that Job never shows.
I honestly never would've thought, not in a lifetime of lifetimes, of seeing Noah's family as survivors of a great catastrophe bearing the same scars and seething resentment as any other lone survivors. "Why me? Why was I the only one saved? Why couldn't you save all the other people I know? Is this just a cosmic joke to you?"
My Judeo-Christian upbringing never once raised the question of such an aftermath, and frankly, I don't spend a lot of time doing self-examinations on those religious stories I learned as a kid. In this way, I probably am not that much different from people who continue to believe, who continue to get the reinforcement of Noah and his group being The Only Good People Worth Saving.
For a Japanese mangaka to take the Judeo-Christian story and see it from a different perspective... some might say this is distortion of the original [perspective]. I'd say it's a reflection, because the bones of the original story are still there. The mangaka -- like the animator who made Sita -- just took the story beyond its accepted ending, to its true logical conclusion. The outsider's lack of pre-existing assumptions (or childhood indoctrination) allowed the mangaka to question in a way that an insider probably wouldn't.
This is not to say the two instances are completely equal; the particulars of the Hindi traditions aren't that well-known in the West, so there could be a risk of people misunderstanding or misinterpreting Sita's original story when their only exposure is the animated socio-cultural critique. In contrast, the Judeo-Christian religion/s are pretty solidly entrenched in the West, so I doubt anyone's going to be changing their mind based on a Japanese manga. For that matter, I have my doubts as to whether it'd really change that many minds or influence that many people within Japan, either.
Given the tendency in Japanese animanga to royally butcher the entire Catholic faith and traditions for the sake of pomp and intricacy with major conspiracy theories thrown in, I'd be willing to bet that most readers (West or East) write off the Noah plotline as one more instance of a non-Christian/Japanese just not getting it right, or adopting/adapting with no regard for the original. Except that in this case, the mangaka clearly adapted with regard for the original, because you only realize the potential truth in that reverse if you know the original. (That is to say, it's only in knowing that Noah is supposed to be a "good guy" that the poignancy of the survivor's anger has any weight, because it's coupled with the knowledge that the world continues to see Noah as a good guy... thus erasing/dismissing or just not even caring to consider the Noah anger. The Noahs are propaganda used against their own intentions, and it makes for a neat piece of free will questioning, too.)
Or perhaps this is why Sita Sings the Blues requires having a Greek (Indian?) chorus to give the messy multiple sides to the original legend: the appropriation must be offset by the edification that the picture is not just a simple boy meets girl, boy dumps girl, girl dies by leaping into the arms of mother earth. Meanwhile, the prevalence of at least a basic grasp of Judeo-Christian myths means that the mangaka doesn't need to give any of the messiness, but can instead flip the perspective and we can follow without a need for roadsigns.
I'm sure there must be other examples, especially of non-Western cultures using Western stories to critique, or of adapting Western myths/religions with a different perspective to interrogate the original. Anyone?
But still, for a non-Hindu to take the story of Rama and Sita and use it as the framework for her own travails and self-discovery... on one hand, you could argue that this demonstrates the universality of Sita's story. Or maybe we might put it: that Sita's story, despite being a thousand (or more?) years old, still speaks to women, regardless of their cultural background. But on the other hand, you could also see it as one more case of a Westerner adopting a marginalized culture's story to serve the Western purposes.
It's been long enough that I can say I will probably always remain ambivalent -- just to head you off at the pass if you're about to argue one way or the other. My privilege lets me see both sides, and I think the question is complicated by the fact that (to me) there's a certain amount of cultural payment going on (by the Western storyteller) in that she sought not just to stick to the original legend, but to involve speakers for the culture. She could've trimmed down their rambling (if hugely entertaining) discourse, but she didn't. In a way, that means we who watch the story are also granting time to more than just the simplest version, and getting the messy complex version instead.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that appropriation is lessened when you get the messy version. At the very least, you're avoiding the risks of the Single Story.
