On Going Native

I did some "serious research" on this particular bit of terminology, and I found some good things in journals, books, etc., but I found this and like it too.

Posted by Victoria S Dennis on September 03, 2007

In Reply to: Re: Going native posted by Bob on September 03, 2007

: : I am looking for the origin of the phrase "going native". It is often used to describe anthropologists' or travellers' growing immersion in new cultures they are engaged with (and has a racist note in it). But I can't find a source and would be grateful for information

:
: Not an origin, but another, perhaps older, use. In the (U.S.) State Department, diplomats and other embassy personnel are rotated to differenet countries at intervals, at least partly to avoid the problem of them "going native," meaning that they become so acculturated and familiar that they begin to identify with and sympathize with the locals, to the point of not representing our own national interests. It's a delicate balance: diplomacy requires experience and understanding of the host country, but too much experience, and one can forget who's signing the pay checks.

In British English it dates from the 19th century. The British felt it very important to their collective prestige in the Colonies to maintain their identity as "sahibs", as distinct from the black or brown "natives", so much anxiety was caused if any member of the British community showed signs of "going native" in his habits, e.g. by adopting the local dress and socialising with the locals. This anxiety lasted as long as the Empire itself did; in Kenya in the 1940s my father, aged 19, used to take off his shoes to save them getting dusty when riding his motorbike across the open savannah. When this was reported to his family he was taken to task by his elders for "going barefoot in public like an African". (VSD) 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/55/messages/565.html

Boy howdy, do I like blogs - I can say "to hell with academic sources" whenever I feel like it. It's liberating. 

Anywho, the phrase "going native" is darn close to a dirty phrase in most anthropological circles. The idea is that, to maintain objectivity and scientific accuracy, a certain distance must be kept from the "subject material" (what a terrible way to talk about human beings!). The thing is, I'm not an anthropologist (at least by name - everybody does anthropology work whether or not they write it down and publish it) and I never plan to be one. I'm a musician. Most of the time, I feel that throwing "-ologist" on the end of something beautiful robs it of its warmth and relegates it to the realm of soggy textbooks in dank library-dungeons.  

My reason in going to and vision for being in Bylakuppe relates to what Bela Fleck did in his recent exploration of the origins of the banjo in Africa. There are definitely some of what could be called "ethnomusicological points of contact" made by what Bela did, through making high quality recordings and re-exposing people to an instrument that left their country and evolved in a different way in a different place, by comparing the modern American banjo to its analogues in various regions, and by interviewing the musicians who play these instruments at both virtuoso/professional and casual levels (if those terms may be very loosely applied - music doesn't mean the same thing everywhere). But his purpose in Africa - and, to a musician, this purpose is a sacred one - was to find some great musicians and make some great music. He didn't only play the banjo, the instrument for which he is famous, but he spent time learning instruments local to the areas. In the second picture, you can see that he traded instruments with the master musician he was visiting.

This is the kind of "going native" I'm into. Diehl, who wrote the book that was a large inspiration for going to a Tibetan community in India, was inducted into and played keyboard in a Tibetan rock and blues band - if that doesn't require some going native, I don't know what does. Playing that kind of music simply can't be done well whilst one is "detached." Rock and blues music don't work without mutual understanding and intense connection.

For the sake of music, and for the sake of the people who make it, Bela Fleck learned historical material along the way, and no doubt researched some of the areas of scholarship important to anthropologists that touched his journey (though I doubt he spent a bunch of time with JSTOR - hey, maybe). The wonderful thing is that that kind of learning is natural, completely owned by the learner, and takes none of what might be called "effort." Frustrations and troubles come up - the plane tickets might be expensive and the van might break down in the middle of the route and it might be easy to mistake the mosquitoes for birds of prey - but these problems are swallowed up in the joy of love for what one is doing.

When asked about the perfect humanity (zhi ren 至仁), Zhuangzi replies, “Perfect humanity is without affection for parents,” and further explains,
The ultimate humanity is supreme and so filial piety is not enough to describe it. . . . It is easy to be filial by being reverent, but it is difficult to be filial with love; it is easy to be filial with love, but it is difficult to forget one’s parents; it is easy to forget one’s parents, but it is difficult to make parents forget me; it is easy to make parents forget me, but it is difficult to forget the whole world; it is easy to forget the whole world, but it is difficult to make the world forget me. (Zhuangzi 14.497–99) 

Here, perfect humanity as that without affection for parents does not mean that parents are obstacles to perfect humanity. It simply means to forget your parents. It is more difficult to forget your parents than to love them, because as long as you know that you should love them, you can at least make some effort to do so. Here, to forget your parents does not mean to not love them; rather, it is to love them without knowing that you ought to love them and that you are loving them. When you love your parents so naturally, spontaneously, and effortlessly, you have forgotten your parents, which is certainly something more difficult to accomplish. So it is easy to love with effort, but more difficult to love effortlessly. It sounds paradoxical, but conveys a profound message: sages can do things effortlessly, but one cannot become a sage without making great effort. 

