Kyongju's Things was an interesting piece. He definitely approaches 'things' from a much different perspective than I ever have and it made me look at how an object can be political in its material sense, and as well as in a social sense. As well, they ways people engage and react to a thing depends on the way one chooses to define thing. Kyongju points out that there is a literal material 'thing' and we engage and react to it given those circumstances. On the other hand, he also points out things are not just material manifestations, he discusses things like railways and forests as things which we interpret and engage with from a completely different stand point given its politics.
Oppenheim displays by means of the ANT the ways in which the city of Kyongju, South Korea discovered possibilities of political redefinition in its much more aged historical being. "Things" for Oppenheim, in accordance with ANT, are not simply objects, but can be complex systems functioning to form an object, like a train, or a concept of an object (the greater network), which itself becomes an object, like a railroad system.
Park Chung Hee came to power in 1961 and begins to put what Oppenheim calls his fulfillationist agenda into motion, conjuring up Kyongju's history of tradition and reifying artifacts, physical structures, and rituals of its Buddhist past into symbols of that past, remaking them into symbols of a continued tradition that is alive in the present and future, as objects on display, a presentation of objects as a statement of the objects themselves. Certain information is presented alongside the objects, and all children are state-required to visit these places of display. The caretakers of these objects, however, are aware of informational disparities. In this way, the old networks in which these objects lived now silently oscillate within the new networks of modernity, still their old selves in the old network, their identity remade in the new.
Today, Kyongju's main industry is tourism. There are three universities in Kyongju today, two of which are Buddhist universities and the third is a university for the tourism industry. So Kyongju did fulfill then, I suppose.
I found chapter three to be particularly interesting, especially beginning on page 108 when Oppeheim describes the views of a dissatified participant of the youh tapas cultural program he attended. The participant said that korean history was "as ideally an unity, an entity first distorted by the Japanese and not bifurcated by Korean division. Historical rectification, as not cimply an elite historiographical concern but as a broad social prjoect, would be strongly purpolsive: in order to set modern history straight, Koreans must even wok to set even the mot ancient history straight" (page 108). This made me think about how history is constructed and passed on through objects. Yet, much of this history passed on can be distorted until it hardly resembles what actually occurred. This is echoed when the guides insist that the remains in the tomb the group visited were royal even though this was quite unconfirmed. This also made me think about the Buddhist/Christian conflict in south korea especialy in terms of the plans for the high speed railway, which destroyed many buddhist cultural and historical objects. People choose which objects to represent and tell the story of the history--and this can mold a country's history into something entirely different.
Oppenheim traces back the progression of politics in South Korea, pointing out the dynamic of local actors versus the state. When Kyongju, South Korea began modernizing, questions of authenticity and preservation arose. Technology and science became matters of social concern. Debates of preserving tradition versus embracing progression caused tension and dispute among the people and their government. In order to appease those who resisted modern advances, the government attempted to manipulate the people’s understanding of their culture. They did so through things such as festivals, which were supposed to be cultural events that ideally the people of the city would embrace and enjoy. To organize such an event meant defining the culture of South Korea, which was necessary when facing threats of change to the way of life. The local actors developed a political identity through the resistance and acceptance of the changing of things. Their effectiveness became a factor, and it stabilized their position in the affairs of the city. Having plans and ideas of what things were appropriate for their culture gave them a certain amount of authority. Cultural symbols were a starting point for political debate and participation because their very definition gave the people of Kyongju something to advocate for.
The title of the work is intentionally vague in order to juxtapose the ideas of literal things versus the non-material interaction of things. For example, the preservation of the temples and objects within translated from Korean literally mean cultural remains. This definition gives the object more of a dimensional standing rather than the traditional definition of historical object. It gives more life to the object. The idea of literal things versus the interaction is something I had not considered before the reading.
In the introduction to Kyongju Things, Robert Oppenheim writes, “My account does not primarily emphasize questions of meaning but rather dynamics of pragmatic doing with, on, and alongside objects at hand. To paraphrase the late Alfred Gell, it is thus in part about agency in the vicinity of things,” (3). He further states, “It is about intervening in the things of a world, and it is about how things, in turn, act to channel political possibilities and effects.” In this context, the author’s discussion in chapter 7, “Engineering Subjectivities,” of 1980‘s and 90‘s environmentalism is particularly interesting. He discusses how complex objects of environmentalism were used to affect the, always changing, socio-political sphere. In the 80’s there was a push for unification of the Korean nation and the object of environmental damage - in a specific place and time - was used to make, “...equations such as, ‘The problem of pollution equals the problem of capitalism equals the problem of industrialization equals the problem of [national] division,’” (199). He continues, “Dominant 1990’s formations found systematicities instead in deep, site-specific, ecological interrelations between nature [object] and humanity and thus emphasized ‘appropriate‘ growth and sustainability,” (199). These are perfect examples of how related objects in the same “field” (ecology/environment) were participants “with, on and alongside” or “in the vicinity of” agency; in order to further human social and political goals within, and for, a culture.