An alternate case of appropriation is one that took me a little longer to tease out the logic, but I think it's illustrative of how appropriation -- like with Sita -- might also sometimes be a good thing. In which case, maybe we need to call it something else. Cross-cultural critique, perhaps?
The second case in point is from the manga, D.Gray-man, where the bad guys are called Noahs. As in, the family of Noah, from the Pentateuch/Old Testament. Except these are the bad guys, and within the Judeo-Christian framework, Noah is definitely one of the patriarchs. After all, when the rest of the world (or at least the corner ruled by Yahweh) had gone totally bad, Noah and his family were saved because they were supposed to be the only remaining upstanding, good, people.
Following along with the manga, eventually one of the Noahs (and I think "Noah" is being treated as a surname, or a class, by the mangaka) explains why they're determined to overthrow Yahweh/god. It's because they loathe him -- for using them as examples, for destroying everything else. I guess a bit of survivor's guilt, mixed in with what -- taken from that perspective -- looks like a rather justified anger. To be circled out as the Only Good People and to watch the entire rest of your world be destroyed, and then to spend days on end stuck on a big boat with no idea if land will ever come back... It's Job on a larger scale, but the mangaka grants the Noahs the retaliatory anger that Job never shows.
I honestly never would've thought, not in a lifetime of lifetimes, of seeing Noah's family as survivors of a great catastrophe bearing the same scars and seething resentment as any other lone survivors. "Why me? Why was I the only one saved? Why couldn't you save all the other people I know? Is this just a cosmic joke to you?"
My Judeo-Christian upbringing never once raised the question of such an aftermath, and frankly, I don't spend a lot of time doing self-examinations on those religious stories I learned as a kid. In this way, I probably am not that much different from people who continue to believe, who continue to get the reinforcement of Noah and his group being The Only Good People Worth Saving.
For a Japanese mangaka to take the Judeo-Christian story and see it from a different perspective... some might say this is distortion of the original [perspective]. I'd say it's a reflection, because the bones of the original story are still there. The mangaka -- like the animator who made Sita -- just took the story beyond its accepted ending, to its true logical conclusion. The outsider's lack of pre-existing assumptions (or childhood indoctrination) allowed the mangaka to question in a way that an insider probably wouldn't.
This is not to say the two instances are completely equal; the particulars of the Hindi traditions aren't that well-known in the West, so there could be a risk of people misunderstanding or misinterpreting Sita's original story when their only exposure is the animated socio-cultural critique. In contrast, the Judeo-Christian religion/s are pretty solidly entrenched in the West, so I doubt anyone's going to be changing their mind based on a Japanese manga. For that matter, I have my doubts as to whether it'd really change that many minds or influence that many people within Japan, either.
Given the tendency in Japanese animanga to royally butcher the entire Catholic faith and traditions for the sake of pomp and intricacy with major conspiracy theories thrown in, I'd be willing to bet that most readers (West or East) write off the Noah plotline as one more instance of a non-Christian/Japanese just not getting it right, or adopting/adapting with no regard for the original. Except that in this case, the mangaka clearly adapted with regard for the original, because you only realize the potential truth in that reverse if you know the original. (That is to say, it's only in knowing that Noah is supposed to be a "good guy" that the poignancy of the survivor's anger has any weight, because it's coupled with the knowledge that the world continues to see Noah as a good guy... thus erasing/dismissing or just not even caring to consider the Noah anger. The Noahs are propaganda used against their own intentions, and it makes for a neat piece of free will questioning, too.)
Or perhaps this is why Sita Sings the Blues requires having a Greek (Indian?) chorus to give the messy multiple sides to the original legend: the appropriation must be offset by the edification that the picture is not just a simple boy meets girl, boy dumps girl, girl dies by leaping into the arms of mother earth. Meanwhile, the prevalence of at least a basic grasp of Judeo-Christian myths means that the mangaka doesn't need to give any of the messiness, but can instead flip the perspective and we can follow without a need for roadsigns.
I'm sure there must be other examples, especially of non-Western cultures using Western stories to critique, or of adapting Western myths/religions with a different perspective to interrogate the original. Anyone?