From: Respecting Different Ways of Life: A Daoist Ethics of Virtue in the Zhuangzi by Yong Huang

How tragic when people get so caught up in research and discourse that they forget why they got into the focus in the first place! Happiness flitters away.

My faculty mentor, Dr. Grimshaw, he has expressed sadness and frustration at the ethnomusicology world's continual shifting of paradigms from participatory observation to cold, purposely outsider observation and back again. I vibed with his view of how to do in-field research - by golly, be in-the-field! Participate in the culture as well as the subject of study, whatever it is, insomuch as it doesn't interfere with personal moral beliefs (and it's not a bad idea, especially for a Latter-day Saint, to evaluate whether or not a cultural practice is at odds with core doctrine or if it is really just at odds with Mormon/American/Utahn/Whatever culture). So what if you lose some objectivity? You gain some life. Then, when back in the office, sitting in front of the computer, be fully there as well and do some scholarly justice to the material.

So, to tie it together, I want to (need to) "go native" as much as possible if I want to understand and be able to make this music from the inside out, and if I want to effortlessly (using Zuangzi's definition) take part in the music and culture, understanding that no matter what I do I will have 23 years (is that really how old I am?!) of background that is unavoidable and inexpugnable. Heck, I might seem as strange to the Tibetans as these guys would have to the Londoners:

These guys from Vanuatu visited London as part of a British television series. They wore British clothes most of the time, in case you're wondering. Everybody's got to adapt a little! It was probably too darn cold anyway.

but that's just part of life and intercultural interaction. I'm cool with that. We are going to learn from each other, not because I'm American and have something to teach them, or because their culture is so much better and richer than mine (these being the two polar sides that plague many views of world culture), but because we are all human beings with something to give and room to take something in return.

We're going to make some great music, and make some great friends. And, damn the torpedoes, ain't no-one gonna stop it.

P.S.

This is pretty funny.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/22/72-study-abroad/

HUM 201 Journal Entry 5

Elysian Fields in the Occident and the Orient:

The Middle Heaven in the Aeneid and Indian Religious Traditions

            What is the state of the soul between this life and the final resting place? Most religious traditions do not simply make a theological jump from earthly death to final heavens or hells, and many use the concept of a “middle heaven” to describe the occupation of a soul in limbo. Though I will not here focus on the Latter-day Saint view, most of what I describe should ring with a measure of truth – the spirit world, where the righteous in paradise and the wicked and untaught in hell retain their personalities and inclinations, where the wicked mourn, the untaught are educated, and the righteous take their rest in doing the Lord’s work, is a reality for us. The human soul reasons and is taught by divine inspiration that there is a place or a state betwixt the cosmic here and there. The Elysian Fields described in Vergil’s Aeneid provide the Roman conception of a middle heaven, and may be instructively compared and contrasted with similar ideas in the various Indian religious traditions.

            The impetus for this journal entry is my surprise at finding of a type of selective reincarnation in the Aeneid, and a brief treatment of this doctrine will serve as a springboard to understanding overarching similarities and differences in the traditions. “When they have turned Time’s wheel a thousand years, the god calls in a crowd to Lethe stream, that there unmemoried they may see again the heavens and wish re-entry into bodies.” (1009) This is the culmination of Anchises’ answer to Aeneas’ startled question regarding those about to be reincarnated. Aeneas held, in a similar fashion to most Indian religions, a negative view regarding the “bodies’ dead weight” (1008), and saw the disembodied soul as something light, free, and closer to pure. In Indian tradition, impurities keep one on the rounds of rebirth, or samsara, and rebirth is something to be escaped. In the Aeneid, reincarnation is part of the god’s plans, and only some are subjected to it. Anchises’ descendents are to be reborn for specific purposes in the building up of the Roman Empire. The Indians generally treat reincarnation as universal, not restricted to humans, and only chosen purposefully by a very few (the Buddhist Bodhisattva, for example, chooses to be reborn in order to assist the rest of the human family in gaining enlightenment. The Dalai Lama is one such being.). And here we have our similarities and differences: both the Aeneid and Eastern tradition view the spiritual state, bereft of body, as a state of higher bliss, but reincarnation is selective, rather than universal, in the Aeneid. Now that we have examined those who are on their way out of a middle heaven, let us look at those who are going to be staying there a while.