Oppenheim’s “Kyongju Things” provides an anthropological interpretation of cultural development in Kyongju, a city with a rich cultural history and historical artifacts. The author approaches the study of the city and its people using Latour’s Actor Network Theory in a way that reconfigures the way things, systems, and humans interact. Oppenheim is interested in the concept of a thing as an active part of development, especially in politics. The reliance upon things produces a constantly active dynamic in which all ontologies have life. Similar in the Propensity of Things, the idea of power is not one in which power is a domineering force, however, power is decentralized and built upon many things, places, and social groups involved. The “shi” within relationships creates the situation.
In Greek tragedy, the meaning of an action is revealed through its unintended consequences. Oppenheim uses actor network theory to show the same is true of objects and spaces – that their true meaning can only be revealed through the unintended consequences of the networks that create them. Kyongju Things focuses broadly on conflicting demands within networks (such as preservation vs. advancement) and how those conflicts play out in a specific context – namely, within the city of Kyongju. Although Kyongju has historic signifigance on par with Rome, Korean’s are still fighting to “set [their] most ancient history straight” – yet in an attempt to ensure their future by means of installing a high-speed train, a vast number of historical sites were destroyed to make way for the tracks. Although this was not the intention, the construction created a political climate that felt as much of a need to preserve as it did to advance the society of the city. Only thorugh this consequence can the ‘meaning’ of the train be seen.
In "Kyongju Things", I felt that Oppenheim included a lot of politics regarding the changes in Korea. When he discussed the changes in Kyongju from both a architect and emotional stance, it reminded me of the movie "Spring, Fall, Winter, Summer...and Spring".
The temple the master monk resided in was extremely isolated from civilization. It was in a mountainous area with nature. The temple itself contained very neutral colors. He also brought up the thought of rebirth and that reminded me of the ending, where the apprentice took over his master's role and regained balance and tranquility in his life.
As mentioned in class...one thing that I kept thinking about while reading Kyongju Things...perhaps more so than the other readings so far, was the mention of things vs. objects.
Amid lots of jargon, Oppenheim purports ways of seeing change through engagements of the human and non-human form. He narrates ways of thinking about the historical and cultural preservation of South Korean through trans formative moves into modernization. To highlight his points, Oppenheim utilizes examples like the debates surrounding the railway, festivals and the politics of these and other things as a means to exploring, as Larour is quoting in saying: "what links us together?" What are the appropriate ways of preserving the things themselves of Kyongju culture in cohabitation of citizen agency.
10 comments:
Kyongju's Things was an interesting piece. He definitely approaches 'things' from a much different perspective than I ever have and it made me look at how an object can be political in its material sense, and as well as in a social sense. As well, they ways people engage and react to a thing depends on the way one chooses to define thing. Kyongju points out that there is a literal material 'thing' and we engage and react to it given those circumstances. On the other hand, he also points out things are not just material manifestations, he discusses things like railways and forests as things which we interpret and engage with from a completely different stand point given its politics.
Oppenheim displays by means of the ANT the ways in which the city of Kyongju, South Korea discovered possibilities of political redefinition in its much more aged historical being. "Things" for Oppenheim, in accordance with ANT, are not simply objects, but can be complex systems functioning to form an object, like a train, or a concept of an object (the greater network), which itself becomes an object, like a railroad system.
Park Chung Hee came to power in 1961 and begins to put what Oppenheim calls his fulfillationist agenda into motion, conjuring up Kyongju's history of tradition and reifying artifacts, physical structures, and rituals of its Buddhist past into symbols of that past, remaking them into symbols of a continued tradition that is alive in the present and future, as objects on display, a presentation of objects as a statement of the objects themselves. Certain information is presented alongside the objects, and all children are state-required to visit these places of display. The caretakers of these objects, however, are aware of informational disparities. In this way, the old networks in which these objects lived now silently oscillate within the new networks of modernity, still their old selves in the old network, their identity remade in the new.
Today, Kyongju's main industry is tourism. There are three universities in Kyongju today, two of which are Buddhist universities and the third is a university for the tourism industry. So Kyongju did fulfill then, I suppose.
I found chapter three to be particularly interesting, especially beginning on page 108 when Oppeheim describes the views of a dissatified participant of the youh tapas cultural program he attended. The participant said that korean history was "as ideally an unity, an entity first distorted by the Japanese and not bifurcated by Korean division. Historical rectification, as not cimply an elite historiographical concern but as a broad social prjoect, would be strongly purpolsive: in order to set modern history straight, Koreans must even wok to set even the mot ancient history straight" (page 108). This made me think about how history is constructed and passed on through objects. Yet, much of this history passed on can be distorted until it hardly resembles what actually occurred. This is echoed when the guides insist that the remains in the tomb the group visited were royal even though this was quite unconfirmed. This also made me think about the Buddhist/Christian conflict in south korea especialy in terms of the plans for the high speed railway, which destroyed many buddhist cultural and historical objects. People choose which objects to represent and tell the story of the history--and this can mold a country's history into something entirely different.