            Within samsara, the cosmological hierarchy goes something like this, from the bottom up: hell beings, vegetation, animals, humans, and gods. Acts that accrue karma send a person down the ladder, and meritorious acts shoot a person up the ladder.[1] The gods occupy a heaven strikingly similar to Vergil’s verdant fields. Elysium is described as “places of delight… green park land, where souls take ease amid the Blessed Groves” (1006) and also as the place “where a few abide in happy lands, till the long day, the round of Time fulfilled, has worn our stains away” (1009). The Indian middle heaven is a resting place for those with an excess of merit, and may be generally described using the same words Vergil used for Elysium. In most Indian traditions, though, it is not only stains that are here washed away, but merit as well– any mark upon one’s being is damning in most Indic thought, regardless if it is a positive or negative mark, and the goal of religion is to remove from one’s self any marks so as to be able to return to the original, primordial state of perfection. The gods in middle heaven are biding their time until merit is worn away. In the Aeneid, this cleansing period is followed by entry into the realm of the gods and eternal bliss. In Indian tradition, there is generally one more rebirth as a human and then entry into what may be collectively described as the “heavens.”[2] Again, the similarities are striking.

            With what do those in the middle heaven occupy themselves? “All joy they took, alive, in cars and weapons, as in the care and pasturing of horses, remained with them when they were laid in earth” (1006). As in Indian and LDS thought, the dead carry with them their personalities and passions. The middle heaven for Indians may involve much of what Vergil here describes – with no fatigue, hunger, or pain, the gods fill their time with largely idle and enjoyable pursuits. These gods cannot help others to get off the rounds of rebirth, for they themselves are trapped in samsara.[3] They may have some sway in earthly matters, such as weather, crop production, military endeavors, and so forth, but in Indian thinking such things are paltry when compared to a soul’s liberation. In the Hindu caste system, those at the top are not the richest or most powerful (Kshatriya, warrior and noble, or Vaisya, merchant castes) but those entitled to a greater portion of spirituality (the Brahmin caste). Therefore these gods have a level of comfort that is to be envied, but, as in Vergil, their true plight (separation from the final heaven) is largely unchanged. I have heard Indian middle heaven described as that proverbial “rest home for the righteous,” and that seems to be a good description of Elysium. The main difference here is that the residents of Elysium are not recognized as gods, nor do they have godlike powers and temporal influence, with the exception being freedom from pain, hunger, etc. In the ancient world, where a much higher proportion of humanity died from disease and starvation than it does now, it seems to me that this freedom may very well be characterized as a desirable form of godhood.

            The more I read Western and Eastern thought concurrently, the more I am convinced of several things. The problems common to humankind really are common, and they stir up in us ideas and solutions that may seem very different superficially, but deeper inspection yields a rather united core. Also, I believe that God continues to inspire His kids and give them, here a little and there a little, glimmers of truth. It is also possible that similar truths are found across the human family because the human family has a common root. From examining Western and Eastern thought and comparing it with my own Latter-day Saint background and beliefs, I find much common ground on which to build, as well as interesting differences that enliven the mind and enrich the bright tapestry of human experience.

---

[1] As a note to avoid confusion, in Hinduism and several forms of Buddhism there are Gods and then there are gods. “Big G” Gods are not and never were on the wheel of samsara, but will often choose to manifest themselves as avatars or incarnations in order to help the human race. The Hindu Trimurti (Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma) and the five Cosmic Buddhas are examples. “Little g” gods are stuck on the rounds of rebirth just like humans, and it is these gods who occupy a middle heaven in Indic thought.

[2] What “heaven” means differs depending on the specific religion, and Buddhism in particular shies away from too-specific description of heaven, bringing to mind Confucius’ pragmatic sentiment – how can we worry about heaven when we can’t even get earth right! Various traditions hold to nirvana, or an extinguishment of desire and unification with the infinite, as heaven, whereas others hold a view similar to the Christian heaven of personal conference with deity and bliss in deity’s presence.