Oppenheim traces back the progression of politics in South Korea, pointing out the dynamic of local actors versus the state. When Kyongju, South Korea began modernizing, questions of authenticity and preservation arose. Technology and science became matters of social concern. Debates of preserving tradition versus embracing progression caused tension and dispute among the people and their government. In order to appease those who resisted modern advances, the government attempted to manipulate the people’s understanding of their culture. They did so through things such as festivals, which were supposed to be cultural events that ideally the people of the city would embrace and enjoy. To organize such an event meant defining the culture of South Korea, which was necessary when facing threats of change to the way of life.
The local actors developed a political identity through the resistance and acceptance of the changing of things. Their effectiveness became a factor, and it stabilized their position in the affairs of the city. Having plans and ideas of what things were appropriate for their culture gave them a certain amount of authority. Cultural symbols were a starting point for political debate and participation because their very definition gave the people of Kyongju something to advocate for.
The title of the work is intentionally vague in order to juxtapose the ideas of literal things versus the non-material interaction of things. For example, the preservation of the temples and objects within translated from Korean literally mean cultural remains. This definition gives the object more of a dimensional standing rather than the traditional definition of historical object. It gives more life to the object. The idea of literal things versus the interaction is something I had not considered before the reading.
In the introduction to Kyongju Things, Robert Oppenheim writes, “My account does not primarily emphasize questions of meaning but rather dynamics of pragmatic doing with, on, and alongside objects at hand. To paraphrase the late Alfred Gell, it is thus in part about agency in the vicinity of things,” (3). He further states, “It is about intervening in the things of a world, and it is about how things, in turn, act to channel political possibilities and effects.” In this context, the author’s discussion in chapter 7, “Engineering Subjectivities,” of 1980‘s and 90‘s environmentalism is particularly interesting. He discusses how complex objects of environmentalism were used to affect the, always changing, socio-political sphere. In the 80’s there was a push for unification of the Korean nation and the object of environmental damage - in a specific place and time - was used to make, “...equations such as, ‘The problem of pollution equals the problem of capitalism equals the problem of industrialization equals the problem of [national] division,’” (199). He continues, “Dominant 1990’s formations found systematicities instead in deep, site-specific, ecological interrelations between nature [object] and humanity and thus emphasized ‘appropriate‘ growth and sustainability,” (199). These are perfect examples of how related objects in the same “field” (ecology/environment) were participants “with, on and alongside” or “in the vicinity of” agency; in order to further human social and political goals within, and for, a culture.
Oppenheim’s “Kyongju Things” provides an anthropological interpretation of cultural development in Kyongju, a city with a rich cultural history and historical artifacts. The author approaches the study of the city and its people using Latour’s Actor Network Theory in a way that reconfigures the way things, systems, and humans interact. Oppenheim is interested in the concept of a thing as an active part of development, especially in politics. The reliance upon things produces a constantly active dynamic in which all ontologies have life. Similar in the Propensity of Things, the idea of power is not one in which power is a domineering force, however, power is decentralized and built upon many things, places, and social groups involved. The “shi” within relationships creates the situation.
In Greek tragedy, the meaning of an action is revealed through its unintended consequences. Oppenheim uses actor network theory to show the same is true of objects and spaces – that their true meaning can only be revealed through the unintended consequences of the networks that create them. Kyongju Things focuses broadly on conflicting demands within networks (such as preservation vs. advancement) and how those conflicts play out in a specific context – namely, within the city of Kyongju. Although Kyongju has historic signifigance on par with Rome, Korean’s are still fighting to “set [their] most ancient history straight” – yet in an attempt to ensure their future by means of installing a high-speed train, a vast number of historical sites were destroyed to make way for the tracks.
Although this was not the intention, the construction created a political climate that felt as much of a need to preserve as it did to advance the society of the city. Only thorugh this consequence can the ‘meaning’ of the train be seen.
In "Kyongju Things", I felt that Oppenheim included a lot of politics regarding the changes in Korea. When he discussed the changes in Kyongju from both a architect and emotional stance, it reminded me of the movie "Spring, Fall, Winter, Summer...and Spring".
The temple the master monk resided in was extremely isolated from civilization. It was in a mountainous area with nature. The temple itself contained very neutral colors. He also brought up the thought of rebirth and that reminded me of the ending, where the apprentice took over his master's role and regained balance and tranquility in his life.
So sorry for this late posting!
As mentioned in class...one thing that I kept thinking about while reading Kyongju Things...perhaps more so than the other readings so far, was the mention of things vs. objects.
Amid lots of jargon, Oppenheim purports ways of seeing change through engagements of the human and non-human form. He narrates ways of thinking about the historical and cultural preservation of South Korean through trans formative moves into modernization. To highlight his points, Oppenheim utilizes examples like the debates surrounding the railway, festivals and the politics of these and other things as a means to exploring, as Larour is quoting in saying: "what links us together?" What are the appropriate ways of preserving the things themselves of Kyongju culture in cohabitation of citizen agency.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.