[3] In one version of the Buddha’s enlightenment, gods appear to Siddhartha disguised as a sick man, and old man, a dead man, and an ascetic holy man, in order to awaken in him a desire for the transcendent. Their reason for doing this is simple – they know the Buddha will discover the way to leave samsara, and they desire this knowledge for themselves so they might attain nirvana.

HUM 201 Journal Entry 7

Part II, Q. 3, art. 13

            It seems that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incompatible with the theory of organic evolution. Joseph Fielding Smith says, “The doctrine of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church and is not advocated or countenanced in the Church. There is no warrant for it in scripture, not an authentic word to sustain it.”1 (47) Adam is described in scripture as the “first flesh of all flesh” (Moses 3:7), negating the possibility of life on earth having existed before him.

           

On the contrary B.H. Roberts asserts that there is no conflict between Latter-day Saint theology and the existence of pre-Adamite man. Scriptures describing Adam as the first man necessarily refer to Adam being the first man of this dispensation. The wealth of the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth and to living beings having populated it for millions of years.[1]

           

I answer that the answer to the question remains unsolved by theological and scientific methods, but that continued research has swayed the argument in the direction of B.H. Roberts’ conclusions. It must be remembered that both of these highly qualified brethren were speaking in the early 1900s, before the vast wealth of evolutionary evidence was created. The argument is not whether or not God had a hand in creation – the question simply addresses how He did it. Presidents Roberts and Smith were both faithful to the Church throughout their lives.

To definitively state the method of creation, specifically of the creation of man, is to overstep the boundaries of both available science and revealed truth. Scientific statements are forever tentative. Observe the upheaval of Newtonian physics in the wake of Quantum and Relativistic mechanics – though still useful in the normal realm of existence (we send people to the moon using nothing more than Newton’s laws), the anciently held assumptions break down in the realms of the very large and the very small. Current evolutionary theory only resembles in part Darwin’s original theory, due to continual advancements. Further changes are sure to occur. In regards to revealed truth, the scriptures and revelations are, as has been discussed elsewhere, “fraught with background.” Ancient and modern scriptures are content to describe the natural world only in outline, and often metaphorically, for their realm is the salvation of man, not scientific exegesis. We must hold loosely our scientific reading of sacred text. The assumption of many that “all truth is in the Word” is true, but only insomuch as truth is defined to be that which will give a person salvation. Isaiah, Paul, Moroni, and Joseph Smith all had no reason to delve into Schrodinger’s box, for that world of thought had not yet been created. What glimmers of scientific truth we find in scripture (eternity of matter and intelligences and the material nature of spirit as examples) should be cherished, but should not be pushed to extremes. It is irresponsible scientifically and religiously to close oneself or others off from the whole spectrum of truth, for as it is stated, “plan of salvation must . . . circumscribe [all] the knowledge that is upon the face of the earth or it is not from God.”[2]

It is likely that B.H. Roberts came nearest the truth. Radiometric dating puts the age of the earth at billions of years – even allowing for the large degree of uncertainty inherent in the measurements, the earth is at least much older than the 6000 year model of Young Earth Creationists. The geological record points, again and again, to micro and macroevolution.[3] The scriptures, especially in the book of Moses, affirm God’s scope of influence as encompassing the universe and all the worlds therein, which have both come into being and passed away. Creation and destruction are inextricably linked, and the method of God’s creation is to take matter unorganized and organize it. Combining these doctrinal and scientific ideas should inform one’s reading of other texts, including the creation accounts. It is possible that God utilized organic evolution to bring forth Man in his present state –in accordance with His other creative paradigm and the bulk of scientific evidence, primitive matter was progressively sophisticated over the course of time until the desired result arrived. Then was Adam the first Man, as distinguished from the first Cro-Magnon Man or any other type of man found in the fossil record. Homo sapiens is delineated in taxonomy from Homo erectus and all of the other Homo- species, and for this reason – something is different. Then the Fall brought spiritual death into the world, and we find ourselves here. The case for pre-Adamite man is tentative, but it finds no serious objectors in scripture, geology, or biology. Here we leave our exploration in the hands of further revelation and scientific exploration, and state emphatically that we do not yet know the whole truth.

---

[1] Laird, Kurt Wilford. Mormon Rhetoric and the Theory of Organic Evolution. Provo, 2008. Print. Masters Thesis.

[2] Journal of Discourses, 7:148

[3] Do you really want the citations for this? Scientific papers are overwhelmingly boring.